In recent days, national media have picked up on claims publicly made by a Southborough couple against the state and Algonquin Regional High School. Last night, the district superintendent issued a statement rebutting some of the allegations.
The school can’t speak on specifics related to the case involving a former student (who is a minor). But it does refer to legal requirements to report abuse. And other reporting reveals that the student reported alleged physical abuse to a staff member.
The couple’s attorney Vernadette Broyles, (president and general counsel of the Child and Parental Rights Campaign) has has acknowledged that accusations of both physical and sexual abuse were made against the father. But she asserts that DCF and the juvenile court later found the claims to be unfounded.
Several headlines and stories have focused on the battle between the Catholic parents and DCF over their legal battle to stop DCF (Dept of Children & Families) from medically transitioning their child to a different gender. The parents have publicly claimed their child is being kept from them based on their religious beliefs.
Some story leads have insinuated that the school’s reporting of abuse, and DCF taking custody of the child, was based on the trans gender issue. A WCVB report clarifies the 15 year old (now 17) was initially removed by DCF in December 2024 after the teen allegedly reported physical abuse to an ARHS counselor and reported feeling unsafe.
An article by the Boston Herald adds:
Broyles went on to explain that those charges were also brought against the Kutzkos in criminal court, which resulted in no finding of guilt in December 2025 after they reached a non-guilty disposition with prosecutors. Broyles says the Kutzkos reached this agreement after their legal fees exceeded $150,000, resulting in a pre-trial probation. She says the probation set on the Kutzkos will be lifted after one year as long as they commit no crimes during that period.
Finally, Broyles says a restraining order still stands against the parents after an unidentified adult allegedly assisted Sophie in obtaining a restraining order against them after she had been in state custody for nearly a year.
In a “Lighthouse Faith” podcast interview, Joseph and Arlene Kutzko and Broyles accused the high school of secretly transitioning their child. That included that their child was secretly meeting with a school counselor. Broyles said that unbeknownst to the parents, the child “had begun to reject her sex” and the school had begun to use male/non-binary pronouns and hold secret counseling sessions they suspect were “to affirm this rejection of her sex”.
Despite later acknowledging in the interview that there were claims of abuse, Broyles claimed that the school counselor:
reported this family to DCF, we understand because they knew this Catholic family would not affirm the falsehood that their daughter was a boy
The podcast was posted by FoxNews Radio on Sunday. The story spread from there.
[Editor’s Note: The name of the teen in this case has been reported in the parents’ interviews and some media reports. But because the child is a minor who hasn’t issued public statements, I won’t include that.]
Yesterday, I reached out to Principal Sean Bevan and Superintendent Gregory Martineau. I understood the legal requirement to report abuse and that they wouldn’t be able to speak to the specifics involving a student. But, referring to the other claim about the secret transitioning counseling, I asked about the school’s policy on the issue:
Is there a written policy (or guidance that the school follows from the state) about how the school handles it when a student over the age of 14 chooses to use a different gender identity at school but asks to not inform their parents?
As I noted in my message, I tried looking in the Regional School Committee’s policies and the ARHS’ Student Handbook. I couldn’t find a policy that clearly related to that topic.
I haven’t gotten a response. I did get the public statement issued by the school from Martineau. It does not clarify on that topic. However, it vigorously denies “baseless” claims made. Below is his full statement.
“We are aware of the claims being circulated by two individuals whose child formerly attended one of our schools in 2023. The district unequivocally denies the claims made about the school district in a recent national media podcast as not merely baseless but grossly insensitive, intrusive and dangerous toward the child who was named in the media report.
“Even a cursory glance at the state mandatory reporting guidelines for all school employees should cast wide doubt on the claims made in the national podcast as having absolutely no basis in reality.
“Speaking generally about our policies and procedures, public school educators are mandated reporters. A specific set of criteria governs this. According to the Commonwealth’s own published materials, mandated reporters must make a report to the Department of Children and Families if “they have reasonable cause to believe that a child under the age of 18 years is suffering from abuse,” and they must notify local law enforcement about injury, abuse or neglect.
“The Public Schools of Northborough and Southborough believe that all children should be educated in an environment where they are safe, supported, engaged, and challenged. That belief guides the work we do every day and the decisions we make on behalf of our students.
“We are not at liberty to comment directly on anything concerning any student’s health and privacy. Public school districts are bound by federal and state law and education policy when it comes to student health, security and privacy matters. In all such cases, we conduct ourselves appropriately, within the letter and spirit of the law, and with the child’s needs and safety above all other concerns.
“The safety, security, and well-being of our students are always our highest priorities.
“Once again, our school district aggressively and unequivocally denies the claims made by the two individuals.”
As for the parent’s legal battle with DCF over the medical transitioning of their child, according to WCVB‘s reporting on its interview with Broyles yesterday, the parents prevailed on that front:
a juvenile court ordered DCF to stop.
