đđđđđđđđđđđđđ đđđđđđ đđđ âđđ đ đđđ đđđđđđ đđđđđđđđ đđ đđđđ đđđđ đ đđđđđ đđđđđđđâ đđđđđđđ
Nick and Audrey Jones had fostered đŦđđ¯đđ§ đđĄđĸđĨđđĢđđ§ đĸđ§ đđ°đ¨ đ˛đđđĢđŦ. Greg and Marianelly Schrock had cared for đđ đđĄđĸđĨđđĢđđ§ đ¨đ¯đđĢ đŦđĸđą đ˛đđđĢđŦ. Then the state told both families their faith made them unfit parents.
Massachusetts' Department of Children and Families required every foster parent to sign an agreement promising to affirm a child's stated gender identity, use chosen pronouns, and encourage medical transition if a child asked for it, no exceptions for religious conviction. The Joneses refused to sign. DCF moved to pull their license and take away their đđ-đĻđ¨đ§đđĄ-đ¨đĨđ đđ¨đŦđđđĢ đđđŽđ đĄđđđĢ. The Schrocks' license was simply discontinued in June 2025 over their beliefs on sexuality and gender.
In September 2025, Alliance Defending Freedom sued DCF's leadership in federal court on behalf of both families, arguing the mandate violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Three months later, the state folded. On đđđđđĻđđđĢ đđ, đđđđ, DCF issued an emergency policy change stripping the gender-ideology mandate out of foster care licensing entirely, just as a preliminary injunction hearing was bearing down on it in court (đđđđĒđĸđ¯đ¤đĻ đđĻđ§đĻđ¯đĨđĒđ¯đ¨ đđŗđĻđĻđĨđ°đŽ).
Massachusetts didn't settle quietly behind closed doors. It rewrote a statewide licensing policy rather than defend it in front of a federal judge, because the policy was never going to survive contact with the Constitution.
đđĄđ đŦđđđđ đđĨđĸđ§đ¤đđ đĢđđđĄđđĢ đđĄđđ§ đđđđđ§đ đđĄđĸđŦ đĸđ§ đđĢđ¨đ§đ đ¨đ đ đŖđŽđđ đ.
Source: Adflegal