From the long (>10K-word) opinion in In re S.B., decided Friday by Ohio Court of Appeals Judge Matthew R. Byrne, joined by Judges Robert A. Hendrickson and Robin N. Piper:
Though not stated explicitly, there is some suggestion in the state's brief and in the juvenile court's permanent custody decision that Mother and Father were unfit as parents because they both were initially reluctant to embrace Sara's announcement that she was transgender and/or using male pronouns. We disagree.
There is no requirement in Ohio law that parents must unquestioningly accept and support their minor children's claims of transsexual identity or preferred pronouns. In fact, this issue remains hotly-contested socially, politically, and legally. As an example, the State of Ohio has banned so-called "gender-affirming care" for minors because of the inherent risk of providing such treatments to minors, whose minds are developing and may change. That statute is currently being litigated. Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court has upheld a similar ban in Tennessee. Quite recently, Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, emphasized that "the doctrine of substantive due process has long embraced a parent's right to raise her child, which includes the right to participate in significant decisions about her child's mental health."
From a best-interest analysis perspective, we see no serious concern presented by Mother's and Father's cautious reactions to Sara's disclosure of her perceived transgender status and preference for male pronouns. This lack of concern is particularly bolstered here, where both Karen and Sara's therapist testified that Sara is struggling with gender identity and sexuality, and Karen explained that Sara tended to "change[ ] her sexuality every four to five weeks." Children who struggle with these issues deserve sober and sensitive guidance, and Ohio law does not require parents unquestioningly to accept whatever their children say about their gender identity or sexuality at that particular moment.
There is also a possible suggestion in the state's brief and in the juvenile court's decision that Mother and Father should be faulted, in a best-interest analysis, for not unquestioningly supporting Sara's turn away from their family's Messianic Judaism. This is also not supported by Ohio law. Parents are free to assist and guide their children in the development of their religious faith…. "[P]arents have a fundamental right to educate their children, including the right to communicate their moral and religious values … and 'direct the religious upbringing of their children.'" …
The court also noted:
