Massachusetts Know Your Rights - Page 18 of 40 - GLAD Law
Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

Child Welfare Advocates Call for Data and Action on Urgent Needs of Youth and Families Involved with MA DCF

Amid the COVID-19 crisis, child welfare organizations call for transparent data, improved services, and greater accountability from MA Department of Children and Families

Boston, June 8, 2020 – The Massachusetts Child Welfare / COVID-19 Coalition, consisting of 11 legal aid, children, youth and family advocacy groups, human rights organizations and others, is calling on the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) to act urgently and transparently to address gaps in the system which are putting children and families at increased risk during the pandemic.

“The impact of COVID-19 on the lives of the children, youth and families already in DCF’s caseload is largely missing in the public conversation on child welfare amid this crisis,” said Susan Elsen of the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. “While headlines have speculated on the meaning of a drop in reports of potential new cases to DCF, there are children and families already in the system who need our urgent attention.”

Two concerns are particularly urgent: (1) DCF’s inadequate reporting of data on rates of COVID-19 infection for children in group care and foster care settings and (2) the lack of action to support older teens who are aging out of the system.

June Ameen of Friends of Children said, “The Administration declared a state of emergency on March 10, and it took until May 22 to get very basic data from DCF. How are advocates, policymakers and the public going to understand the impact of the pandemic on children and youth in the care and custody of the state and ensure DCF and the child welfare system are meeting their needs without reliable and timely data and information?”

Another vulnerable population is older teens who are transitioning out of DCF custody, especially during the pandemic. “In this crisis when housing instability presents extreme risk, it is so important that DCF not close cases of adolescents, that it ensure older teens know they can continue to receive services until age 23, and that DCF makes it easier for youth to sign back in to voluntary services after they turn 18,” said Sana Fadel of Citizens for Juvenile Justice. On May 11, 2020, the Coalition wrote to Governor Baker asking for comprehensive action to support transition-age youth to ensure that these youth are not pushed into homelessness during the pandemic. To date, the Baker Administration has not responded.

The Coalition aims to highlight the urgent needs and vulnerabilities of DCF-involved children and youth. There are more than 10,000 children and young adults currently in the custody of DCF and over 35,000 additional children and young adults involved with the child welfare system (DCF Q2 Quarterly Report).

The Coalition is urging action on several critical issues, including:

  • Transparent COVID-19 crisis data reporting and accountability

  • A moratorium on case closures and ongoing support for transition-age youth

  • Meaningful visitation between children, parents and siblings

  • Placement stability and the well-being of children in foster care and group homes

  • Access to technology for children and families to ensure access to education and ongoing contact

  • Continued progress on ongoing cases, including reunifications 

“Critical pieces of the DCF system were not working well before this pandemic,” said Jodi Rosenbaum of More than Words, “The Massachusetts Child Welfare / COVID-19 Coalition stands ready to work with DCF and the Commonwealth to take action on the critical emergency needs we are seeing from our clients in this crisis as well as to address system-wide gaps to improve the long-term well-being of children and families.”


The Massachusetts Child Welfare / COVID-19 Coalition is comprised of the following organizations: Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts, Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Disability Law Center, Freitas & Freitas LLP, Friends of Children, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Greater Boston Legal Services, Massachusetts Advocates for Children, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, and More Than Words. Visit www.masslegalservices.org/MACWCoalition.

Live Q&A: Navigating Gender Affirming Care in the Current Moment

Know Your Rights: Navigating Gender Affirming Care in the Current Moment

An Online Q&A for Massachusetts Transgender and Nonbinary Communities

 

YouTube video

 

This event was co-presented by GLAD, MTPC, and the MA Trans Health Coalition.

Original event description:

Many people have questions about accessing gender affirming care in light of COVID-19 as well as ongoing threats from the Trump administration that are causing confusion over healthcare non-discrimination protections and insurance coverage.

In this interactive online Q&A healthcare and legal experts will update you on current practices and protections, and help answer your questions about accessing safe, affordable, and affirming care.

Video captioning available.

Featuring:

  • Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director, GLAD
  • Tre’Andre Valentine, Executive Director, MTPC
  • Andrew Cohen, Supervising Attorney, Health Law Advocates
  • Aleah Nesteby, Family Nurse Practitioner, Cooley Dickinson Health Care

 

News

MA SJC Issues Ruling Securing Parentage for Child Born Through Surrogacy and Calls on Legislature to Modernize Statutes to Protect All Children

Boston, MA – Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in Adoption of Daphne that the state Probate and Family Court clearly has jurisdiction to establish the parentage of a child born through gestational surrogacy in Massachusetts to an intended parent living outside the United States. Specifically, the SJC concluded there was personal and subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court to permit the adoption petition to proceed.

