Massachusetts couple denied foster care application over LGBTQ views, complaint says

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 140 points – Massachusetts couple denied foster care application over LGBTQ views, complaint says
nbcnews.com

Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.

42

I agree no child should be placed in a home that would endanger them, but why is this even news? Couple needs to grow a pair and either change their views or just not adopt/foster. Go back to church or golf or whatever. Quit bothering the legal system. Perhaps they could volunteer for an LGBTQ organization and learn why "the T" doesn't make anyone different or lesser.

There are even dozens of Christian adoption and fostering agencies that will completely ignore any and all criminal histories if you are godly enough. In fact, being as hypocritical as possible seems to be a selling point for these agencies. If you preach God's love but have smashed a racists face into the concrete and lost your job over it and then shot your dog in the street while your wife defrauds the public and scams vulnerable people to the point of being sued by the state of Texas then you are exactly who they are looking to foster.

Edit: apologies, my fat fingers bungled it: if you are a racist who smashes black people's faces into the concrete

What's wrong with smashing a racist's face into concrete?

Edited, I'm bad at typing. He was a racist who smashes a black man into the concrete

8 more...

A social worker’s report attached to the complaint said the couple was asked how they would feel if a child in their care identified as LGBTQ or struggled with their gender identity. Kitty Burke responded by saying “let’s take the T out of it” and called gender-affirming care “chemical castration,” according to the report. She also said, “I’m going to love you the same,” but that the child “would need to live a chaste life.” Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary person’s preferred pronouns, the social worker’s report noted.

Michael Burke told the social worker he’d been to gay weddings and would “likely attend” his child’s wedding if they were LGBTQ, according to the report, and the couple said they wouldn’t kick a child out of their home for being LGBTQ or subject them to conversion therapy.

Following the interview, the social worker issued an “approval with conditions, specifically around religion and LGBTQIA++ related issues.” Their application was later denied by the department’s Licensing Review Team, the complaint states.

“If you give me an LGBTQ kid, I’m going to be a horrible parent. Wait, why did you deny my parenting application? This is discrimination!”

I don't know if I need to provide bonifides for being queer positive and not asking in bad faith, but why are there two pluses in that? It just makes me think of C++ and seems... jokey.

Yeah, that's why I generally prefer "queer". Plus, it's not an acronym, and reclaiming words is always good!

Many just say queer. Or LGBT. Companies and news organizations can't really settle on one thing to call us. Imo, LGBT+ gets the point across without being excessive.

Part of being a foster parent is agreeing to respect the child's situation, religious views, sexual orientation, etc. If I tell the state that I'm not going to take a kid to church if they're religious, I'm not getting approved. If I tell the state I'm going to teach potentially gay children that being gay is wrong, I'm not getting approved.

Good, no child should be placed with parents who may discriminate against them for their natural state of being.

The nerve of people to cry they were discriminated against for their views as if their views weren't the original discriminator... It's just mind boggling.

"Views", meaning they'll abandon their child if they ever come out or acknowledge that LGBTQ people exist...

Sounds like it's God's plan for them to stay the fuck away from children. First sensible thing that asshat's done.

good? why should children be indoctrinated into bigotry

I think that until the church does a few strong demonstrations that they are not fiddling with children anymore - like, say, a public commitment to turn all allegations of child abuse over to secular authorities, like Biden just did with the military - that they should not be allowed access to children that they don't produce themselves.

Cat: They shouldn't even be allowed access to the children they do make themselves.

That's a much more difficult one to defend, from a legal or ethical or moral stance.

My opinion is that teaching a child religion as the only truth is child abuse, without telling the child that there are also people who believe there are no supernatural phenomena in the universe and explaining their best arguments for their viewpoint. It's no different than existing in a society of hunters and not teaching the kid to hunt. We win by knowing more, not by being stronger or tougher or purer in dog's eyes or whatever.

But my opinion is no basis for passing laws and such. When you're talking about who should take care of orphans, or of kids who have been subject to treatment that the law agrees is abuse, the mere having of bad viewpoints which are nonetheless legal is not sufficient grounds, if you ask me. Many religious people would consider my above opinion to be bad at best and hate speech at worst, for instance, but I think my wife and I would do alright taking care of a kid, if we had the time and resources to give.

But IF the people proposing to take a child into their care are regular attendees of the meetings of an organization that is known to protect pedophiles, that is definitely grounds to turn down that application on very solid legal footing, if you ask me.

Cat: If someone can't be trusted to treat an adopted kid right, they can't be trusted to treat any kid right. End of story.

Well, I'm already on the record as to my view of what constitutes child abuse; the fact of the matter is that we have to live with a lot of people doing a lot of things that we don't like to children in a free society in 2023.

What is kinda good from my 50-odd year perspective is that people are not quite so entitled now as they were when I was a kid.

They’re asking the court to get rid of that discriminatory denial so that they will not be barred from fostering or adopting children in the future, in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

Stop discriminating against our discrimination! Thanks for the good laugh, Michael and Catherine Burke.

Holy shit. The foster system standing up for kids. Now there's something that sadly doesn't happen very often. I hope this couple get what they deserve

So:

  1. They expressed bigoted views
  2. The SW passed them through anyway, "with conditions" which likely include "just don't give this couple any gay kids"
  3. They were ultimately denied for reasons not stated
  4. We actually have no other information about what they said apart from they don't like gay or trans kids

I think point 2 kinda invalidates the lawsuit, and point 4 is going to become extremely relevant when we find out they were fine with hitting kids who misbehaved or something.

Yeah, child abuse isn’t an ideal trait to have if you intend to be the legal guardian of children.

lol those two shouldn't be near any kids. They'll just be control freaks and make their kid exactly what they wanted to avoid.

Stop trying to control every aspect of children lives, conservatives.

The article calls this a "complaint" rather than a "lawsuit" so I guess this is moot.

The couple seems to think people have the right to foster by default, and the regulation sets out conditions for when this right can be revoked.

I'm not sure of the actual law, but it seems to me that the right to foster should be granted on a case by case basis. Regulation should set the necessary requirements, but the department should have the final say on the sufficient requirements. And the department should be allowed to revoke an application for any reason or even no (stated) reason.

Like, you shouldn't just have the right to foster by default.

The state cannot start being allowed to make determinations about what religious groups may and may not adopt children. Thats fundamentally on so many levels not fucking ok.

We can and should as long as it's based on relevant behavior not religious affiliation. If you don't believe in using proscribed antibiotics you should not be caring for kids, for example. I don't care if it's because your god told you they were evil or because you think your healing crystals are better.

the determination should be based on your ability to care for the child emotionally, physically and psychologically. if you can't do all 3, then you're unfit to be a parent.