Vermont has officially abandoned its policy of disqualifying Christian foster families for refusing to affirm LGBT and gender ideology. It is a significant victory for religious freedom, and for the children who need stable, loving homes.

The case centred on two families, the Wuotis and the Gantts, whose licences were revoked by Vermont officials in 2022 and 2024 because of their religious beliefs. Pastor Brian Wuoti and his wife Katy had been foster parents since 2014, adopting two brothers from care. Pastor Bryan Gantt and his wife Rebecca became foster parents in 2016, specialising in children born with drug dependencies or foetal alcohol syndrome. They have since adopted three children.

But these experienced carers with years of demonstrated commitment to vulnerable children were removed from the system because they would not endorse a particular ideological position on gender.

Asked how “accepting and supportive” they would be if their foster children “identified as LGBT”, both families made clear they would unconditionally love any child but could not encourage behaviours or ideas that went against their faith or abandon their sincerely held beliefs.

Alliance Defending Freedom represented both families in an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Wuoti v. Winters, arguing that Vermont had violated the families’ First Amendment rights. Vermont settled. Its updated policy now clarifies that “endorsement or affirmation of specific identities”, and the “use of particular vocabulary, prescribed language, or preferred pronouns related to gender identity, sexual orientation, or identity expression”, are not conditions of being licensed as a foster carer.

As ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said after the resolution: “No parent should be forced to lie to a vulnerable child about who they are, much less promote irreversible and life-altering procedures that don't have any proven health benefits.”

In the United States, governments cannot compel citizens to affirm ideological positions as a precondition for participating in public life. Vermont’s original policy did not merely ask foster families to treat children with dignity and care, which every family must do. It demanded active endorsement of a specific ideological framework, on pain of losing a licence. Courts have consistently recognised that compelled speech of that kind crosses a constitutional line.

The same issue has arisen in Australia. A Sydney family was initially denied approval to foster a young boy because of their Catholic faith, even though they had already adopted the boy’s biological brother. With HRLA’s support, the family was eventually given approval as permanent kinship carers.

In 2022, HRLA clients Byron and Keira Hordyk won a discrimination case when they were denied an application to foster because of their Christian beliefs. Despite winning, the Hordyks did not end up fostering any children after the case ran for several years.

The pattern is consistent across jurisdictions: ideological requirements attached to foster care licensing reduce the pool of available families, and it is the children who pay the price.

Vermont’s willingness to course correct is welcome. The Gantts put it plainly:

“There are more kids in the foster-care system than there are families to care for them. Our focus throughout this case has been on the children who need stability and love above everything else.”

HRLA will continue to defend the right of people of faith to serve their communities, including as foster and adoptive parents, without being required to surrender their beliefs as the price of entry.