“The Supreme Judicial Court found that the Probate and Family court had clear jurisdiction over this adoption, and noted in its opinion that a delay in securing legal parentage is harmful to children,” said Kathleen DeLisle, attorney with Nichols, DeLisle & Lightholder, P.C., which represented the petitioner. “The delay in establishing this child’s security was contrary to her best interest and not in keeping with the intent of the legislature. I’m relieved that these parents will finally be able to move forward with their adoption so that their daughter has the legal protection she needs and deserves.”

The case stems from an adoption petition first filed two years ago when the child was an infant. The petitioner, who is the intended and genetic father of the child, entered into a gestational carrier agreement with the Massachusetts gestational carrier, and the child was born in February 2018, in Massachusetts. The father and his male partner, who are unmarried due to legal constraints in their country, planned with care to create their family and sought, with agreement of the gestational carrier, to secure and clarify their daughter’s parentage soon after her birth. After considerable delay, the Probate and Family Court rejected the adoption petition – without hearing and with prejudice – on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction because the intended parents and the child had left the state. The Supreme Judicial Court directed the Probate court to allow the adoption petition to proceed.

In today’s opinion, the SJC also urged the Massachusetts legislature to establish more efficient processes for obtaining post-birth judgments of parentage for families formed through gestational surrogacy. Pending legislation, the Massachusetts Parentage Act, which is based on the model Uniform Parentage Act cited in today’s opinion, would accomplish that.

“I’m thankful to the Supreme Judicial Court for recognizing in this ruling that a child born in Massachusetts through surrogacy has an equal right to an expedient legal declaration of parentage, and for calling on the legislature to join our sister New England states and enact legislation modeled on the Uniform Parentage Act to ensure our statutes protect all children and ensure that all children – including those born through assisted reproduction and surrogacy – have clear and equal access to the security of a legal parent-child relationship.” said Polly Crozier, GLAD Senior Staff Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), which submitted an amicus brief in the case. “GLAD is working with a coalition of child, fertility, and parentage advocates to pass the Massachusetts Parentage Act, which will provide critical guidance for courts and for families. The legal parent-child bond is core to the stability and well-being of children, and it is from this core relationship that parental rights and responsibilities flow including the right to healthcare and education decision making. Especially now in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, we must ensure that all children are secured to their parents and have access to these core protections.”

Doe v. Esper

Defending a U.S. Naval officer who has served two extended tours of duty over nine years and is now facing involuntary discharge because she is transgender.

District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Filed on March 17, 2020

GLAD and NCLR filed suit on behalf of Jane Doe (plaintiff is proceeding anonymously to minimize risk to her), an officer in the U.S. Navy who has served two extended tours of duty over nine years and is now facing involuntary discharge because she is transgender.

Doe v. Esper, filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, is the first challenge to the transgender military ban since it went into effect in April 2019. Doe, a dedicated, highly qualified and successful officer, is seeking emergency relief so she can continue to serve.

Doe came out as transgender after the ban went into effect in April 2019. She is not protected by the “grandfather clause” that permits continued military service by transgender troops who came out before the ban. The current policy mandates the discharge of any service member who comes out as transgender and seeks to undergo a gender transition. 

New Challenge to Transgender Military Ban Filed by Naval Officer

March 18, 2020

Contact:
Amanda Johnston, GLAD | ajohnston@glad.org | (617) 417-7769
Christopher Vasquez, NCLR | cvasquez@nclrights.org | (415) 365 -1337

Naval Officer Files New Challenge to Trump’s Transgender Military Ban

Doe v. Esper is the first challenge to be filed since the transgender military ban went into effect 

BOSTON, MA — Jane Doe, an officer in the U.S. Navy who has served two extended tours of duty over nine years and is now facing involuntary discharge because she is transgender, has filed suit challenging the transgender military ban. The case, Doe v. Esper, filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, is the first challenge to the ban since it went into effect in April 2019. Doe, a dedicated, highly qualified and successful officer, is seeking emergency relief so she can continue to serve. Four other cases seeking to overturn the transgender military ban broadly are currently pending in federal court.

