Which statement best demonstrates a familial-status discriminatory practice other than an overt refusal to rent?

• A. Providing the same lease terms to all applicants regardless of family status.
• B. Marketing only to singles to avoid families.
• C. Charging higher security deposits or fees specifically for units with children.
• D. Offering the same terms to all groups.

Answer: (C)

Discriminating based on familial status shows up in how rental terms are applied, not just in whether someone is denied a unit. Charging higher security deposits or fees specifically for units with children treats families with children differently from households without children simply because they have kids. That imposes a financial penalty tied to family status, which violates fair housing protections that require equal terms for all applicants regardless of whether they have children.

By comparison, offering the same lease terms to all applicants regardless of family status is neutral and compliant; marketing only to singles is discriminatory advertising—it's exclusionary but relates to how housing is marketed rather than the actual rental terms; and offering the same terms to all groups is simply non-discriminatory. So the depost/fee difference tied to having children is the clearest example of a familial-status discriminatory practice without an outright refusal to rent.