There is no requirement in Ohio law that parents must unquestioningly accept and support their minor children’s claims of transsexual identity or preferred pronouns. In fact, this issue remains hotly-contested socially, politically, and legally. As an example, the State of Ohio has banned so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors because of the inherent risk of providing such treatments to minors, whose minds are developing and may change. That statute is currently being litigated. Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court has upheld a similar ban in Tennessee. Quite recently, Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, emphasized that “the doctrine of substantive due process has long embraced a parent’s right to raise her child, which includes the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health.”

From a best-interest analysis perspective, we see no serious concern presented by Mother’s and Father’s cautious reactions to Sara’s disclosure of her perceived transgender status and preference for male pronouns. This lack of concern is particularly bolstered here, where both Karen and Sara’s therapist testified that Sara is struggling with gender identity and sexuality, and Karen explained that Sara tended to “change[ ] her sexuality every four to five weeks.” Children who struggle with these issues deserve sober and sensitive guidance, and Ohio law does not require parents unquestioningly to accept whatever their children say about their gender identity or sexuality at that particular moment.

There is also a possible suggestion in the state’s brief and in the juvenile court’s decision that Mother and Father should be faulted, in a best-interest analysis, for not unquestioningly supporting Sara’s turn away from their family’s Messianic Judaism. This is also not supported by Ohio law. Parents are free to assist and guide their children in the development of their religious faith…. “[P]arents have a fundamental right to educate their children, including the right to communicate their moral and religious values … and ‘direct the religious upbringing of their children.'” …

The court also discussed the failure of the parents to change the pronoun used to reference their child:

The record indicates that, during the pendency of the children’s services case, Sara repeatedly changed the pronouns that she prefers. We will refer to Sara accurately, as a female. See In re J.K (Ohio Ct. App. 2025); Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2 (“A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary … “); U.S. v. Varner (5th Cir. 2020) (denying male litigant’s motion asking the district court and government to refer to litigant with his preferred female pronouns, based on the lack of legal authority requiring such usage, the need to maintain judicial impartiality, and the complexities associated with shifting and newly-created pronouns).

In the end, the panel still found that there were other elements supporting the denial of custody of the parents under the standard of the “best interests of the child.” Those factors involved drug use and other violations.

The court detailed the testimony of witnesses, including those who did not believe that a change in pronouns was necessary:

“Channell testified that Sara has struggled with her sexuality and gender identity, and preferred “they/them” pronouns at the time of the permanent custody hearing. But Channell referred to Sara as “she” and testified that she would feel comfortable calling Sara a “she” in front of her. Channell explained that while Sara thought she had gender dysphoria, Channell in her professional opinion denied that Sara has gender dysphoria and testified that it is not a major issue for Sara. She also testified that Sara’s self-harm and suicidal ideation are motivated by past trauma, rather than gender-related issues….

Karen testified that Sara “changes her sexuality every four to five weeks” and that she lets Sara work these issues out on her own. Karen testified that Sara “came out” to her parents. Karen was present when Sara came out to Father, and Father handled the conversation “really well” and was “calm.” Karen testified that Sara wanted to change her name, but not for gender-identity-related reasons; instead, Sara indicated she wanted to change her name because she associated her given name with being yelled at. Karen opined that Sara’s struggles with body dysphoria are actually related to her weight, rather than gender-related issues.”

The opinion shows how complex these cases can be with developmental, religious, and psychological issues. The panel felt that the state cannot treat the opposition of parents (particularly those with religious objections) as evidence of unfitness as parents.

The Supreme Court is considering a variety of claims involving parental rights this year. It recently delivered a preliminary win to parents in California in the granting of an emergency appeal in Mirabelli v. Bonta.

Here is the opinion:  In re S.B