“The court is not going to allow giving testosterone, because DCF took the position that giving testosterone at high doses to a female is ‘ordinary care,'” Broyles said.
The first amendment piece of this case is critical. Don’t know why ANY counselor, H.S. policy, state policy / government role — thinks they can act in secret — that is absolutely nuts — and these parents had no idea. (I know of another family going through the same thing with their minor child.)
After exorbitant court costs yielding no abuse finding, these parents are left scratching their heads. This seems like a HUGE government overreach in policy.
Again, the allegations of abuse did not hold up in court — and that’s a very big problem for those involved, i.e. accusers, counselors, those in charge. They should be absolutely sued individually and held accountable for their role in this matter. All of them.
There is no qualified immunity for acting in secret from those legal guardian parents. Moreover, there is allegedly no written policies at Algonquin. Absolutely sue every one of those parties involved individually to hold them accountable.
It is almost irrelevant how the minor and parents feel about transitioning; it seems that the parents First Amendment rights were trodden roughshod by Algonquin High School and those who played a first hand role in possibly defamatory actions, criminal arrest? seriously? that lacked evidence to hold up in court and failed in court. Importantly, there is NO qualified immunity for unreasonable, unproven allegations, not held up in court. Sue those involved personally to the extent possible to hold them accountable.
And all parents should be aware and alerted to this case. See the following link to today’s headline and article in the Boston Herald for Healey’s role in this matter and the opposing comments on her unclear, misleading pretextual claims referencing abuse that did not hold up in court.
Generally speaking, what about any parent refuting or refusing to cave in to the demands of a minor? All parents should weigh in on the state’s involvement with its policies regarding sexuality of their own children, with Algonquin, its leadership, the town, and the state.
Healey says criminal charges, not gender transition, reason for DCF taking teen in high profile case
Thank you.
PS – just because a parent doesn’t agree to succumb to their minor child’s demands or wishes to be called whatever does not in and of itself constitute some form of abuse.
When that minor turns 18, they can move out and call themselves whatever they want, and rightfully so.
But in the meantime, any state policy calling for a minor to be removed from a home because the parents do not agree with a transition or pronouns is called egregious BLACKMAIL, not abuse.
Thank you.
The child was taken into custody because of allegations of physical abuse. I don’t understand the concept of suing school officials or police for taking abuse claims seriously. In fact, the community would be up in arms if we learned that a child claimed to be abused and officials dismissed the claims, assuming them to be untrue.
And subsequently the teen sought and received a restraining order from the parents. I didn’t see anything backing the claim that the state’s policy is to remove a minor from “a home because the parents do not agree with a transition or pronouns”.
Your summary is misstated. The allegations of abuse were investigated and formally determined to be unfounded, according to the many sources below and in a court of law. That’s it. The persons / state / school officials / others who played a role in furthering unfounded claims should be absolutely be sued and held accountable, i.e. they can and should be sued individually.
Generally speaking, it is possible, there is a path, to uncover whether or not any person who played a role has exaggerated, is lying, or has falsified “reports” at any step in this sad situation. What (??) you say, someone embellished or lied in a “report?” Yes. It happens all the time. Ask any good attorney. At the state level, there are cases of successfully inquiring, investigating, and suing the state for falsification of records in guardianship cases. And yes, those bad apples can and should be sued.
Please see the following: A search on this case and the unfounded claims are as follows:
“In the Joseph and Arlene Kutzko case out of the Northborough-Southborough school district, the criminal allegations of physical abuse did not hold up in court primarily because they were deemed unfounded by investigators and resolved through a non-guilty legal agreement. [1, 2]
The specific details behind why the criminal charges did not lead to a conviction include:
Current Status of the Case
Despite the criminal physical abuse allegations being cleared, the teenager remains in state custody. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and school officials have maintained that the initial intervention was triggered by the presentation of those criminal allegations and safety concerns rather than a dispute over gender-affirming care. [1, 2, 3]”
It appears that this is more of an issue between the State and the family. Although I am hesitant to speculate, if the student told the counselor that she was in danger, then the counselor had to report it. If the parents were having a difficult time because they did not want their child to transition, but the child was adament about doing so, why would anyone be surprised if the counselor was told that she was in danger at home? The kid almost won the battle and thankfully (apparently) a judge stepped in and halted the testosterone!
The allegation that the school socially transitioned their child appears ludicrous. But perhaps facts will be revealed as evidence.
The entire situation is painful and difficult.
Not ludicrous per the parents (see below) “The Kutzkos allege that an Algonquin Regional High School counselor secretly initiated their daughter’s social transition . . .” NOT OK, if true. Are you OK with a school playing any role in transitioning a minor child? or locals or the state involvement in your child’s sexuality??
