The United States Department of Education opened an investigation on Wednesday into the Public Schools of Northborough and Southborough, over allegations that staff at Algonquin Regional High School helped a student socially transition gender without telling her parents. The Student Privacy Policy Office will examine whether the district violated two federal statutes, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.
Almost everything else about this case is contested, and the two accounts of it are not merely different emphases. They describe different events. The parents say a school counselor reported them to the state because they resisted a transition, and that the state then took their daughter. The Governor says the child was removed because criminal charges were filed against the parents. Court records describe an alleged assault.
This piece explains the two federal statutes now at issue, what a care and protection case actually is in Massachusetts, and why both narratives can contain accurate facts while leading to opposite conclusions. The child is a minor and we do not name her.
What the federal investigation covers
It is narrow. The Student Privacy Policy Office enforces FERPA and PPRA, and those two statutes are the entire scope of the inquiry. The office has no jurisdiction over a custody case, a criminal charge, or the Department of Children and Families.
FERPA gives parents the right to inspect and review their child’s education records, to seek amendment of records they believe are inaccurate or misleading, and to a hearing if the school refuses. It also restricts disclosure of personally identifiable information from education records without consent. The enforcement mechanism is the Department of Education, and the remedy in the extreme case is a loss of federal funding. FERPA creates no private right to sue; the Supreme Court settled that in Gonzaga University v. Doe in 2002.
PPRA is the less familiar statute and the more pointed one here. It requires written parental consent before a school conducts any survey, analysis or evaluation that reveals information concerning a list of protected areas, which includes mental and psychological problems of the student or the family, sex behavior and attitudes, religious practices and beliefs, and critical appraisals of family members. A school that ran a structured counseling program touching those subjects without consent would be squarely within it. A conversation between a student and a counselor ordinarily would not be, because PPRA regulates surveys, analyses and evaluations rather than every discussion.
Frank Miller, who directs the office, said in announcing the investigation that “parents have a right to know what is happening with their children at school, particularly when it concerns deeply personal matters involving their health and well-being.”
What the parents allege
Joseph and Arlene Kutzko of Southborough said on a Fox News podcast that their child was helped to socially transition from female to male, by being called a male name and male pronouns, without their knowledge. They say she attended after-school counseling sessions supporting the transition while they believed she was getting help with math. They say a school counselor then reported the family to the Department of Children and Families for counteracting the school’s efforts, and that the state removed her. They say the conduct violates their Catholic faith and their parental rights, and that state authorities are providing gender-affirming care they have no right to provide.
What the school and the state say
Superintendent Gregory L. Martineau denied the allegations in unusually sharp terms, writing that 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.”
The Department of Children and Families declined to comment on the case beyond saying that a lack of support for a gender transition would not be a basis to remove a child from a home.
Governor Maura Healey was more direct: “DCF did not remove the child because of a health issue or a gender-affirming care issue. DCF removed the child after there were criminal charges filed against the parents.”
What the court records show
A statement of facts dated January 29, 2025 describes an assault at the Kutzko home the previous night, in which Joseph Kutzko is alleged to have punched the child, then 15, in the shoulder with a closed fist and pulled her by the hair. The report states the teenager reported it to the school the next day and was then removed from her parents’ care. He was arrested the following day and arraigned in Westborough District Court, where a judge noted three prior restraining orders against him, one of them permanent. He denied the allegations.
Arlene Kutzko was charged with witness intimidation for allegedly pressuring the child to recant.
In December 2025 a judge agreed that Joseph Kutzko’s charges will be dismissed if he completes conditions including an anger management course and no contact with the child. That disposition, a continuance without a finding or a similar pretrial resolution, is not a conviction and is not an acquittal. We explain how those work in what a continuance without a finding means.
How a child is actually removed in Massachusetts
This is the part that gets lost, and it is the answer to the central factual dispute.