“Our plaintiff is the first transgender service member to seek emergency relief since the ban went into effect,” said Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). “As an experienced officer, all she seeks is the ability to continue serving her country on the same terms as others. The Navy has invested nearly a decade in her training, and she is committed to serving for years to come. It destabilizes and debases our military to discharge Doe and other highly qualified people under a politically motivated policy that has no basis in anything other than bias. Our current national emergency is a reminder, if we needed any, how critically important it is that the institutions upon which we all rely make decisions based on evidence and competency.”

“Our plaintiff’s situation highlights the serious harms the ban is causing to dedicated service members and to the military,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). “The current policy mandates the discharge of any transgender service member, without regard for their fitness or value to the military, and even when replacing them would be extremely costly and disruptive. We are asking the court to prevent this senseless result for our client, so that she can continue to use her years of training and expertise to benefit our country.”

Doe came out as transgender after the ban went into effect in April 2019. She is not protected by the “grandfather clause” that permits continued military service by transgender troops who came out before the ban. The current policy mandates the discharge of any service member who comes out as transgender and seeks to undergo a gender transition.

Jane Doe is represented by GLAD and NCLR, which have been at the center of the legal fight challenging the transgender military ban since filing Doe v. Trump, the first of four initial cases filed against the ban, on August 9, 2017. In addition to Doe v. Esper and Doe v. Trump, GLAD and NCLR also represent plaintiffs in a third case challenging the ban, Stockman v. Trump. For more information visit www.notransmilitaryban.org

Massachusetts Youth Justice Day

Join young people and allies from across Massachusetts to meet with state legislators on critical juvenile justice reform legislation!

  • Raise The Age: Keep 18-to-20-year-olds out of the adult criminal justice system (H.3420/S.825)
  • Clean Slate MA: Expand expungement of juvenile and criminal court records (H.1386/S.900)
  • The Education Success Act: Limit school exclusion without adequate due process (H.531/S.297)
  • Data & Equity: Improve the collection & transparency of juvenile justice data to address racial disparities in the system (H.2141/S.1386)

Register

Hosted by Representative Kay Khan and co-sponsored by the ACLU of Massachusetts, Center for Teen Empowerment, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute, Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts, College Bound Dorchester, Committee for Public Counsel Services, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Greater Boston Legal Services, I Have a Future, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Massachusetts Mentoring Partnership, Mental Health Advocacy Program for Kids, Mental Health Legal Advisers Committee, More Than Words, Real Cost of Prisons Project, Roca, Teens Leading The Way.

Adoption of Daphne

Update April 2, 2020: Victory! The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state Probate and Family Court clearly has jurisdiction to establish the parentage of a child born through gestational surrogacy in Massachusetts to an intended parent living outside the United States. Read GLAD’s press release about the ruling.

Update January 8, 2020: The Supreme Judicial Court ordered the Probate and Family Court to accept the petition for adoption on the grounds that the court has jurisdiction to consider it.

 

The LGBTQ community faces unique challenges in securing their parent-child relationships due to bias and outdated statutes. In the United States, despite the constitutional mandate of equality for LGBTQ couples and families articulated in Obergefell v. Hodges, and Pavan v. Smith, there are still many instances of discrimination for LGBTQ people who want to adopt or build families.

A citizen of Mauritius seeks to adopt his child who was born in Massachusetts through gestational surrogacy. Due to lack of pre-birth documentation, the state followed default procedure and defined the surrogate as mother on the child’s birth certificate. As a result of the lack of legal protections for LGBTQ parents in Mauritius and the lack of statutory clarity for children born in Massachusetts, the parent found themselves vulnerable and unable to legally secure protection for their family.

News

On December 9, 2019, GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Patience Crozier submitted testimony, along with Citizens for Juvenile Justice, with recommendations on reforms regarding emerging adults to produce better outcomes for our youth and our communities. LGBTQ youth are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system due to stereotypes, pervasive stigma, bias and structural factors. Family rejection, unsupportive schools, and discriminatory policing practices contribute to increased interactions between LGBTQ youth and the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

GLAD asks that the Criminal Justice Task Force on Juvenile Age recommend gradually raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction to end the automatic prosecution of older teens (18- to 20-year-olds) as adults.

“Through this systemic reform, Massachusetts can lower recidivism rates and prevent further involvement of youth in the criminal legal system. Research demonstrates that young people who are incarcerated in adult facilities are more likely to re-offend, re-offend sooner, and commit more violent offenses in the future. Further, youth in juvenile facilities are safer when placed in juvenile facilities as opposed to adult facilities,” says Patience Crozier in her testimony. Read the full text here.

“An overly punitive approach can actually cause more offending: Most young people “age out” of offending by their mid-twenties, particularly with developmentally appropriate interventions. The juvenile system’s focus on accountability through rehabilitation and positive youth developments is directly tied to lower recidivism rates,” says CfJJ testimony. Read the full text here.