Importantly, State Rep. John Gaskey has filed legislation that he says will “protect parents.” He is quoted in today’s Herald stating, “No parent should be going through this”. . .and. . “There’s absolutely no reason why DCF should not have immediately returned that child. . .back to her parents already. . .” Bill H.4542 would amend current state law to require health care providers to engage with parents of anyone under the age of 18 seeking transition.
All parents should be concerned and weigh in locally, with Algonquin, and the state, as to whether or not ANY person (outside the parents) should be involved with secretly affirming the sexuality and / or transitioning the sexuality of a minor without the parents’ knowledge.
This was a 15 year old child!! Ridiculous? Another parent who went through a similar experience states: “it was a matter of time. They’ve been letting kids “identify” as other things and affirming them . . .without involving parents. . .”
How about that? The allegations failed in court and cost the parents $150,000. Yes, absolutely sue anyone involved in draining that bank account, because the matter failed in court. Counter sue those involved absolutely.
Per online sources regarding the current status of the case:
“The Kutzkos allege that an Algonquin Regional High School counselor secretly initiated their daughter’s social transition and reported them to child services when they objected based on their Catholic faith. Conversely, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and court documents state that DCF’s initial intervention and removal of the child in December 2024 were prompted by domestic safety reports and subsequent criminal assault charges against the father—claims the family notes were ultimately deemed unfounded by investigators. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The school district’s superintendent has unequivocally denied the allegations made against the high school, calling them baseless. The broader custody battle is still ongoing.” And
“Public details confirmed by the family’s attorneys outline the key outcomes: [1, 2, 3]
A state juvenile court judge issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) from administering cross-sex hormone therapy, including high-dose testosterone, to the minor. The judge ruled that the state could not provide this treatment while the broader custody lawsuit proceeds. [1, 2]
The next hearing is scheduled for October 29th. All parents should weigh in and be following this matter.
As a former “mandated reporter”,I believe the school should not be held accountable for doing their state mandated duty as mandated reporters, unless it can be proven that the information being passed on was not correct.. Per M.G.L. c. 119 § 51A, school personnel must file a 51A report when they are acting in their professional capacity and have reasonable cause to believe a child is being maltreated.
If a child comes to school and alleges to a staff member that a family member or someone else for that matter assaulted or mistreated them, that staff member is mandated by law to report the allegation. It is not the school employee’s job to investigate; it is their job to report and let “trained” investigators conduct the investigation.
https://mandatedreportertraining.com/blog/guide-to-mandated-reporting-in-massachusetts/
If the shoe was on the other foot, and that staff member did not file a 51A report after a student alleged an assault or mistreatment, and something were to happen to that student, then school personnel should be held accountable.
Your dispute with my summary appears to be based on assumptions about what the courts findings were based on how they were characterized by the parent’s attorney who represents their interests. (Other sources that you cite appear to be based on similar assumptions.)
An updated report by WBUR reaffirms my point that this is a complicated family matter with troubling details that are in the public domain and other details sealed behind juvenile court records: https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/17/southborough-parents-child-gender-transition-court-records-assault-charges
It isn’t that complicated. Simply put, the court made its own final legal decision in favor of the parents: no credible support of alleged abuse. Think about that. They reviewed everyone’s “evidence” including reports and concluded in favor of the parents. That issue was settled by the court in its decision favoring the parents.
Yet, more importantly, the paramount questions and salient points are these:
· Are parents ok with the state taking custody over their minor child and being involved in their sexuality? Or is that a job for parents?
· Those improper interlopers were close to administering life altering drugs, an effort that was, in fact, stopped in court and apparently HAD to be stopped by the parents. The parents have rights too. They won that battle against these bad actor interlopers and their proponents.
· The issue isn’t the fact that reporting is mandated. The issue is acting in SECRET, reporting allegations of abuse that failed in court, and furthering the improper (now halted by the court) effort to administer life altering drugs to a minor child, without the parents / legal guardians’ knowledge or consent. Algonquin and others played a role, they participated in this process.
· Those DCR / government drug wielding interlopers were operating in secret? That is bad faith, Mengele-like, bat sh*t crazy. THAT IS THE REAL CHILD ABUSE. A government endorsing and getting ready to administer life altering drugs to a minor child and acting in secret??
· It is NOT true that mandated reporters cannot be held accountable in a court of law. All it takes is a good attorney to sue them and hold them accountable. In this case, the parents are alleging the reports of so-called “abuse” were filed in RETALIATION for their not going along with the state’s transition plan. Thereafter, the court reviewed all the evidence and reached its own definitive legal conclusion that the claims of abuse were unfounded. That’s it, it’s over, that’s the court’s legal decision.
· Importantly, everyone was looking at and reviewing the SAME evidence, mandated reporters included. The court’s legal conclusion flies in the face of what the mandated reporters presented as “evidence” in their reports – bearing in mind that is irrelevant as that is to the point of being sued and held accountable.
