“I don’t want to go home.”

Imagine a young person in foster care telling their caseworker those words. They don’t explain why at first. Maybe they’re afraid. Maybe they’re trying to find the courage to say something they’ve never said aloud. With time and careful questions, the child reveals that an adult in their home gets angry about how they dress or whom they’re attracted to.

---

What happens next matters.

A child welfare worker must understand what’s happening before deciding whether the child is safe. Is this a disagreement? A pattern of rejection or bullying? Are there threats, emotional harm, or other risks that require intervention?

The worker cannot make that determination without listening, asking questions, and understanding the circumstances. But under proposed Ohio House Bill 693(HB693), that process could become more difficult when a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity is part of the concern.

The proposal, called the Affirming Families First Act, would put legal conditions on some of those questions. For covered workers acting on the state’s behalf or using state funds to administer services, asking about a child’s understanding of their sexual orientation or gender identity would require express written permission from a parent, guardian, or legal custodian, or a court order. 

A worker could still hear information a child volunteers. Ordinary questions about what an adult said or did would not automatically fall within the restriction. But a conversation about rejection or bullying may lead to questions about the identity at the center of that treatment. The worker could become uncertain about how far the conversation can go.

That uncertainty may well be relevant to a child who is only just beginning to articulate what has happened. If the adult whose consent is required is also the one the child is afraid of, getting that adult involved could well be the thing which puts the child off speaking further. A court order is another route but the process of seeking permission could also stop the child from talking.

The worker could be left without information needed to understand whether the child is safe.

HB693 would also limit how agencies evaluate certain caregiver conduct. “Affirming a child’s sex,” it states, would not be considered abuse, neglect, an unsafe environment, or contrary to the child’s best interest. It defines the phrase as using a child’s legal name, declining to use names or pronouns inconsistent with sex assigned at birth, and refusing to consent to transition-related care for a child. 

Agencies could still investigate other allegations, but they could not investigate a report based solely on that protected conduct, or use the conduct itself as the basis for investigation or removal when other allegations are present. 

If your head is spinning to understand that, it may be the point. The bottom line is, these restrictions would limit what the agencies can use when assessing the care of a child. A worker could certainly identify distress but would be constrained in terms of being able to investigate the source of that distress. Real oversight requires sufficient information to understand the issue and the power to act on the findings of an assessment.

Supporters of the bill will argue that families need to be protected from the state in the case of disputes over a young person’s identity or expression. Families are entitled to decisions based on evidence. Taking a child out of the home is a very serious intervention, and disagreement in itself should not be sufficient to establish abuse or to justify removal.

Careful assessment serves that same principle. It helps workers determine when a family needs support and when a child needs protection. Excluding defined conduct from safety judgments limits how fully that decision can account for the child’s circumstances.

Research from Ohio shows why young people need room to raise these concerns. In a fall 2019 Cuyahoga County survey of 251 young people already in out-of-home care, LGBTQ+ respondents reported less-positive treatment and less ability to be themselves in their placements. Some respondents who said their social workers did not know their sexual orientation described fears about the worker’s reaction or consequences for their placement. 

A child who already worries about speaking out needs a social worker prepared to respond. Yet HB693’s restrictions would also apply to the training agencies provided to these workers and caregivers. State-funded training could not portray affirming a person’s gender identity as creating an unsafe environment. Those providing services that violate the relevant restriction could lose their contracts and, potentially, their eligibility for future funding. 

The bill would reinforce restrictions by allowing lawsuits against social workers, with courts able to award damages and legal fees. 

For a worker uncertain about the boundary, the possibility of legal action would encourage hesitation. A question might be delayed while the worker seeks guidance, even when it would help clarify the child’s needs. Flagging a case for review/guidance can be appropriate. Apprehension and fear of litigation could discourage the inquiry needed to assess a child’s care.

The risk extends beyond Ohio’s borders. The Heritage Foundation has drafted model legislation on this subject and promoted it for other states to use. In his Ohio sponsor testimony, Representative Gary Click identified Laura Bryant Hanford, a Heritage policy analyst, as a collaborator on the bill’s language. 

Hanford later told the committee that passage would “set a national standard for other states.” She specified that she was testifying in her personal capacity. The ambition to extend this approach beyond Ohio is explicit. 

Those ambitions will no doubt reach into conversations and agency decisions that receive little public attention. LGBTQ+ children in foster care depend on those systems being able to recognize when something is wrong.

Safety must guide child welfare policy, practice, and oversight. Lawmakers should establish standards that make agencies accountable for the care children receive. Those standards should preserve workers’ ability to ask questions, understand a child’s circumstances, and determine the necessary response.

For the young person who says, “I don’t want to go home,” one conversation can open the door to safety. Our responsibility is to ensure the system on the other side is ready.  We owe every child a system that puts their safety first.  

Children cannot be protected when the adults responsible for their safety are restricted from understanding their experiences. Listening to a child should never be the problem.