Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Washington Law That Hides Runaway Children from Parents Seeking “Gender-Affirming Care”

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson (No. 25-840), a case that strikes at the heart of parental rights. At issue is a Washington state law that allows licensed youth shelters to withhold a runaway child from their parents if the child is seeking or receiving what the state defines as “gender-affirming treatment.”

Instead of notifying parents, the shelter contacts the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). DCYF is only required to make a “good faith attempt” to notify parents — and even then, it does not have to tell them where the child is or provide any information about the child’s condition. The law effectively presumes that parents who do not affirm their child’s rejection of their sex are unfit.

The Court will hear argument on December 7, 2026.

What the Law Does

Prior to 2023, Washington’s Family Reconciliation Act required shelters to notify parents within 72 hours when they took in a runaway minor. The only exception was when there was evidence the child would face abuse or neglect.

In 2023, the legislature changed the law (SB 5599). It expanded the definition of “compelling reasons” to bypass parental notification to include when a minor is seeking or receiving “protected health care services,” which now explicitly includes “gender-affirming treatment.” This includes hormones, surgeries, and other interventions intended to reject a child’s biological sex.

As a result, parents can be cut off from their children — sometimes for extended periods — while the state facilitates medical and psychological interventions without their knowledge or consent.

CPRC’s Amicus Brief

On September 15, 2026, CPRC filed an amicus brief in support of the parents challenging the law, working in collaboration with Our Duty–USA and LGB Courage Coalition. The brief was written by CPRC attorneys Mary E. McAlister (Counsel of Record) and Vernadette R. Broyles, along with partner attorney Erin Friday of Our Duty–USA.

In the brief, we argued that Washington’s law violates parents’ fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children, as recognized in cases such as Troxel v. Granville and Parham v. J.R. We also argued that the law deprives parents of procedural due process by allowing the state to interfere with custody and medical decision-making without prior notice or a hearing.

The brief further explains how the law creates an irrefutable presumption that parents who do not immediately agree to their child’s desire to reject their sex are abusive or neglectful — even when there is no evidence of actual harm.

You can read the full amicus brief here: Read the full brief (PDF)

Real Stories from Washington Parents

The brief includes accounts from Our Duty members in Washington whose children were affected by similar policies. These parents describe being shut out of decisions about their children’s mental and physical health, having their concerns dismissed, and in some cases facing threats of child welfare involvement simply for wanting to raise their children in accordance with biological reality.

Why This Case Matters

This case goes to the core of whether the state can override fit parents and insert itself into the most intimate family decisions under the banner of “gender-affirming care.” A favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would reinforce that parents — not government agencies or ideologically driven policies — remain the primary decision-makers for their children.

Support CPRC’s ongoing legal work to defend parental rights.