Texas Wanted Me to Investigate Parents of Trans Kids. So I Quit.
By: Leah Feiger
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Morgan Davis was an investigator for Texas' child welfare agency when Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the state's Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate the parents of transgender children.
Abbott's order states that giving gender-affirming care to trans children "constitutes child abuse." Released in late February, it requires teachers, doctors, and nurses to report parents who allow their children to receive this care.
Though a Texas judge has temporarily blocked enforcement, families around Texas are scared and scrambling.
Davis was assigned a case investigating one such family; though he found nothing that resembled abuse, the case is still pending. "I assessed this family as exemplary," he said. But, Davis added, "I was not allowed to close the case, nor was my supervisor nor was my program director. It was heartbreaking. You want to be the voice that says everything is going to be OK. And honestly I couldn't say that."
So Davis, a transgender man, submitted his resignation last week. "I realized that I was doing more harm than good," Davis told VICE News.
Davis spoke with VICE News about quitting his job, the impact of the last few months on kids in Texas, and how his colleagues have handled the governor's directive.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
VICE News: Why did you resign from your position as a child protective services investigator in Texas?
Morgan Davis: My reason for leaving is due to the recent directive that came down from our governor ordering investigations into homes of trans kids, specifically targeting gender blockers and any care that they considered alternative or a treatment for gender dysphoria.
The gender blockers, it's reversible. The therapy is to help them find themselves, but we've got to get them there. It was evident that these kids were being targeted, but you hoped and prayed that better angels would prevail and they didn't. These are kids, they're just kids, and that [politicians] would make them political targets is disgusting. All I can do is resign and speak openly.
Recently Texas was up in arms regarding the mask mandate, but asking your child private questions about their medical care and questioning a parent's medical care? That's OK? It's insane.
In an interview with the Texas Tribune, you spoke about a specific case you were assigned involving the investigation of parents of a trans child. Can you tell us more about that?
I'm openly trans male, and my supervisor had reached out to me and said, 'You don't have to do this if you don't want to.' But I accepted it, the thought being it would go away very quickly because it had recently been shot down by our Texas legislature.
I was instructed to go to the family's home and show them love and respect and to tell that young person that they had done nothing wrong. Our purpose was to get out of their house as quickly as possible and to do as little harm as possible.
Unfortunately, it became very quickly apparent that that was not going to be the case. I was not allowed to close the case, nor was my supervisor nor program director. It was heartbreaking. You want to be the voice that says everything is going to be OK. And honestly I couldn't say that. I very quickly realized that evening that [the case] was going to be kept open. That became a sore point.
I was informed later that normally my supervisor has the opportunity to make [a judgment call]: If they read a case and think that it has no merit [they] can basically dismiss a case. And that that option was not given regarding these cases specifically, even if they knew there to be no merit.
We want to make sure that wherever we go, we have, for lack of a better word, the moral initiative. We have a huge responsibility. You're coming in to assess the safety of a child. I assessed this family as exemplary. This child is receiving exemplary care, not only from the parents but from a physician and from a therapist.
I realized that I was doing more harm than good. It just seemed at that point that [investigations] were going to continue regardless of medical care, regardless of the caseworkers vehemently coming out in disagreement.
I was very grateful that they had attorneys. But there was a sadness, just an overwhelming sadness. My biggest directive was to tell the child that you are loved and respected and you have done nothing wrong.
But by my presence, this child felt that there was somebody who thought this [investigation] was the right thing to do. It was so surreal and sad because to do this with the problems that we have now—it just was very surreal and very sad.
What has been the reaction to the directive in your unit?
Distraught. You're asking supervisors and caseworkers to go out to homes they know to be safe and that they know that there's no problem, knowing that we are short-staffed.
We have a four-person unit. We have all resigned.
There's not a single person that I know of and is an investigator that is not looking for other employment, and if they are not, there's a reason to be there—they're a single mother, single father, or dependent upon the health insurance that's provided—and they just haven't found another job yet.
These are good people who are being asked to do something that they believe to be wrong.
I've got a large caseload and [leaving in May] will give me an opportunity to close as many cases as I can. I was a bit shocked that they've allowed me to do that, but unfortunately we're so short-staffed, I believe that they just need to close the cases. Morale was so low, and then you throw this on top of it—the one thing we had was kind of that we're doing this for the good and can't say that anymore.
Should you believe that abuse is taking place, of course you want to take it seriously, of course. But if you know that abuse is not taking place, and we're treating these people as if it is, what harm are we doing? Especially walking in as a trans man.
How were details of the directive communicated to your unit? How did you talk about them together?
These cases were not made public. At one point I was not allowed to use my email. When I would staff it would either be on my phone or my personal phone. Toward the latter end of this, I would only speak to my supervisor on my personal phone.
Who told you that you had to use your personal phone or not use your email?