DCF cannot take a child on its own authority except in an emergency, and even then it must go to court. A removal proceeds under a care and protection petition filed in the Juvenile Court under G.L. c. 119, § 24. A judge decides, after a hearing at which the parents are entitled to counsel and to appointed counsel if they cannot afford it, whether the child is suffering from abuse or neglect or is without proper care. The child has her own lawyer, separate from both parents and the department. Within 72 hours of an emergency removal the court must hold a hearing on whether custody should continue.
So the operative decision was made by a judge, on a record, with all parties represented, and it is subject to review and to periodic further hearings. That structure is why the Governor’s framing and the parents’ framing can be tested against something. A school counselor can report. A report is not a removal. Only a judge removes a child.
It is also worth naming what a mandated reporter must do. Under G.L. c. 119, § 51A, teachers, counselors, school administrators and many others must report immediately when, in their professional capacity, they have reasonable cause to believe a child is suffering physical or emotional injury from abuse that causes harm or a substantial risk of harm. School staff may instead notify the person in charge of the school, who then reports. A counselor who learned that a fifteen-year-old had been punched and dragged by the hair was obligated to act on it. Failing to report is itself an offense.
Where the two accounts genuinely conflict
On one question: why the report was made.
The parents say the counselor reported them for resisting a gender transition. The records indicate the child reported a physical assault to the school the day after it occurred, and that she was removed after that. Those are not reconcilable as explanations of the same act, and the federal investigation will not resolve it, because the Student Privacy Policy Office is not examining the removal. It is examining whether the school ran an evaluation or kept records in a way that violated FERPA or PPRA.
It is possible for the school to have mishandled parental notification about a student’s gender identity and for the removal to have been based on an assault. Those are separate questions decided by separate bodies under separate law. The public argument treats them as one question, which is why it is being conducted so badly.
The underlying legal question the investigation does not answer
Whether a Massachusetts school must tell parents that a student is using a different name and pronouns at school is genuinely unsettled, here and nationally. Federal appellate courts have divided on whether parents have a constitutional right to that notification, and the Supreme Court has not resolved it. Massachusetts guidance has directed schools to follow a student’s stated preference and to be cautious about disclosure that could expose a student to harm at home, which is the policy the parents are challenging.
A FERPA or PPRA finding would not settle that. It would establish only whether records were withheld or an evaluation was conducted without consent, which are procedural questions. The constitutional question sits above both statutes and is heading toward appellate courts on facts from other states.
Common questions
What is the federal government investigating?
Whether the Public Schools of Northborough and Southborough violated FERPA or the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. The Student Privacy Policy Office has no authority over the custody case, the criminal charges or DCF.
What does PPRA require?
Written parental consent before a school conducts a survey, analysis or evaluation revealing information about protected areas including mental health, sex behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs and critical appraisals of family members.
Can parents sue under FERPA?
No. FERPA is enforced by the Department of Education and creates no private right of action, as the Supreme Court held in Gonzaga University v. Doe (2002).
Can DCF take a child without a court?
No, except on an emergency basis, and even then a judge must hold a hearing within 72 hours. Removal proceeds by a care and protection petition under G.L. c. 119, § 24, with counsel for the parents and separate counsel for the child.
Was a school counselor required to report?
Under G.L. c. 119, § 51A, school staff are mandated reporters who must report immediately when they have reasonable cause to believe a child is suffering physical or emotional injury from abuse causing harm or a substantial risk of harm. Failure to report is an offense.
Investigation details and the quotation from Student Privacy Policy Office Director Frank Miller from the Department of Education announcement as reported by the Fall River Reporter, September 17, 2026. The parents’ allegations, Superintendent Gregory L. Martineau’s statement, the DCF response and Governor Healey’s remarks as reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly via USA TODAY Network and by WBUR. Court record details including the January 29, 2025 statement of facts and the December 2025 disposition as reported in those accounts; this publication has not obtained the underlying filings. G.L. c. 119, §§ 24 and 51A read at malegislature.gov; FERPA and PPRA described from the federal statutes. Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), verified against CourtListener. The child is a minor and is not named here. Joseph and Arlene Kutzko deny the allegations against them and neither has been convicted. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.