Massachusetts Parents Say State Took Custody of Their Teen After They Refused to Affirm Her as a Boy

A Catholic couple from Southborough say Massachusetts child welfare officials removed their 15-year-old daughter from their home in December 2024 after they refused to call her a boy, and have kept her from them for almost two years.

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko went public with their account last weekend, alleging that staff at their daughter's high school began using a male name and pronouns for her without telling them, and that a school counsellor then reported the family to the Department of Children and Families. The girl, whom the family calls Sophie, is now 17 and remains in state custody.

Much of the family's account cannot be independently verified from public records because Massachusetts child welfare proceedings are confidential. DCF has not publicly explained its grounds, and the school has declined to comment.

What the Kutzkos Say Happened

The family set out its version on a Fox News Radio podcast. Speaking to religion correspondent Lauren Green on the Lighthouse Faith programme on 13 September 2026, the couple appeared alongside their lawyer, Vernadette Broyles, and described a sequence that began at Algonquin Regional High School, which serves Southborough.

They allege the school socially transitioned their daughter in secret. Staff started referring to her by a male name and using male pronouns without informing them, the parents say, and she began meeting a school counsellor while the family was told she was staying late for help with maths. When they objected on religious grounds, they say, the counsellor filed a report with DCF alleging emotional abuse.

The Kutzkos say a juvenile court judge granted DCF temporary custody within weeks of the removal. They also say a physical abuse allegation against Joseph was later deemed unfounded, but that a permanent restraining order remains in effect against Joseph, Arlene and their older son. The basis for that order is not publicly available.

The rest of their account concerns their daughter's care in state custody. The parents allege she has been housed in a boys' dormitory, placed on birth control and psychiatric medication, and denied attendance at Sunday Mass, and they say they have not spoken to her since she was removed. None of those allegations has been independently confirmed, and DCF does not comment on individual cases.

Their lawyer casts the case as a systemic problem rather than a local dispute. Broyles has argued that policies allowing schools to withhold a pupil's gender identity from parents create what she calls a direct school-to-agency pipeline, and she is urging Congress to establish that a parent's refusal to affirm a transition cannot by itself amount to child abuse.

The Record That Cannot Be Independently Checked in Public

The central difficulty with the story is that only one side of it exists in public. Green said on air that DCF had not responded to a request for comment and that the school had no comment on the allegations, leaving the family and its lawyer as the principal public sources for how and why the removal happened.

Confidentiality rules close off the obvious check. Massachusetts Juvenile Court care and protection proceedings are closed to the public and the case records and reports are confidential, so the petition, evidence and judge's reasoning are not available to the general public. DCF applies similar rules to its own files, which generally require authorisation or a court order before release.

That leaves the crucial question open. Public records do not establish whether the parents' refusal to use a male name was the basis for the state's action or one element among several, and no court has publicly ruled on the characterisation the family has put forward.

The family reports two recent developments. A judge temporarily blocked the state from administering high-dose testosterone to the teenager on Friday 11 September, and the next hearing is listed for 29 October 2026. Neither development has been independently confirmed against a public docket, and the state is seeking authorisation for the treatment rather than having administered it, according to the family's account.

A Dispute That Has Reached the Supreme Court Before

A similar custody dispute reached the US Supreme Court in Indiana. Mary and Jeremy Cox, Catholic parents, lost custody of their child after state officials became involved in a dispute over the child's gender identity and concerns about the child's mental health.

The Coxes argued that their religious beliefs and refusal to use the child's preferred name and pronouns were central to the case, while Indiana officials argued that the child's emotional and mental health were at issue. The Supreme Court declined to hear the Coxes' appeal on 18 March 2024.

Massachusetts has its own recent precedent. In Foote v Ludlow School Committee, parents challenged a school practice that allowed staff to use a pupil's requested name and pronouns without notifying them. The First Circuit rejected the constitutional claim in February 2025, finding the parents had not stated a plausible case, and the Supreme Court declined to take it up in April 2026. The practice at issue there belonged to the Ludlow School Committee rather than to the state.

State law has moved in the other direction on a related question. Provisions that took effect on 5 November 2025 say that allowing a child to receive or seek gender-affirming health care cannot by itself support an abuse or neglect finding on the basis of another jurisdiction's restrictions, unless the conduct would amount to abuse or neglect under Massachusetts law, and they direct courts to weigh the disruption of such care in certain custody decisions.

Those provisions took effect almost a year after Sophie was removed and did not govern the original decision.

Until a court opens the file or DCF speaks, the Kutzkos' account remains the only public account of why the removal occurred.