Texas resumes investigations into parents of trans children, families’ lawyers confirm | Texas News | San Antonio

click to enlarge

Texas Tribune / Texas Tribune

People gathered outside the Governor’s Mansion in Austin on March 13 to protest Gov. Greg Abbott’s directive to investigate families providing gender-affirming care to their children.

For LGBTQ mental health support, call the Trevor Project’s 24/7 toll-free support line at 866-488-7386. You can also reach a trained crisis counselor through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline by calling 800-273-8255 or texting 741741.

Texas’ child welfare agency has resumed at least some of its investigations into parents who provide gender-affirming care to their transgender children. Last week, the state Supreme Court overturned an injunction blocking the state from investigating these parents for child abuse.

On Thursday, nearly a week after the ruling, investigators with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services began contacting lawyers representing some of these families to tell them they will be continuing the investigations.

“They reached back out and said they need to finish their investigations,” said Tracy Harting, an Austin-based attorney who is representing a family in the Central Texas area. “I’ve talked to my clients, and now they have to decide how they want to proceed.”

Ian Pittman, an Austin attorney representing a family in Central Texas and a family in North Texas, said he heard Thursday from a DFPS employee about resuming one of those cases — but has not yet received an update on the other.

Both Pittman and Harting said their clients have been preparing for this since the state Supreme Court overturned the injunction last Friday. But the same ruling that allowed these investigations to proceed also raised questions about whether they should have been opened in the first place.

These cases began in February, after Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a nonbinding legal opinion that equated certain medical treatments and procedures for transgender teens with child abuse. Gov. Greg Abbott, citing that opinion, then sent a letter to DFPS directing the agency to investigate parents who provided gender-affirming care to their transgender children.

In a statement responding to the order in February, DFPS said it would “follow Texas law” as laid out in Paxton’s opinion, “[i]n accordance with Governor Abbott’s directive.” The agency proceeded to open at least nine investigations into parents of transgender children.

But the state Supreme Court ruling said that while Abbott and Paxton were “within their rights to state their legal and policy views on this topic … DFPS was not compelled by law to follow them.”

“DFPS’s press statement, however, suggests that DFPS may have considered itself bound by either the Governor’s letter, the Attorney General’s Opinion, or both. Again, nothing before this Court supports the notion that DFPS is so bound,” the ruling said.

That ruling left the ball in DFPS’ court to decide whether and how to continue the ongoing investigations. On Thursday, the department said only that the agency “treats all reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation seriously and will continue to investigate each to the full extent of the law.”

But as the Supreme Court ruling explained, nothing in Paxton’s opinion or Abbott’s directive changed the legal definition of abuse or neglect to include gender-affirming care that is prescribed by a medical professional.

Lawyers and the families they represent are waiting to see what happens after these cases resume.

“The question now is, is the commissioner going to be a child welfare law professional, or a politician?” Harting asked. “Are they going to close out these cases, or are they going to be giving these families hell?”

Impact on families

At least nine families are under investigation for providing gender-affirming care to their children. These investigations have included home visits, family interviews and, in some cases, surprise visits to children’s schools.

“These are not just nameless, faceless people this is impacting,” Pittman said. “It’s normal, everyday people who are just doing what is right by their children.”

But since the initial flurry of investigative activity, the cases have stagnated as a result of the statewide injunction — open, but without investigations proceeding. Lawyers for the families allege that this violates department policy on several fronts.

Child Protective Services policy requires a caseworker to make face-to-face contact with the children whose parents are under investigation at least every 45 days, which several lawyers said has not happened in their cases.

If parents under investigation for child abuse or neglect request status updates on their cases, state regulations require the department to respond within 14 days. Emails provided by Pittman show him requesting a clarification of status on behalf of one of the families he represents on April 1 and April 21, with no response from the department.

Pittman said he’s talked with his clients about bringing legal action against the department for violating its policies in these cases. While he believes they’d have a case, he also understands that his clients have already been witness to the full legal firepower of the state pointed directly at them.