News

Healthcare Protections for the Massachusetts Transgender Community: Questions and Answers About State Protections and Threats at the Federal Level

October 29, 2019

The Trump administration and other opponents of LGBTQ equality are working to undermine key protections under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that were designed to ensure transgender people have fair and equal access to healthcare.

Fortunately, however, Massachusetts has strong and comprehensive state-based laws that prohibit discrimination against transgender people in access to health care, including by insurers and health care providers. Those protections are not subject to the whims of the Trump administration.

The questions and answers below will cover the details of state-based protections, what the Trump administration is up to at the federal level, and what we can all do to ensure better access to healthcare for our transgender community.

While Massachusetts provides robust nondiscrimination protections including access to transition-related care, the Trump administration’s effort to rollback federal protections is nevertheless a cause of concern and confusion. That’s why it is so important to know your rights.

You should expect to be treated fairly when accessing health care, but if you do experience discrimination, contact GLAD Answers or Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition and let us know.

What are the Protections for Access to Health care for Transgender People Under Massachusetts Law?

In order to understand the impact of the Trump administration’s actions on access to health care for transgender people in Massachusetts, it is helpful to first understand state-based insurance protections.

The Massachusetts Division of Insurance, which oversees all private health insurance plans, and MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid agency, have each issued directives requiring the coverage of all medically necessary gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and surgeries. The agency overseeing health care plans for state employees, the Group Insurance Commission, followed suit.

These directives are based on state law, are independent of federal law, and should not change.

In addition, Massachusetts has a state law prohibiting discrimination in access to “places of public accommodation” on the basis of a person’s gender identity. This law prohibits discrimination by health insurance companies in plan benefits as well as discrimination by a health care provider or entity, including hospitals and clinics.

This law also exists independent of the federal ACA (or other federal nondiscrimination laws) and will not change.


What is the Trump administration doing to undermine transgender healthcare nondiscrimination protections under the Affordable Care Act?

The Trump administration is seeking to reverse an Obama-era rule that interprets the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to prohibit discrimination against transgender people for the purpose of federal enforcement, and to replace it with a new rule that excludes those protections.

The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is charged with enforcing the nondiscrimination protections in Section 1557 of the ACA by taking action against entities (such as hospitals and insurance companies) that violate them. If HHS interprets Section 1557 of the ACA to exclude protections for transgender people, it means our federal government won’t take action against entities that deny healthcare access or coverage to transgender people. That’s dangerous because it diminishes protections at the federal level and sends the message that it is okay to discriminate.

It’s important to note that there is another avenue for addressing discrimination in healthcare, and that is directly through the federal courts. Even if HHS interprets Section 1557 to exclude transgender people, the ultimate meaning of the statute is up to the courts. A growing number of federal courts have come to understand that transgender status discrimination is a form of sex discrimination. Some successful claims of transgender status discrimination have already been brought in federal court under the ACA.

What is the status of the Trump administration’s proposed new HHS rule?

The Trump administration cannot change the HHS rule before completing a formal review process.  That process has begun but not yet been finalized. So, at the moment nothing has changed in the HHS rule.

Tens of thousands of individuals and organizations submitted public comments opposing the rule over the summer, and the administration is required to review each of those comments before it issues a final, revised rule.  However, we are likely to see the rule finalized in the next few months, if not sooner.   

There has been a lot of news about a recent court ruling in a case called Franciscan Alliance v. Azar. How does that ruling impact healthcare for transgender people?

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor’s October 15 ruling received a great deal of media attention and caused a lot of consternation. But it actually does not change the current legal landscape around the rights of transgender people to access healthcare. That is because this ruling simply reaffirms and finalizes a prior 2016 ruling that enjoined HHS from following and enforcing its Obama-era interpretation (rule) that the ACA protects transgender people from discrimination.

Opponents of LGBTQ equality, now allied with the Trump administration, filed Franciscan Alliance seeking to undo the HHS rule interpreting Section 1557 of the ACA to protect transgender people, (as well as LGBQ+ people, and people who have had abortions) from discrimination immediately after it was issued under the Obama administration. Judge O’Connor quickly granted a temporary injunction blocking HHS from enforcing the rule in 2016. That injunction has been in place ever since while the legal case has proceeded, and consequently HHS has not been enforcing the rule. On October 15, Judge O’Connor issued a final order vacating the HHS rule, essentially formalizing what he had done with the initial injunction.