My understanding is from my supervisor, but this came from her higher-ups. Their understanding is that our emails were now being audited specifically within the context of looking for correspondence regarding the trans cases. We were told to keep a folder with any correspondence.
It took on a whole other level; it just felt immoral. One of the things that was very important is that we follow protocol at every juncture, but we were then told not to follow protocol.
Documentations for staffings were from my boss' boss, which is unusual unless it's a high-risk or high-profile case. Also, you're not able to track how many cases there are. I found out almost by accident that there was another case and who was on it. And then I found out that there are some units in our building that had no idea we had these cases.
Was your department given any specific training about the directive? What designated abuse in these cases?
No. I asked my supervisor, "Is there anything in writing?" And the only thing they had is Attorney General Ken Paxton's letter on behalf of the governor. And I'm thinking, 'OK, why am I here? What am I investigating?'
I had one case where luckily the family had already moved to Colorado because of this mandate. They made the right decision. The child was 17 but had already graduated from high school, had left the state. We don't have jurisdiction, which thank God we didn't. The parents moved to Colorado as well—what a sacrifice.
I'm very fortunate in Travis County. My supervisor was very supportive, which in the South is not always quite the standard.
But what if there's a county or a supervisor that believes this to be true? And sends their caseworker in [and says] I want you to go to the school, I want you to record the child, show up unannounced to the home, all things that are normally done during the course of action of any investigation?
Before all of this, you dealt with actually vulnerable kids in Texas. What more does this mean for them?
It's taken a lot of wind out of the sails. Caseloads are exploding. One of the program directors I respect pulled me aside and said that she was looking for other employment, and her comment was "because I need to be able to look my son in the face."
Where do we go from here?
I'm afraid Governor Abbott will win, that this will continue, and unfortunately set precedents. Where does it end? When does it become something that's much bigger, but there's already a precedent set? If we can get their medical records, why can't I have yours? And if you're under age, why did the parents have a right to allow you to have birth control? Where does it stop?
These are kids. And these are vulnerable kids that are already having to deal with being bullied. I started my journey when I was 53 years old. I cannot imagine the bravery to come to your parents, especially in Texas. And then to have parents who are supportive.
The fact that a governor of Texas and an Attorney General, or the Department of Family and Protective Services, is going after vulnerable children knowing that we don't have abuse or neglect that reaches that criteria, knowing that we don't have a directive, knowing that the boots on the ground are saying please shut this down, knowing that they are strapped with caseloads, they're still doing it. And if they're willing to do that, what's next?
Hendrik Hinzel contributed reporting.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
400 visitors
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
This is what the republicans have come to.
This is sick.
all part of their revised version of the constitution...
They need to mind their own goddamned business
The GOP. The Party of family values, family first, parental rights, Individual responsibility and the rule of law. /s
Welcome To The New Gilead - Welcome To Texas...
Please Drive Safely and Do Not Mess With Texass!
They are using government social services to harass people.
Where is the outrage?
Here. The outrage is right here and it is real.
I just don't see how the people of Texas can sit back and let things like this happen.
Just like Abbott slowed all border crossings to a crawl and messing with commerce.
It is like they just say nothing. Hell some cheer.
The people of TX are the ones who elected him so they back his actions.
Sad.
The people of TX are the ones who elected him so they back his actions.
Over 3 1/2 million voted for someone else.
Doesn't Abbott have something to do with that, Title 42, having more unnecessary added inspections?
Did you get my private note? I'm surprised you didn't respond
Nobody wants these asshole republican hypocrite morality police
I don't know about the article 42 but he had a directive for more 'searches'. They showed the border traffic basically stopped. One trucker said he wouldn't get through until the next day.
And it's a lot of produce and perishable goods that are being held up
I don't know if he is still doing it or not.
Yet there is little to no evidence that he has any intention to represent any of them. His polling must tell him that his base supports all of the RW crap he is foisting on TX, or he wouldn't be doing it in an election year.
What was the old saying about giving up liberties for security.
I kind of see this along those lines.
They may one day regret their actions but then it will be too late.
He must not be very worried about Beto.
But the 'perpetrators' aren't giving up liberties, they are taking them from vulnerable families. Nor are the gaining security, since they the vulnerable families that they are targeting are no threat to them.
Doesn't seem like it. Now some are saying he has presidential inclinations.
God help us.
Or any of the other 3.5 million who didn't vote for him. Of course, he and the GOP legislature have passed election laws that may just whittle that number down this year.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Turn in your neighbor/teacher. Familiar from another time in history and not a pleasant one.
Good for him, he saw something wrong and took a stand. It takes a lot of courage to take a stand and follow thru with it. I am not fully familiar with the process but how much "investigation" and counseling goes in before they even start with hormone therapy and gender counseling? I would hope that they are being fully ethical with this and not pushing their beliefs into this as a child's brain is still developing and what they want today is almost guaranteed to be different from what they want when they reach 25. So long as they are not pushing a surgical change before the child becomes an adult all of this is reversable if the child changes who they feel they are as they grow older.
