In July of 2024 a Washington woman by the name Shannon McIntire applied to become a foster parent. Following this application was a nearly year-long journey through the state of Washington's "Department of Children, Youth, and Families," also known as "DCYF," and their specific licensing process. This process in summary included home visits, interviews, negotiation, and ultimately two separate denials.
In January of 2025, Ms. McIntire was denied the first time. This denial was centered on the fact that Ms. McIntire refused to affirm or support a child's sexual orientation and gender identity, known commonly under the acronym "SOGIE" which officially stands for "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Expression." This refusal to affirm and support directly goes against state regulation. Ms. McIntire also told caseworkers that she would not decide to recognize a child's preferred pronouns, and that she would not accompany the child to buy clothing that would attempt to express transitioning between genders. Throughout negotiations, one DCYF worker asked Ms. McIntire why she couldn't just comply in order to make the child happy at the very least, and Ms. McIntire continued to object to compliance.
It was at this time that McIntire requested a religious exemption from needing to comply with state regulations regarding SOGIE. DCYF also denied her exemption. They concluded that if Ms. McIntire were granted a religious exemption that placement of a foster child in her home “would cause harm to a child who identified as part of the LGBTQ+ community, or who identified as a member of a religion other than mainstream Christianity."
DCYF cited three main reasons why her original application to become a foster parent were denied. They cited her SOGIE positions, her unwillingness to affirm a foster child's religious beliefs if they happen to be different than her own, and also the condition of her home. McIntire rejects SOGIE. She also states that she would not refrain from admitting that she believed her religion is THE "truth," and that she would not keep this belief about exclusivity hidden from a foster child who might believe differently. Finally, on the topic of the condition of her home, it was noted by caseworkers who were doing house visits that there were cluttered countertops, unwashed dishes, large quantities of pet hair, and on one visit, an "extremely offensive smell" which no one could quite identify. When it comes to the issue of home conditions, McIntire had recognized the issues, taken steps toward improving the conditions, and was having DCYF work with her on these improvements rather than disqualify her. It was noted that DCYF had officially agreed to this arrangement.
The religious portion of the case got more complicated in May of 2026. Another judge within the same federal district made a ruling in a separate but related case (DeGross v. Hunter) which ordered DCYF to rewrite its SOGIE licensing rule in its entirety. The pronoun mandate was stripped away and this gave foster parents like Ms. McIntire a lot more flexibility. While this portion of her application denial may have been nullified, Ms. McIntire's claims about religion hadn't gone anywhere. She alleges that DCYF "punished" her for saying that her Christian beliefs are true and refusing to tell a foster child that a different faith was ok, even though she confirms that she would transport a child to religious services of an alternative faith as well as support their spiritual practices in every practical sense.
With all that being said, the main constitutional question at stake in this case is whether or not a state can require a foster parent to affirm beliefs she doesn't hold, or stay silent about the ones she does, as the price of caring for a child. Should Ms. McIntire's foster parent application be denied simply because she refuses to subscribe to the belief that all religions can be equally true? The bottom line question is "Does the denial of Ms. McIntire's foster parent license application violate her Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution?"
In order to analyze the constitutionality of this situation, we must ask a few questions. This is where we can apply the Sherbert Test. The test dealing with issues of sincerity, substantial burden, compelling interest, and restrictiveness of means make this situation a lot more clear for our analysis.
When it comes to sincerity, McIntire's beliefs are indisputable. She wholeheartedly holds Christian beliefs about truth, gender, and sexuality and has been consistent about these beliefs all throughout her licensing process with DCYF. Her objection is not tactical. Ms. McIntire offered to serve any child of any background, even backgrounds that differ from her own. She even offered transportation to religious services of other faiths. She simply wants to decline affirmatively acknowledging that beliefs contrary to her own are "true" or "okay," because she believes they are SINCERELY wrong.
On the topic of a "substantial burden," I feel there definitely is one. DCYF did not only inconvenience Ms. McIntire, it actually went as far as basing an entire government license on her willingness to either go against what she believes or withhold her beliefs about the topic. Because she was unwilling to compromise her beliefs, DCYF was unwilling to allow her to be a foster parent. This portion of the test highly favors Ms. McIntire's case.
When it comes to the compelling state interest in the matter, I do feel that there is one, and this lies in DCYF's favor. The compelling state interest in the specific case of DCYF is maintaining the religious and psychological welfare of foster children, specifically children who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.
The question then becomes whether or not DCYF and the state of Washington have taken the least restrictive path in order to address the situation. It was addressed by the judge that DCYF seemed to have acted a little too broadly. Instead of denying Ms. McIntire's application altogether, DCYF could have chosen selective placement, allowing Ms. McIntire the opportunity to become a foster parent as she desired, and making sure no child placed with her would be in any potential harm simply by placing children with Ms. McIntire who shared in her religious and moral convictions. This is one example of a less restrictive or discriminatory way to have addressed the matter.
After applying the test and looking at all the information, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. McIntire's application was wrongfully denied. I feel as though Shannon McIntire has been discriminated against and denied opportunities simply because of her beliefs. I am not wholly convinced by the "compelling" state interest. I would argue that Ms. McIntire was cooperating and taking necessary steps to ensure that any child, no matter their identity, would feel safe and cared for in her home. This cooperation can be seen through the fact that she was willing to provide transportation to religious services and have an open conversation when asked about the topic of religion or her values in an honest and straightforward manner. I am not convinced after looking at the facts of the case that DCYF has not discriminated against Ms. McIntire based on her religious beliefs, and therefore violated her First Amendment rights. It is for this reason that I believe that Shannon McIntire should not have had her application denied by DCYF.
===========================================================================
Sources:
