Ogles urges DOJ to investigate Massachusetts in Kutzko case

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko say they have had no contact with their daughter since early 2025¹.

Townhall reports that Ogles’s letter raised the question of whether Massachusetts officials violated federal law by taking custody of the Kutzkos’ daughter because her parents objected to her gender transition. “Nobody has the right to rip a child away from her parents because they refuse to bow to perverse gender ideology,” Ogles told Townhall².

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko say they have not had any contact with their daughter, now 17, since early 2025, WBUR reports. They also say they have never been given an explanation of why the Department of Children and Families supported a finding of neglect against them³. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for late October in juvenile court, WBUR reports¹. Parents who cannot learn why the state acted against them, and who have not heard their child's voice in more than a year and a half, are owed an answer from someone with the power to demand one.

“Nobody has the right to rip a child away from her parents because they refuse to bow to perverse gender ideology,”

According to Ogles’s letter, DCF later acknowledged that abuse allegations against both parents were “unsupported” before making a new allegation of neglect, Townhall reports. The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor offers an important parental-rights principle, though it concerned a different dispute: parents challenging LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks and the denial of opt-outs were entitled to a preliminary injunction because the policy substantially interfered with children’s religious development. The constitutional question in the Kutzkos’ case is not resolved by MahmoudMahmoud addressed a school’s refusal to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks⁴, but parents should not have to accept silence when public institutions make decisions affecting their child and their faith.

The letter calls the alleged violation more egregious than the ones in Mirabelli or Mahmoud, and Ogles suggests the abuse allegations may have been a pretext for removing the child. The Supreme Court said of its parental-rights precedent that "Yoder embodies a robust principle of general applicability," so a parent's right to direct a child's religious upbringing is not confined to one community⁴. Mahmoud ended with opt-outs from storybooks. The Kutzkos allege a state took their child. That gap is why a criminal investigation, not a curriculum ruling, is the right tool.

1. early 2025The Kutzkos say they have had no contact with their daughter since then
2. December 2025A judge set conditions for Joseph Kutzko

Massachusetts’ education guidance shows why this case reaches beyond one household. It tells school personnel to speak with a student before discussing the student’s transgender status with a parent or guardian⁵.

The guidance directs school personnel to speak with a student first before discussing the student’s gender status with a parent or guardian. The U.S. Department of Education announced an investigation into the Northborough-Southborough district’s compliance with FERPA and PPRA. The department says FERPA governs parental access to education records, while PPRA requires written consent for certain evaluations or surveys on sensitive subjects⁵. Federal investigators now have a concrete policy to examine, and Massachusetts lawmakers should recognize what is at stake: parental authority cannot mean much if a school’s default is to speak to a child about gender status before speaking to the child’s parents.

The district and state dispute the Kutzkos’ account, and the court record contains serious allegations that investigators must weigh. Superintendent Gregory Martineau said the district “aggressively and unequivocally denies” the claims, while Gov. Maura Healey said DCF removed the child after criminal charges were filed against the parents¹.

Court records reported by WBUR say Joseph Kutzko was accused of punching and threatening his then-15-year-old child; he pleaded not guilty. Arlene Kutzko was charged with witness intimidation for allegedly pressuring the child to tell the school the child was exaggerating. In December 2025, a judge set conditions for Joseph Kutzko that included anger management, staying away from his child and obeying a restraining order; Arlene Kutzko also agreed to stay away and obey a restraining order. Those facts matter, but they do not answer the separate questions about school policy, parental notice or whether officials acted lawfully¹. A fair investigation must examine the court record and the state’s decisions together. A district denial cannot settle what its guidance permits or whether the federal privacy laws were followed.

Blanche should investigate the questions Ogles has put before him, and the Education Department should complete its review of the district’s compliance with federal privacy law. Massachusetts lawmakers should require schools to notify parents when a child’s gender status changes at school, rather than letting guidance place parents last².

The date to watch is the late-October juvenile court hearing, where attorney Vernadette Broyles says a judge has paused the DCF plan until then, the Boston Globe reports³. Parents should hold the Education Department to the promise Frank Miller made: "Families deserve answers and SPPO will thoroughly investigate reports like this and hold any educational institution that violates federal law accountable⁵."

Sources

1. Mass. parents' story about child's gender transition complicated by court records | WBUR News
2. Andy Ogles Leads GOP's Call for Investigation Into Transitioning of Child Without Parents’ Consent
3. How a Mass. family's DCF case prompted a federal school probe
4. MAHMOUD v. TAYLOR | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
5. ARHS under investigation by Trump Administration's Dept of Ed - My Southborough