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if we will ever reach a point where this sort of partisan overreach just doesn't happen.
If they can do it to one group or person, what is to stop them from doing it to others.
Lol.. Whatever happened to "if you did nothing wrong, you don't have to worry about the government investigating you."
Attempted derail.
History is replete with individuals and groups of people who have harassed and persecuted other groups of people. I can hope for change (and I do) but somehow I don't know that we will ever see any such real change. When this sort of partisan overreach happens in the US, it's because a political group believes their actions are the best for all people regardless of any harm it may do to an individual. This won't change until politicians and political parties put the individual above the group, but I don't think we will see that happen.
So simple answer to your question, there's nothing that can stop them from doing it to any other group except for the people to perform a mass house-cleaning at the political level. But I don't believe we could ever see that. People may bitch about politicians and shout how they should all be voted out of office yet the vast majority of incumbents get re-elected. Mostly because those politicians are all stupid cheats who should be tarred and run out of office, except for my guy cuz he brings back lots of money to our district / state...
Sorry but no. I don't accept the saying of 'if you have nothing to hide so let the police officer search your car' and I don't accept your statement. IMO this seed shows an attempt to have an investigation based on political ideas. If we allow this from the right then we have no reason to prevent any such investigation coming from the left. I don't accept either one.
I would think that is where the courts would come into play. To maybe stop any over reach.
Then again they are making the courts partisan.
I think you want to be careful with such statements because "they" are just the group that is in power at the time. There's no specific political ideology involved, it's what group holds the power at the time.
I guess I don't know what you mean by group.
I agree and wasn’t directing my point to you.
[deleted]
This is not about trump and you are not going to make it so.
Who did you mean when you said
I took that to mean how during the last administration President Trump was able to place 234 judges on the bench and there was a lot of complaining from the left on how Trump and the Republicans were moving the courts to the right. As we're talking about overreach by Texas which is currently a Republican state I assumed that you were implying that if this were taken to a court in Texas the odds that it would go in front of a right-leaning judge would be high.
I countered with both sides are playing that game. What ever group is in power at that time in that area will nominate and place a judge who they believe will assist in their partisan actions. Or are you trying to tell me that you believe that the nomination and confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was really a non-partisan action.
The "groups" we have been talking about (at least that's what I've been doing) are the political groups in power.
Oh no, both sides do it. I blame the Dems for lowering the threshold.
My point has nothing to do with Trump.
So then your point is both sides do it, so what?
Yes, there are plenty of people on this board who are so blindly partisan that they will cheer on any intrusion into their political opponents and refuse any notion of fair play. But Ender wasn't (at least in my opinion) doing that in this conversation. He may have made such a comment elsewhere, I don't know. But I feel that unless we can hold a conversation we can never bridge the gap between the sides of the argument. And IMO if we cannot bridge the gap then we are bound for civil war. So when I can actually hold a conversation with someone from the other side I get a little jealous and protective of my opportunity.
Ender is a bit too far to the left but he's (at least I think he's male, never asked and it's not important) willing to talk and share ideas. I may not fully win him over to my way of thinking but there's still hope.
Well gee Sean, since up until now, there were only 3 members, including you, in this thread, you must be talking about the other 2. So that should make it easy for you to post an example of one of them 'literally' using that phrase. I'll wait...
Well, I can count to 21. And then play hacky sack after....
To me, the great irony here is that the same people who want to prosecute these parents for treating their kids are the same ones who were outraged that government would tell them to make their kids wear masks or get vaccines. Unlike Covid measures, how parents respond to a trans child doesn’t even impact other kids (notwithstanding the competitive sports issue). Being trans isn’t contagious.
Freedom for me, but not for thee?
The trans thing is a complex matter that impacts almost everyone going through it a little bit differently. I doubt that a “one size fits all” approach from government is ever going to be useful. Families need to navigate this path on their own terms, on an individual basis with each child.
Parents used to have the freedom to raise their own children as they saw fit and conservatives used to believe in that freedom.
"...Used to..." being the key phrase.
With all the hell that some children go through that will not be investigated because they are looking at homes they know are safe and healthy is sickening.
that should take some of the heat off the rwnj child molesters...
And the women with 8 kids by 6 different fathers stuffed into a 2 bedroom trailer.
Why would any parent encourage their kid into transitioning to the opposite sex? As the step parent of a trans person, that makes zero sense. All you think about is how awful the world we live in is, and how you wouldn’t want anyone you care about to have to navigate trans hatred. The fact that people do transition, knowing how evil others may be to them because of it, makes you understand just how strong the feeling of being misgendered is.
I have 5 LGBTQ people in my extended family. all of them are kids of my ultra conservative xtian cousins. their chosen party's attitude towards their own kids is a major sore spot with them. I never mention it, but they know what I'm thinking.