However, as mentioned above, while HHS has not been enforcing the rule people have been able to take discrimination cases directly to federal court.  No HHS interpretation can change the non-discrimination provision of the ACA itself.

Are there other threats to transgender nondiscrimination protections in healthcare at the federal level?

Unfortunately, yes. You are likely aware of three cases pending before the United States Supreme Court regarding federal workplace protections for transgender and LGB people under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court will issue an opinion in this case on the question of whether anti-transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under federal employment nondiscrimination law. Many federal courts have already reached the straightforward conclusion that it is. However, if the Supreme Court rules that it is not, it is likely to impact how the nondiscrimination provisions of many federal laws are understood – including the Affordable Care Act. Such an interpretation could limit the ability of transgender people to seek relief from healthcare discrimination in the federal courts.

What can we do?

First, know your rights in healthcare and remember that you are protected under state law. No matter how HHS or the Supreme Court interpret existing federal law, Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination in healthcare and prohibits private health insurers and our state Medicaid agency from having any exclusion of transition-related health care. Put another way, they are required to cover medically necessary gender affirming health services. That does not mean that some insurers won’t try to deny that some services are medically necessary for a particular individual. Those denials must be fought on a case-by-case basis.

If you have questions or experience issues accessing healthcare coverage, there are MA-based organizations that can help. Contact GLAD Answers or Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition.

Second, share your story. With the attacks on healthcare coming from the federal administration, it is more important than ever to ensure we have and keep the strongest possible protections under state law. The MA Trans Health Coalition is working to ensure an even stronger commitment from Massachusetts insurers and the DOI to protect healthcare access for transgender people. You can help this effort by sharing your story of healthcare discrimination, or what access to fair healthcare coverage means to you. To share your story, contact Tre’Andre Valentine, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, at treandrevalentine@masstpc.org

Third, encourage your U.S. Senators to bring the federal Equality Act up for a vote. The Equality Act is a pending bill that would ensure clear, explicit, and consistent federal protections for transgender and LGB people across all areas of life, including healthcare, employment, education, housing and public accommodations. The Equality Act has already passed the House and now we need a vote in the Senate.

News

On October 22, 2019, GLAD Staff Attorney Chris Erchull sent a letter to Mayor Walsh in support of LGBTQ-inclusive housing.

 

Marin J. Walsh, Mayor

Kelly Shay, Project Manager City of Boston

One City Hall Square, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02201

Re: Support for Pennrose – LGBTQ Senior Housing Proposal

 

Dear Mayor Walsh and Ms. Shay,

This letter is submitted on behalf of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). Thank you for the opportunity to voice support for the Pennrose – LGBTQ Senior Housing Proposal. Based in Boston, GLAD is New England’s premier LGBTQ legal advocacy organization. We know firsthand that the aging LGBTQ population in Boston currently has insufficient access to safe and affordable identity-affirming housing and culturally competent care.

As members of the LGBTQ community get older, we encounter a distinct set of challenges. We are less likely to be married and to have children. We are more likely to experience alienation from relatives. Our resilience in the face of a lifetime of discrimination is due in no small part to the strong communities we build as adults.

People choose to live in retirement communities for a number of reasons: it may no longer make financial or practical sense for some individuals to maintain an independent household, some seek the comfort of being surrounded by others with similar life experiences, and for others a retirement community is an escape from the stigma associated with age. While these considerations are not unique to LGBTQ people, we are in an especially vulnerable position. Too often, when we lose independence, we lose the ability to choose our community. As a result, we often find ourselves living among people who lack empathy for our life experiences or, worse, are hostile to us. We are left with two untenable choices: to endure discrimination or to go back into the closet.

These negative outcomes are not inevitable and, in fact, are entirely preventable. Inclusive housing developments, such as the Pennrose – LGBTQ Senior Housing Proposal, provide hope for many people who may otherwise suffer isolation and indignity as they age. For many LGBTQ Bostonians, there are presently no housing options available to them that ensure that they live safely among people who affirm and celebrate their identities and life experiences. We must not forego the opportunity to embrace an alternative for those who might otherwise be exposed to discrimination and harassment.

People from all walks of life experience challenges as they age. Access to safe housing should not be one of them. We owe it to the LGBTQ community to provide the opportunity to age with dignity.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments and for supporting this initiative.

 

Sincerely,

Chris Erchull

Staff Attorney

 

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders

18 Tremont Street, Suite 950 Boston, MA 02108

(617) 426-1350

en_USEnglish
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

To learn more, visit our privacy policy.