Texas resumes some investigations into parents of transgender youths

The Texas agency tasked with investigating child abuse claims has resumed some investigations into the parents of transgender youths despite a recent court decision that advocates said should have led to the cases being closed.

Two weeks ago, the Texas Supreme Court lifted part of an injunction that had temporarily blocked nine investigations, leaving it in place for only one family. The court also noted that Gov. Greg Abbott, who directed the Department of Family and Protective Services to open the investigations, doesn’t have the authority to do so.

Civil rights advocates said the court’s decision meant that the department’s Child Protective Services division should close the investigations, because Texas law does not include gender-affirming medical care as child abuse and Abbott’s directive isn’t enforceable. 

But Attorney General Ken Paxton, who in February issued a legal opinion that declared such care abuse, prompting Abbott’s directive, disagreed. Following the court’s decision, he tweeted that he had “secured a win for families against the gender ideology of doctors, big pharma, clinics trying to ‘trans’ confused, innocent children.”

Parents who were under investigation waited anxiously to hear from the Department of Family and Protective Services after the decision. 

The Dallas Morning News reported Thursday that investigations were set to resume after receiving a statement from the department, though the outlet reported that the statement didn’t specifically mention the investigations into the parents of transgender youths.

“DFPS treats all reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation seriously and will continue to investigate each to the full extent of the law,” the department said. The agency sent the same statement to NBC News on Thursday in response to an inquiry about the investigations related to gender-affirming medical care.

L., a mom who lives in Austin, Texas, told NBC News in March that the state had opened an investigation into her after receiving “multiple reports of abuse” regarding the care she provided to her transgender son before he turned 18 in February and left for college in another state. The agent told her the department could investigate retroactively if the alleged abuse occurred before the child turned 18. 

L., whose lawyer recommended she go by an initial instead of her full name to protect her family’s privacy, said her lawyer reached out to the department following the decision, and an agent said her investigation was still open but it had been paused. 

Then, on Monday afternoon, after she drove her son to work, she said she received a call from a new agent, who said L.’s case was going back to “active” and “that they had new allegations.”

“She was very angry,” L. said of the agent, adding that she said, “I know you did this. I’m just letting you know we’re aware of it.” 

L. said the agent asked her what she has to say about the new allegations, and L. directed the agent to her lawyer, who she said is supposed to be the agency’s point of contact for her case.

“I think they’re trying to make an example of me, because I’m a social worker too,” L. said. “So it’s more about the career. You can’t take my kid. He’s 18. He can live wherever he wants.”

She said her reaction to the agent’s call was, “This, again?” 

“I really honestly thought we were going to get closed out pretty quick, or they would just leave it pending to see how this court case goes, but apparently, nope,” she said. “This is really messed up.”

L. works with families who have children under the state’s care because the family experienced homelessness, and she said she wishes the state would spend its time trying to reunite those families. 

Ian Pittman, an attorney based in Austin who represents two other families under investigation, said in an email Tuesday that one of his clients also received a call from the Department of Family and Protective Services on Thursday.

He said that if the department followed the law, then it would assign cases opened under Abbott’s directive “priority none” and would close them. 

Prior to Abbott’s directive and Paxton’s opinion, child welfare workers would assign “priority none” to any intake related to a parent or guardian authorizing gender-affirming care that was prescribed by a doctor or mental health care provider “and administratively close these intakes without investigation,” Pittman said in an email, citing sworn testimony given by department employees at a hearing in March.

He said the Texas Supreme Court declared Paxton’s opinion and Abbott’s directive unenforceable, meaning employees should follow the law as it was prior to those orders.  

“The Governor and the Attorney General were certainly well within their rights to state their legal and policy views on this topic, but DFPS was not compelled by law to follow them,” Justice Jimmy Blacklock wrote. 

Pittman said that, as a result, “any investigations that were opened on the basis of the invalid directive/opinion should be closed, with the allegations of abuse or neglect ruled out, and any further intakes received on the basis of the invalid directive/opinion should be assigned ‘priority none’ and closed without investigation.”

Investigations into families like L.’s have created more controversy for an already embattled Texas agency. More than a half-dozen Child Protective Services employees in the state told The Texas Tribune in April that they were looking for new jobs or resigned as a result of Abbott’s directive.

Follow NBC Out on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram