Interview: Mara Silvers on Covering a Child Welfare Story That Became Far-Right Outrage Fodder

The story of a trans boy from Montana whose non-affirming parents accused the state of “kidnapping” spawned a wave of misinformation about gender-affirming care and how the child welfare system operates. Mara Silvers is attempting to correct the record.

by Evan Urquhart

Here are the basics: A trans boy in Montana was seen at the emergency room for a potential suicide attempt, and eventually removed by child protective services from his conservative parents. Yesterday, Assigned Media covered the parents’ version of events as relayed to the anti-trans site Reduxx. The Montana Free Press subsequently provided in-depth reporting, confirming the outlines of the story while calling out right-wing distortions and misinformation.

Today we have an interview with the MTFP reporter, Mara Silvers. She explained how she’d begun reporting on this story months before it made national headlines, allowing her to publish her timely, sensitive reporting as it hit conservative media.

Assigned Media: First, why don’t you tell me a little bit about the Montana Free Press and what you typically cover in your work as a reporter there.

Mara Silvers: The Montana Free Press is a non-profit, independent, statewide news outlet that focuses on policy and on bringing information about state governance to our communities.

I cover health and human services, which can be a really broad beat. Over the last few years I’ve covered abortion rights and legal restrictions on it, as well as Medicaid, foster care, behavioral health and addiction in Montana, and sometimes also LGBTQ policy debates in Helena, which is something we’ve seen more of in the past couple years.

screenshot from the Montana Free Press website

AM: I read your story about a child welfare case where a transgender boy and his conservative parents became involved with child welfare services. When did you first become aware of the story, and how did you approach it?

MS: So, we first heard about this story back in October. We actually heard about it from another local media outlet, that there was a trans teen who had been removed from their family in a town called Glasgow in Montana by state child protection services. My mind immediately went to cases in other states where states have pursued separation when the parents are affirming or when parents are providing medical services to their kids.

But, when I connected with the parents in this case, Todd and Krista, I found that this was kind of the opposite. My understanding is that the parents didn’t agree with the child’s gender identity, and the state took them when they were experiencing psychological distress.

AM: I was kind of amazed at all the information that you were able to get, just knowing a little bit about how child welfare systems operate.

MS: Yeah, we hear a lot about child abuse and child welfare services, but these cases generally depend a lot on very specific documentation, which is very difficult to get because those documents are very locked down for confidentiality purposes.

For this story, I spoke with the parents, Todd and Krista, and they sent me a lot of information, and then we kept in close touch as their case developed. This really helped to shine a light on how the state was approaching this case. It showed me that, in the documentation I have seen, the state was not really focused on providing gender-affirming treatment for the child. The state was not trying to focus on their identity but was trying to get them treatment for their suicidal thoughts and tendencies.

AM: The far right has been spreading a lot of misinformation around this story, both on social media and in media that caters to that audience. I really appreciated your story because one frustration I often feel, particularly in stories involving children, is that the right will put out misinformation and there won’t be any responsible reporting out there. Did correcting misinformation play into any of your decisions, either about what to write or when to publish?

screenshot from Concerned Patriot

MS: Yeah, well, clearly we’ve been sitting on this story for a long time, and I’ve been pretty straightforward with Todd and Krista, who I’ve really appreciated getting to speak with because there’s often no way to get information on these kinds of cases, about why we couldn’t go forward with the story earlier.

In Montana, once a child in foster care passes the age of 12 they get a higher status in the court proceedings, and more of a focus on what they want. So, I felt the age of this child at least made me want to try to pursue an interview and a conversation with them, and I just told Todd and Krista that we couldn’t run with the story without pursuing their child’s perspective.

The situation really changed in January, when they posted a video about their perspective about the case, and that video really caught fire on social media and in Montana, and people started contacting their legislators and the governor about it. 

I realized that the case was starting to pick up steam and was about to catch more attention and within what felt like very few days the case had attracted the attention of more national news and so many more people on social media. When that happened, our calculation of whether to write about this did change. Mostly it changed when Montana Governor Greg Gianforte responded to all this in a thread on X [Twitter]. That's when we decided that a piece that shed light on what we knew and were able to find out about the case would be important and timely.

