Religious Discrimination in Foster Care Agencies

Back in 2014, Aimee Maddonna was turned away from a foster care agency in Greenville, South Carolina because of her Catholic faith. Miracle Hill Ministries, the state’s largest taxpayer-funded foster care agency, happens to only accept Protestant Christians to serve as volunteers and mentors. The agency states that the applicants must agree that the Bible is “the only… authoritative Word of God,” dismissing Catholics, Jews, and other applicants who do not base their beliefs solely on the Bible. Maddonna recalled that Miracle Hill said her family was a perfect fit for foster children, and that the final step of the application process was to give the name of her church as a reference. When she had done so, she was denied the right to volunteer for the agency. 

Rather than stopping Miracle Hill from continuing this practice, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster and the Trump Administration gave their approval for government-funded religious discrimination. In early 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services established state regulations that ensure government-funded agencies like Miracle Hill do not deny services to the public on the basis of religion. However, in February 2018, McMaster requested the Trump Administration provide a religious exemption from this regulation so that taxpayer-funded foster care agencies in South Carolina could deny the right to volunteer on the basis of religion without losing their funding. Before receiving a response, McMaster issued an executive order to permit such religious preference in foster care agencies.

Then, in January 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a policy allowing all government-funded foster care agencies in South Carolina to explicitly reject potential volunteers whom they deem practice the “wrong” religion. The Trump Administration cites the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as justification for passing this policy. RFRA claims “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” If the government does place a substantial burden on a belief, the government must provide a compelling state interest for doing so, as well as prove that the government pursued its actions in the least burdensome way.

On February 15, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed Maddonna v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina, to reverse this policy of religious discrimination using taxpayer dollars. This begs the question: would requiring the foster care agency to act against its religious convictions violate its right to free exercise?

Although this is a controversial situation, I believe that the foster care agency should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. After all, Miracle Hill is funded by taxpayers, and so it seems reasonable that the taxpayers should be able to volunteer at Miracle Hill at their free will, with no restrictions. If this agency was privately funded and all the children preferred to be housed by Protestant Christians, then this would be justifiable religious discrimination. However, it is in the children’s best interest if the foster care agency is not allowed to exercise such religious discrimination. Relating to Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, there are many levels to this debate, but child well-being should be at the forefront of the argument.

To counteract my viewpoint, Miracle Hill told local press that they refer applicants who are not accepted at Miracle Hill to other agencies that will place children with their families. While this seems to solve the issue of child safety, it still causes societal problems. As the largest provider in the state, this means the denied applicants will need to travel farther from home or deal with the state Department of Social Services in order to help these children. These additional restrictions may decrease the number of potential foster parents within the state.

Lastly, I do not agree with the Trump administration’s interpretation of RFRA. I believe that the policy enacted places more of a burden on society than a policy eliminating such religious discrimination. The argument can be made that placing a burden on the free exercise of the agency is necessary for dealing with the compelling state interest of child safety and the growing number of foster children.

Based on the policy that is already in place, I believe that the court will end up siding with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In a similar case this year, two foster mothers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the right of a Philadelphia Catholic foster care agency to have a contract with the city without having to house children with same-sex couples. Although a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Easter District of Pennsylvania ruled against Catholic Social Services, this situation is different because South Carolina already has a policy in place that is supported by higher administration.