· The State / DCR was stopped in court. Thank God.
· When parents do attempt to sue over a destructive or fabricated report, their attorneys often bypass state tort laws (like defamation or emotional distress) entirely. Instead, they file federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the mandated reporter is a “state actor” (such as a public school administrator or a doctor working directly with state investigators). [1, 2]
· Federal appellate courts (such as the Sixth Circuit in Wenk v. O’Reilly) have ruled that public school officials can lose their qualified immunity and face personal liability if they intentionally weaponize a child abuse report to retaliate against a parent exercising their First Amendment rights. [1]
· According to the press, they are alleging retaliation for not going along with the life-altering sex changing drugs and administration of those drugs to their minor child. (Who in their right mind would endorse this bat sh*t crazy agenda to drug up a minor child and alter their life forever??)
· The parents have First Amendment rights. They have the right to sue and hold those responsible accountable. There is supporting case law. What is relevant are the “reports” and the claims of retaliation. The abuse issue is over, concluded, and settled by the court.
In summary, to quote one very good judge in a recent case: “State! You have no role in this matter.” This minor child should be returned to the parents. And this sad situation should be resolved privately, with dignity and prayers, in the First Amendment protected sanctity of their home. If the minor cannot put on the adult pants, display some maturity (not expected yet, still a minor) and cut the parents some slack, there is only one year left to age 18, adulthood, and moving out.
Thank you.
School staff, by reporting to the Department of Children and Families information provided by a student about potential abuse or neglect of that student, complied with the mandated reporter law (commonly known as “51A”). [https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter119/Section51A]
Specifically, school staff must report to DCF when “in their professional capacity, they have reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury.” A school counselor who is told by a student that they fear for their safety at home (physically or emotionally) is compelled to report to DCF. Failure to do so may result in a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 21.5 years for the mandated reporter.
The report must be filed within 48 hours, and the report must contain facts about the information relevant to the case as reported to the mandated reporter. School staff mandated reporters do not investigate the actual allegations; DCF fields the report, screens it in for investigation if deemed credible and screens it out if deemed not credible.
There are safeguards against filing fraudulent reports, as well. Specifically, a person who “knowingly and willfully files a frivolous report of child abuse or neglect . . . shall be punished” by fines of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for 6 months or less for a first offense, with increasing sentences of up to 21.5 years for a third offense.
Lastly, no school staff “shall be liable in any civil or criminal action for filing a report . . . contacting local law enforcement authorities or the child advocate or providing information . . . . to the department regarding a report . . . . if the report , . . . . made or provided in good faith, was not frivolous,” nor shall the employer “discharge, discriminate or retaliate against a mandated reporter who, in good faith, files a report.”
In short, school staff have a duty to report, must execute on that duty, and cannot be charged, sued, or retaliated against for execution of that duty.
What about the allegations of a school counselor secretly walking this child thru the transitional process?? Is this being investigated? This type of activity has been running across the country in many school districts and has been proven time and time again!
These ‘reports” and “reporters” are now being investigated at the NATIONAL LEVEL by the current administration. OMG. Talk about national embarrassment – shame on you Algonquin and Southborough!!! Get some G.D. common sense, PROPER EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE WHO ACTS MORALLY AND LEGALLY CORRECTLY and stop digging the legal hole you are in – and DO THE RIGHT THING!!! instead of the CYA legally expedient thing. TAXPAYERS and PARENTS – THIS COULD BE YOU — do NOT pay for this bad legal mess and object to the government overreach and embarrassing bat sh*t craziness.
Get some better training to these so-called “mandated” reporters. Obviously, if what was reported didn’t stand up in court, it probably didn’t qualify to be reported in the first instance. Before devastating a family and a minor, think twice about real life devastation and legal consequences. It’s important to know what should be reported and what DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL of mandatory reporting – and following federal law as outlined in today’s NATIONAL HEADLINE:
See the following link to today’s headline and excerpt:
Trump administration launches investigation into Massachusetts teen gender battle
“These allegations raise serious questions regarding whether the school district complied with federal laws protecting parents’ rights. FERPA requires schools to allow parents to access their children’s education records, make changes to those records, and provide a hearing if the school rejects the changes,” the Education Dept. said in a press release.
“PPRA requires schools to receive written consent from parents if they plan to conduct any evaluation, survey, or analysis on students regarding their or their family’s mental health, sex behaviors and attitudes, religious beliefs or any other invasive sensitive subjects outlined in the statute. It is currently unclear whether the school and the district complied with these federal statutes, and SPPO will investigate to determine whether there has been a violation under FERPA and/or PPRA,” it said.
The Kutzkos will next be in court on October 29.”
Thank you.
You should read my more recent reporting, which includes info from WBUR on both mass laws and federal courts on the issue.