This portal collects input from people with direct experience in the foster care system, child welfare professionals, LGBTQI+ families and caregivers, and organizations working in this space. The submissions we receive will directly inform our comment letter — supplying the human experience, professional evidence, and data that give legal and policy arguments their force.

Your submission will not appear verbatim in the filed comment. Instead, it will shape our analysis, and — with your consent — your words may be quoted anonymously in the letter. Family Equality retains editorial discretion over the final document.

We oppose this rescission — and our reasons go further than simply defending the rule that was struck down. Family Equality led a coalition that commented on this rule when it was first proposed in 2023. At that time, we argued the rule did not go far enough. That position has not changed.
Our comment will argue three things:
The federal legal obligation to protect children in foster care survives the court ruling that invalidated one specific regulatory mechanism. The agency must identify a durable legal vehicle to fulfill that obligation — rescinding the rule without attempting a replacement is a policy choice, not a legal requirement.
Every other identified group of children in the federal foster care system has explicit regulatory protections from placement harm based on who they are. LGBTQI+ youth had no such protection for the entire history of federal foster care. The 2024 rule gave them what every other group already had: an explicit federal floor. The rescission removes that floor, returning LGBTQI+ youth to being the only group of children in federal custody for whom the government has declared no limit on the harm it will accept.
ACF must issue interim sub-regulatory guidance immediately — so that children in foster care are no longer left entirely unprotected during the gap between the court’s vacatur and any replacement rulemaking. A regulatory vacuum is not a neutral outcome. Children are in placement right now.
Download our full organizing document for the complete framing.

Three concrete federal protections disappear the moment this rescission takes effect.

The only federal prohibition on conversion therapy. The rescinded rule barred placement with providers who practice conversion therapy. Without it, there is no federal floor preventing a child in foster care from being placed with a provider whose explicit practice is to change who that child is. Our letter will demand this be restored as a condition of placement, not a preference.

The only federal protections for transgender and intersex youth in congregate care. Without these protections, a transgender girl can be placed in a boys’ residential facility with no federal accountability.

The federal obligation to recruit and retain affirming families. LGBTQI+-affirming families are an underused, well-matched resource for LGBTQI+ youth — who are among the hardest for the system to place permanently. Our letter will argue that this rescission damages not only where these children are placed today, but whether they ever find permanent families at all.

No — these are two different things, and they are not mutually exclusive.

When you submit through this portal, your input is received confidentially by Family Equality and used to strengthen our consolidated comment letter. Your name will not appear on the public federal docket.

If you wish to file a comment directly in your own name, you may do so at the Federal Register website (docket ACF-2026-0002). Be aware that comments filed directly are permanently publicly accessible, including their full text. You are welcome to do both.

Three types of input directly strengthen our comment letter:

• Personal stories from LGBTQI+ youth, families, and caregivers with direct experience in the foster care system — including experiences of conversion therapy referral, congregate care placement, identity-based rejection, or placement instability. These give human specificity to our legal and policy arguments.
• Professional observations from foster care providers, caseworkers, child welfare attorneys, and social workers about what happens in practice when there is no clear federal standard of protection.
• Data, research, and policy analysis from organizations — particularly state-level data on whether protective frameworks exist and whether they are enforced.

You do not need a dramatic or extreme story for your contribution to matter. If you are not sure whether your experience is relevant, share it anyway — we will determine how it is most useful.

No. Your personal experience or direct professional observation is just as valuable as formal research. You do not need to frame your contribution as a policy argument — that is our job. Simply describe what you have seen, experienced, or know to be true in your work or your life. We will connect your contribution to the legal and policy framework.

Your submission will inform and substantiate our legal and policy analysis. It will not be reproduced verbatim in the filed comment.

If you consent to direct quotation, an anonymized version of your words may appear in the letter — but all identifying details will be removed before anything is included in the public record. We retain sole editorial discretion over the final letter.

What your submission does do: it tells us the scale of concern across states and populations, supplies the evidence base for our documented harm argument, and ensures that the voices of people most affected by this rescission are present in the administrative record — without exposing anyone’s identity.

Your name, contact information, and any detail identifying a specific child or family member will never appear on the public federal docket. Submissions to this portal are stored securely in Family Equality’s internal systems and are not shared outside the comment drafting process.

Your submission will be reviewed by Family Equality staff. If your response raises legal or sensitivity concerns, it will be flagged for senior review before any use.

Please do not include the full name of any child or young person, or the specific name of a foster home or placement facility if you are describing a negative experience — describe it generally instead (for example: “a group home in rural [state]”).

It depends on how you are submitting.