AM: One thing I’ve noticed is that ignorance of how the child welfare system works has played a big role in the misinformation around this story. Speaking very generally, not about this case’s specifics, can you explain how child protective services would approach a situation where a child was insisting they’d harm themselves if they were returned to their parents, not necessarily to do with a dispute over gender identity?

MS: Like I said, it’s so hard to know the nuances and the ins and outs of child protection cases, because we don’t have access to the documents about the cases. What I can say is that Montana cases often talk about these different tiered reports about child abuse and neglect, so there’s different levels of seriousness in how they treat the case. So, a child who was suicidal or considering self harm, that would trigger a fast response and a level of concern from the department.

When child protective workers are evaluating a case, they’re looking at whether there’s abuse or neglect, or whether there’s a substantial risk of abuse or neglect in the future. Sometimes the child is going through something that's not directly attributed to the parents, and CPS is trying to establish communication and collaboration with the family to work with them to treat that child.

screenshot from the Daily Caller

AM: I think what I was going for was, basically, that child services are looking at the safety of the child and whether the child will be safe at home, not necessarily who’s right or wrong or whether they agree with the parents’ side or the child’s side of things. Is that right?

MS: Yeah, I think that’s right. In this case, specifically, when I read through the affidavit the focus is on those two points: The mental stability of the minor in this case, and the ability or lack thereof to work with the parents towards that same goal, which is stabilizing a child in psychiatric distress.

AM: Is there anything else you think is a widespread misunderstanding around this story that you’re hoping to clear up with your reporting?

MS: One more thing, that I think is important to understand, was about the law [prohibiting] gender-affirming care for trans minors. That law was passed and signed by the Republican governor, Gianforte, in 2023, but it did not have an effective date until October 1st of 2023. So, that law was never even scheduled to go into effect until October 1st. And, the entire legal proceeding happened at the end of September, before the October 1st effective date. So that law, while on the books and passed, has never been in effect during these proceedings. 

[The law was also blocked from taking effect by a court ruling.]

That’s something a lot of people don’t understand. Once a bill is passed, people think that it’s immediately effective, but that is not always the case, and in this case the law has never been effective.

AM: And would you say that, among the people who have been confused about whether the law was in effect or not, that this includes the parents, Todd and Krista?

MS: That’s certainly my understanding. They indicated to me, and have continued to indicate, that their stance on this issue is to closely guard any procedures for gender-affirmation. And they don’t feel their views are out of step with Montana, or with the laws that have been passed.

Families like them felt represented and emboldened in their perspective by the laws that passed. I can understand why it’s hard to figure out the details in that situation.

AM: Right, but, just to be clear, while gender-affirming care wouldn’t have been against the law in Montana during this time, this child hasn’t actually undergone any sort of medical gender transition?

MS: We have no evidence of that. There is nothing in the record that I’ve seen that gives any evidence of that.

AM: To wrap up, for the time I’ve been doing Assigned Media, I’ve come to really value organizations like the Montana Free Press that are committed to bedrock journalistic principles in Republican-dominated states, because often partisan outlets pushing misinformation can really come to dominate the ecosystem in these places.

Why don’t you tell me in your own words why the work you and your colleagues at Montana Free Press is important, and what people can do to support it.

MS: I think first and foremost we really appreciate people, whether they live in Montana or not, just reading our work and sharing it and making it available.

I think the other thing that matters to me is just people getting to know us, know our work, and know us as journalists. When things are highly polarized, not just LGBTQ issues but wolf management, zoning issues, anything, we want readers to understand how we go about reporting on those things and how we try to seek comment and speak to people on all sides of the issues. Doing this work requires a lot of trust from people.

My editors would also kill me if I don’t mention that we also appreciate people financially supporting our work. We have donors who donate $5 or $10 a month, and we have people donating thousands. Something we say is that our journalism is free to consume, but it's not free to produce and we always appreciate people showing that they value us through financial support.

This interview was condensed and lightly edited.