Foster parents fight government-mandated gender ideology

Shane DeGross was at lunch when he received the email. It informed him of a court win that could affect his and his wife Jennifer’s ability to foster children. “Definitely exciting news, right?” he said, recalling the moment, adding that it was “a vindication of what we’ve been fighting for.”

Last Wednesday, a federal judge denied Washington state officials’ attempt to shut down a case that Shane and Jennifer brought challenging a state licensing rule that limited their ability to foster children due to their religious beliefs. U.S. District Judge David Estudillo concluded that the restrictions that the state placed on the DeGrosses’ foster license represented unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by penalizing the couple for refusing to violate their religious beliefs on gender and sexuality.

Moved by the need and by their Biblical beliefs, the DeGrosses applied and were licensed by the state to foster in 2013. Over the next nine years, they fostered four children at various times, caring for them alongside their biological children. But in 2022, the state slammed the door when it refused to relicense the couple, citing their unwillingness to comply with a state rule requiring them to use a child’s chosen—and biologically incorrect—pronouns.

With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, the DeGrosses sued the state’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families in March 2024. They argued that the rule violated their free speech by compelling a state-approved viewpoint on gender and discriminated against them based on their religious views.

State officials later backed down, agreeing to put the case on hold and issuing a restricted license to the DeGrosses that limited their fostering to children age 5 and under—unless they agreed to abandon their religious convictions. The state also required the couple to attend mandatory “LGBTQIA+ Basics for Supporting Youth” training.

After ADF filed an amended complaint in October 2025, the state tried to have it thrown out, arguing that the state met constitutional muster by waiving certain requirements due to the DeGrosses’ religious objections.

In last week’s decision, Estudillo disagreed. “Missing from Defendant’s argument is what restrictions the DeGrosses are subject to because of the waiver,” wrote Estudillo. “The Department has forced the DeGrosses to choose between forfeiting their freedom of speech to obtain an unrestricted license, or upholding their beliefs surrounding SOGIE [sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression], and receiving a less-favorable license subject to certain restrictions.”

In his order, Estudillo relied on a 2025 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the right of Oregon mom Jessica Bates to foster children. Bates contested a similar Oregon rule that required her to use a foster child’s preferred pronouns and support the child’s gender preference by taking the child to LGBTQ Pride parades and other “gender-affirming” events. A panel of the court concluded that the rule both restricted and compelled speech.

Not only did Washington’s rule unconstitutionally compel speech, but it also discriminated against the DeGrosses’ religious beliefs, Estudillo wrote. He concluded that while the rule made no mention of religion, that did not mean it was neutral toward religion as it would in practice affect religious caregivers and virtually no others. “The DeGrosses are free to worship, but that freedom comes with a cost: abandoning the chance to receive a foster care license without limitations,” wrote the judge.

Other states have similarly attempted to deny fostering or adoption approval to those who don’t support same-sex marriage or medical attempts to change people’s sex characteristics.

In Massachusetts, state officials removed a gender ideology mandate for foster licensing after two couples sued over the state’s gender policy. But ADF senior counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse told me it is still too soon to know whether the state will abide by its amended policy.

Massachusetts also continues to defend state officials who enforced the state’s now-rescinded gender policy against prospective foster parents Mike and Kitty Burke—even though a federal judge in June 2024 refused to grant the state’s motion to dismiss the Burkes’ case.

Widmalm-Delphonse pointed to Vermont as a model of a state that has set aside an ideologically driven agenda and put children first. State officials last year agreed to rescind the state gender policy and enact new guidelines clarifying that foster parents do not have to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

“I think that is a great sort of goal and message to other states that, [while] there can be a difference of opinion as to how to promote the best interest of children, it doesn’t mean that you have to discriminate against religious parents—and, in fact, it’s the opposite,” said Widmalm-Delphonse.

Some states have gone on the offensive by enacting laws that protect families from discrimination by the child welfare system for having sincerely held religious or moral beliefs regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. Earlier this month, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders became the latest to sign such a bill into law.

The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System estimated there were 328,963 children in the U.S. child welfare system in fiscal year 2024. And according to the Institute for Family Studies, religiously motivated people are more likely than others to step up and foster.

Yet both the Washington and Massachusetts cases demonstrate the tenacious grip that gender ideology has on some state child welfare bureaucracies, shutting the door to religious families even as the need for foster families is overwhelming.

“This is an ideological issue … not about promoting the best interests of children,” said Widmalm-Delphonse. “This isn’t a good-faith effort to comply with the Constitution. This is about blatantly violating the Constitution repeatedly because they’re pursuing an ideological agenda.”

Wednesday’s court victory means the case can proceed to trial or possible resolution by a motion prior to trial. Widmalm-Delphonse said his clients are evaluating their options but are waiting to see if state officials will follow Vermont’s model and remove barriers to religious parents being licensed to care for children.

For Shane and Jennifer DeGross, that can’t come too soon. “I think what has been challenging is just the waiting … knowing that there are kids that are in need, that need homes,” Jennifer told WORLD.