In January, foster youth in Washington sued the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families because of the unconstitutionally poor treatment they receive from the state. I am the “next friend” (or representative) for D.S., a named plaintiff in that class-action lawsuit. D.S., who identifies as a transgender, Native American young woman, has been forced to stay in hotels and offices for over a year. Equally troubling, since entering foster care a year and a half ago, D.S. has never been offered a gender-affirming placement. 

DCYF’s response to the lawsuit must not only chart an end to this egregious practice of warehousing youth in hotels and offices (euphemistically called “exceptional stays” by the state); the state must also recognize and meet the unique needs of LGBTQIA+ youth in their care.

Unfortunately, that is not what the state is doing. The federal court recently ordered DCYF to develop a plan in response to the class-action lawsuit. Yet, shockingly, when DCYF presented its plan earlier this month, no mention was made of the needs of LGBTQIA+ youth in their care. Nor does DCYF mention their needs in its request for budget increases. 

Moreover, DCYF, to this day, places children for adoption with agencies that are openly, virulently homophobic and transphobic. By relying on agencies such as Antioch Adoptions and A Child’s Hope to identify adoptive parents, DCYF hurts children and forces them to grow up in homes that believe their very identities are “sinful” and contrary to the “just and proper ordering of society,” as Antioch Adoptions puts it.

A recent study found 30.4% of youth in foster care identify as LGBTQ and 5% as transgender, compared to 11.2% and 1.17% of youth not in foster care. The study found that LGBTQ youth are more likely to suffer from consistent harassment and abuse in foster care, incidents that are particularly pervasive with transgender youth, whose very identities are often rejected in state care and who are often bullied and abused. 

All of that is true for D.S. DCYF has tried to place her in a boys group home and has frequently denied her access to gender-affirming items, like clothes and skin-care products. D.S. also tells me about the prejudice she has experienced: A DCYF social worker told her she would not be “passable” as a trans person, that she would never go anywhere in life. Even though D.S.’s name has been legally changed, DCYF refuses to change it in their files until they get an official document from the Department of Health. 

D.S. doesn’t think DCYF will change because LGBTQIA+ youth are not their priority. Their priority, she says, are “normal” kids – white kids, straight kids, cis-gender kids, young kids, kids with no criminal records, and kids with no behavior problems.  

But D.S., and all kids in state care, are kids who need love, respect and care. Last month, stakeholders who met with DCYF officials offered concrete solutions: waiving DCYF’s onerous home study process that too often disqualifies relatives and family friends who want to provide a home to youth whom they know and love; actively looking for placements with people who children are connected to and who want to live with LGBTQIA+ youth; expanding the proven Mockingbird Society’s family model (and developing "hub homes” for LGBTQIA+ youth); and letting youth give information about themselves to prospective foster parents.  

Most children who enter foster care are eventually returned to their parents. But LGBTQIA+ children are more likely than other children in foster care to be rejected by their families and therefore have a pressing need for appropriate options for long-term places to live, as well as trauma-informed care and supports. Rather than contracting with group homes or placements focused on “behavioral rehabilitation,” DCYF could work to develop community-led, community-run family-style homes.  

Indeed, advocates for youth told DCYF that their current meetings to discuss where a youth will live (called “shared planning meetings”) often feel like a group of adults ganging up on kids, forcing them to accept whatever placement is offered. But DCYF’s plan doubles down on this failed approach by requiring more of these meetings, without any proposed changes in structure or culture. 

It is worth noting that DCYF did embrace one suggestion offered by advocates: to pilot and hopefully expand independent living placements that have the potential to offer additional options for LGBTQIA+ youth. 

But if DCYF only sees children as “hard to place,” as a constellation of behaviors, then DCYF will always focus on finding more behavioral rehabilitation “beds” – not homes. D.S. says, “The state likes to act as if they care, and they really don’t. Certain social workers may care, but at the end of the day queer people of color get nothing.” D.S. doesn't believe DCYF will ever change unless it is forced to change. Seeing DCYF ignore clear, concrete requests from LGBTQIA+ youth and their advocates, it is hard to argue with her.

Signing this will make the department realize that the people are opposed to DCYF forcing youth into potentially harmful homes