“The state basically has unlimited resources, whereas these families just don’t,” he said. “We’ve seen what they’ve done with the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] lawsuit, appealing it to the Court of Appeals, and even to the [Texas] Supreme Court. That could take months, or years, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.”

Their next move, legally, will likely be influenced by the agency’s next moves, administratively.

“I tell people, God and CPS, those are the two entities that have the power to give you children and take them away, so these investigations are a big deal,” Harting said. “These families have a right to due process.”


Haueter: Tell the story | Opinion

Editor-in-Chief and columnist Kylee Haueter reminds readers how to tell the story. 

During the fall semester, I had an amazing opportunity. I took a class where we investigated a cold case — the 1968 murder of an Iowa State student, which has never been solved.

I learned a lot during my time researching the case and producing content. 

When you’re a journalist, you want to make sure you are keeping some distance from whatever it is you’re covering to maintain objectivity. What a lot of journalists don’t talk about is that sometimes you have to get close to a story. 

I’m used to working on autopilot, even when it comes to stories about violent crime or a missing person. I get a press release, get some quotes, then throw a story together. I have always prided myself on my ability to not let stories really affect me. 

Last year, that changed. I covered a few stories where I struggled to not let myself feel close to the story, and I beat myself up over it, thinking I was a failure of a journalist. 

Last semester, I learned that it’s okay to get close to a story, and sometimes, it’s necessary.

True crime has become a form of entertainment. Crime podcasts and documentaries are incredibly popular forms of media.

To a certain extent, there is nothing wrong with that. Learning about these cases can teach us about safety as well as show us areas in our criminal justice system that need fixing. 

The problem arises when these cases are turned into just entertainment with no purpose other than to make money and build an audience. Over the course of the semester, I would find myself slipping into the mindset of viewership — how much would this project bring to our website? 

I had to remind myself that the purpose of this project wasn’t to please our audience. The purpose was to tell the story of a young woman whose life was taken from her too soon. Because of missteps in the investigation, it’s possible that her killer will never be brought to justice. Our purpose was to give her the little bit of justice that we could.

That is so often the mistake that journalists make. We strive for objectivity, and because of that, we get too far away from a story — to the point that we start focusing on things other than the story. 

This isn’t just applicable to journalists. There are plenty of careers and hobbies that involve telling a story. It could be teaching. It could be advocacy. It could be law. 

Tell the story. Don’t be the story, and don’t focus on what the story could do for you. Your purpose isn’t to be the most famous *enter career here* because you profited off someone else’s story. Your purpose is to tell their story because you care. 

Opinion Policies

Editorials are longer opinion pieces that are written by a group of community members recruited across campus who address relevant issues on a local, national and international level. Editorials are research-based. The purpose of the Editorial Board is to promote discussion concerning relevant issues in the community while advising on possible solutions. Topics are chosen via relevancy and interests of the members, which are then discussed by the Editorial Board in order to reach a general consensus concerning the topic or issue.

Feedback policy

If you have a grievance concerning the content or argument of the Editorial Board, please contact either Opinion Editor Peyton Hamel ( or the Editorial Board as a whole (

Those wanting to respond to editorials can also submit a letter to the editor through the Iowa State Daily website or by emailing the letter to Opinion Editor Peyton Hamel ( or Editor-in-Chief Sage Smith (

Column Policy

Columns are hyper-specific to opinion and are written by only columnists employed by the Iowa State Daily. Columnists are unique because they have a specific writing day and only publish on those writing days. Each column undergoes a thorough editing process ensuring the integrity of the writer, and their claim is maintained while remaining research-based and respectful.

Columns may be submitted from community members. These are labelled as “Guest Columns.” These contain similar research-based content and need to be at least 400 words in length. The following requirements should be met: first and last name, email and relation or position to Iowa State. Emails must be tied to the submitted guest column or it will not be accepted or published. Pseudonyms are prohibited and the writer will be banned from submissions.

Read our full Opinion Policies here.
Updated on 10/7/2020