If you needed another reason to pull your children out of public school and homeschool them, look no further than a recent court case in the state of Indiana. An appeals court just ruled that Indiana parents cannot retain custody of their child because they refused to affirm the child’s “gender identity,” which, they say, led to an eating disorder.

The Post Millennial reports:

A family case manager (FCM) investigated the matter, meeting with the parents, child, and siblings, and speaking with a representative from the child’s residential school.

A preliminary inquiry report (PIR) from the FCM revealed that both the mother and child said that the child had been suffering from an eating disorder during the following year, and that the child had yet to be evaluated by a medical professional.

The report also stated that the parents had withdrawn the child from school and had not indicated that they were going to reenroll in a new school, the child had been in therapy but the parents had discontinued it, and the “Child did not feel mentally and/or emotionally safe in the home.”

“Mother said things such as “[Child’s preferred name] is the bitch that killed my son”; and Child “would be more likely to have thoughts of self-harm and suicide if [Child] were to return to the family home due to mental and emotional abuse,” the report stated.

According to court documents, the DCS received reports that the mother had been “verbally and emotionally abusing then-sixteen-year-old Child by using rude and demeaning language toward Child regarding Child’s transgender identity, and as a result, Child had thoughts of self-harm…because they do not accept Child’s transgender identity.”

Arguing that if the child remained in custody with the parents who refused to affirm the child’s “gender identity,” it would lead to self-harm. Therefore, the courts found that instead of treating the child’s mental illness and rebellious behavior, the parents would be punished for operating from a place of sound logic and reason.

Therefore, the court concluded that the “Child’s continued removal is not contrary to the CHINS-6 statute and is supported by sufficient evidence that it is in Child’s best interest,” and that the “Child’s continued removal from the home does not violate the Parents’ constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of Child or to their rights to the free exercise of religion.”

“The Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs, but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to Child,” the opinion of the court reads.