Massachusetts Dem gov defends decision to remove trans teen from Catholic parents over refusal to ‘affirm’ gender

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko have been engaged in a nearly two-year legal battle to regain custody of their daughter, who was 15 when DCF removed her from their home. The couple has alleged that their daughter’s school began counseling her about her gender identity without their knowledge, and that their refusal to call her a boy and use male pronouns contributed to her removal.

The parents have also said that since the state took custody, DCF has attempted to put their daughter on birth control, take psychiatric drugs, house her in a boy’s dormitory, and deny her Sunday Mass.

Healey has disputed the characterization on Tuesday, saying that the child was taken due to criminal charges against the parents.

“Let me be clear about the facts in that matter. First of all, DCF did not remove the child because of a health issue or a gender-affirming care issue. DCF removed the child after there were criminal charges filed against the parents, including the father,” Healey told reporters, according to the Boston Herald. “As you know, DCF is responsible for the care and well-being of kids, and that’s what happened in this instance.”

“This is currently a subject of criminal prosecution right now against the parents. So, I’m not going to comment on this particular case right now, but I just want to be clear with the public that this child was not removed because of a gender-affirming care issue. This child was removed by DCF following the presentation of criminal charges against the parents,” she added.

The parent’s attorney, however, told the Boston Herald that Healy is misrepresenting the facts and that the charges were deemed unfounded in court last year.

“It’s very dishonest, because there are no standing charges against them. There is no finding that these parents have committed any abuse against this child in the criminal court, nor is there any supported allegations of abuse or neglect against them, even in the juvenile court. So, no, that is, that is pretextual to whatever it is,” said Attorney Vernadette Broyles.

“What happened is that some unknown person, it is not on the pleadings that I could see. It’s an unknown adult who hired an attorney for Sophie and assisted her to go to Marlborough District Court to get a restraining order against the parents,” Broyles explained. “First of all, why are you seeking this when the juvenile court has jurisdiction? This child is out of the home. Why do you even need a restraining order? Why does she need a restraining order? DCF has her.”

“They’re a very well known, very Catholic, devout family. They serve in the community. Sophie was very devoutly Catholic, for that matter. They believe in male and female. Dad is a scientist and has science-based objections to the idea of ever telling a child that you can change sex because that’s impossible, as well as faith-based objections to the idea of a child rejecting how God has made her,” Broyles said. “And of course, they have medical objections to the idea of the child ever getting cross-sex hormones, which has irreversible and damaging effects on a female’s body.”

The parents' next hearing is scheduled for October 29.