Required — foster care professionals and organizational representatives. We need to be able to verify and follow up on professional and organizational submissions before the letter is filed.

Optional — individuals with lived experience and families. We recognize that some of the people whose voices matter most in this letter may not have stable contact information or may have concerns about providing it. Providing your email allows us to confirm receipt and send you a link to the filed comment — but it is not required for your submission to be used.

Once our comment letter is filed on April 6, we will send everyone who submitted through this portal a link to the final comment so you can see how your contribution shaped it.

You may edit your submission at any time before March 28 using the link in your confirmation email. After that date submissions are locked for review. Questions in the meantime? Email us.

What the court held — and did not hold. 

ACF’s rule was vacated by the Eastern District of Texas in June 2025 for relying on the wrong Title IV-E authority — not because no federal obligation exists or replacement rulemaking is foreclosed. The court did not hold that Congress prohibited agency action in this space or that leaving LGBTQI+ children unprotected is legally required. The administration’s decision not to pursue replacement is a policy choice, not a conclusion the court compelled. State of Texas v. HHS, 770 F. Supp. 3d 940 (E.D. Tex. 2025).

The replacement path. 

The Texas ruling forecloses one vehicle — not the agency’s obligation. Our 2023 coalition comment identified Section 1302(a) of the Social Security Act as one well-supported alternative, undisturbed by the ruling and satisfying the D.C. Circuit’s nexus standard. We present this as evidence a durable path exists; identifying the appropriate vehicle is ACF’s obligation to fulfill. Merck & Co. v. HHS, 962 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

The constitutional floor.

When the state removes a child from their home, settled constitutional law imposes an affirmative duty of care. The federal government’s role is to use its authority over the Title IV-E and IV-B programs to ensure the state-run, federally-funded system meets that baseline. Within that framework, Congress and HHS have recognized that certain groups of children require explicit federal attention — Native children through ICWA, children with disabilities through Section 504 as applied to Title IV-E programs. The 2024 rule extended that recognition to LGBTQI+ youth for the first time. The proposed rescission withdraws it, making LGBTQI+ youth the only group that has had explicit federal recognition within this system and then had it removed. That differential treatment, in the face of a substantial evidentiary record of harm, requires justification ACF has not provided — and we argue it triggers heightened equal protection scrutiny. These obligations persist regardless of which statutory vehicle the agency uses. DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty., 489 U.S. 189 (1989); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982).

RFRA — the correct analysis. 

RFRA requires case-by-case analysis of substantial burden, compelling interest, and least restrictive means — it does not authorize blanket exemptions from child welfare requirements. ACF cannot use RFRA to justify rescission without replacement while its own enforcement record shows blanket exemptions are overbroad and improperly applied. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005).

If your organization would like to be acknowledged by name in the letter as a contributing organization, you can indicate that in the intake form. Named acknowledgment means your organization’s name appears in the letter’s introduction with a statement such as: “This comment reflects the support of advocacy organizations in X states, including [named organizations].”

Named acknowledgment does not make your organization a co-author. You will not review or approve the final letter before it is filed, and you are not endorsing every specific argument Family Equality makes. You are indicating that your organization supports opposition to this rescission and is willing to be associated with this effort publicly.

If you have questions about our framing before deciding, please download our position statement or contact us. 

Yes. The intake form asks you to confirm that you have the authority to submit on your organization’s behalf. This is a required acknowledgment, not a formality. If you are not sure whether you have that authority, please check with your executive director or leadership before submitting.

If you are a staff member who wants to flag your organization’s interest but does not have sign-on authority, the best path is to share this portal and our position statement with the person in your organization who does. We are happy to speak directly with your leadership if that would help — contact us.

Yes. Named organizations will receive the near-final draft of the comment letter by April 1 with a 24-hour window — until April 2 at 5pm ET — to confirm continued participation or withdraw if you have concerns. This is a withdrawal window —  not a request for approval. Family Equality retains sole editorial discretion over the final letter. To withdraw, simply reply to the circulation email and your organization’s name will be removed before filing. Silence after the window closes will be treated as confirmation that you wish to proceed.

This is one reason a valid email address is required for all organizational submissions. If we cannot reach you before filing, we cannot guarantee your organization’s name will be included.

Yes. Named acknowledgment is an entirely separate, optional decision. You can submit organizational input — state-level data, policy observations, a formal statement of support — without having your organization’s name appear anywhere in the filed comment. Your input will still strengthen our analysis.

If your organization has produced research, tracked state legislation, or compiled data relevant to LGBTQI+ youth in foster care, you are welcome to email it directly to us with a citation rather than submitting through the portal form.