The Kutzkos claim that their 15-year-old transgender son was taken from them and placed in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) because they refused to affirm his gender identity. Court documents and comments from Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) reveal that the removal was actually the result of assault charges filed against the father, Joseph Kutzko.
“Let me be clear about the facts in that matter,” Gov. Healey said speaking to reporters. “First of all, DCF did not remove the child because of a health issue or a gender-affirming care issue. DCF removed the child after there were criminal charges filed against the parents, including the father. As you know, DCF is responsible for the care and well-being of kids, and that’s what happened in this instance.”
The Kutzkos and their lawyer, Vernadette Broyles, have been doing the media circuit and spoke with Fox News’ Christian podcast, Lighthouse Faith and WCVB. They claim that councilors at Algonquin High School had secretly counseled their child on “LGBTQ teachings and topics that conflict with [their] Catholic beliefs.” While the parents say that the DCF took custody of their child because they refused to affirm their son’s gender, they also say that they had never heard of their child wanting to transition before he was taken into custody.
However, court documents located by WBUR reveal the charges of assault and witness intimidation brought against the Kutzkos, both of which targeted their own child.
According to the police report, the day before their son was taken into DCF custody, Joseph Kutzko punched his child “with a closed fist in shoulder area,” and “grabbed the victim by [his] hair numerous times and tugged [him] towards him.” Among other threats and intimidation documented in the report, it was noted that “Joseph raised his balled fist and stated that he wanted to punch the victim” and “Joseph communicated to the victim that he would kill [him] for not singing in tune during a birthday celebration.”
The Kutzko’s child went to the school counsellor the next day, who contacted the police, and Joseph was taken into custody.
Good article but that headline is just bait and it doesn’t need to be.
The title isn’t false. It did get you to click in and read it.
These parents have been hitting the podcast circuit claiming that the state took their kid because they weren’t honoring their kid’s gender identity. The truth is that the state took their kid because the father was physically abusive. Headline is accurate in my opinion.
I think they mean in a world where trans kids are being targeted with violence and suicide that outlets should not be using “you’ll never believe #7” style titles.
There is a responsibility to identify the victim in headlines clearly. The victims in this headline are first as being the parents.
I’m honestly curious how you would have titled this article to reflect the victim in the headline better. To me it seems explanatory, a small synopsis of the story the article is telling. Labelling the abuse as “something darker” is a little click-baity, but it’s not wrong either.
Parents found guilty of abusing their child look to exploit transphobia to continue that abuse.
It’s not fucking hard. It’s still click bait enough and doesn’t portray the parents as a potential victim. They are in no way the victims in this situation. They are playing victims by trying to attach to transphobia. The parents perspective should not be the perspective of the headline.
“Child abuser says they didn’t abuse their child”. Why is the perspective of the abuser the perspective of the headline? See how that makes it obvious?
I was asking sincerely, you don’t need to be so aggressive.
I do not think the parents are victims here to be clear.
Not sure where I was aggressive. But sorry if it came off that way. I don’t think you are. I was trying to make a point about the perspective in which a headline is written. The perspective of “abuser says” is how the headline is written. That’s my problem with it. I never thought you were defending the parents. But I didn’t think you understood why the titles language is problematic and irresponsible.
I’m explaining. I’m not accusing you personally.
I don’t have a stake in this discussion, but personally I thought that
Came off as unnecessarily aggressive due to the f bomb, otherwise it was fine
Noted. It was directed at the outlet making the headlines. “Fuck” is like adding a /s for clarity for me I guess. More a point of emphasis in frustration than anger. But you’re right. I shouldn’t use it so liberally. It can put someone on defensive when Im not intending to even attack them.
The post reads like a frustrated person intending to confront a sealion to me.
Edit for wording: not trying to say anybody was being a sealion, just aware of the miscommunication at play
The story was not at all what I expected. Therefore they’re right 🤷