In our previous reports, we have provided scientific evidence that giving gender confused children drugs instead of counseling is severely harmful to those children. In this article, we will review 32 examples of the harm inflicted on ALL children and their parents by state laws and school district policies that require teachers to tell children that their parents can not be trusted and that it is OK for students to lie to their parents.
The reason kids are told to lie to their parents is to hide the fact that these kids are being told that it is possible to change their sex merely by changing their name and their pronouns. In fact, it is not possible to change from one sex to the other as there are over 6,500 significant genetic differences between boys and girls.
The magnitude of this harm is staggering. Prior to the Transgender Cult laws, less than one percent of all children suffered from gender confusion. Recent surveys by the CDC and Gallup confirm that about 20 percent of all students in the US are now suffering from gender confusion. Since there are about 50 million school age children in the US, the number of children that have fallen victim to Transgender Indoctrination is about 10 million students and rising. There is a very high risk that many of these 10 million kids will become addicted to transgender drugs and become permanently sterilized. Based on a series of lies that make billions of dollars for drug companies, the Transgender Takeover of our schools is one of the worst crimes against children in human history.
2019 Washington State passes a Lie To Your Parents Lawa
In 2019, the Washington State legislature passed Senate Bill 5689 which claimed to change the definition of harassment in schools. But the real purpose of this bill was to prevent parents from finding out about their child’s change in gender status.
This bill also requires each school to have a Transgender Gestapo and requires schools to use a students magic pronouns and to allow Trans Bio Males to use the Girls Bathrooms. The bill also requires that all teachers and administrators go through the Transgender Training propaganda program.
Here is one of many negative comments: “This bill would begin to educate children as early as kindergarten about those who identify as LGBTQ and will present their choice as acceptable. This is not okay because it is a moral issue, and contradictory to what is taught in many homes and churches. Some families will remove their children from the public school system if this bill is passed. Safety for all students is important. By elevating LGBTQ individuals, the state is discriminating against others.”
The bill passed on a party line vote and became RCW 28A.642.080 which required every school board in Washington to pass School Board Policy 3211 by January 2020. In July 2019, the Washington State School Directors Association adopted this new 4 page model policy 3211P. https://wssda.app.box.com/s/1c2bjp451nezhbdjvyxl2fqcwvuwdxaa
The policy falsely claims that hiding information from parents is required by FERPA: “Information about a student's gender identity, legal name, or assigned sex at birth may constitute confidential medical or educational information. Disclosing this information to other students, their parents, or other third parties may violate privacy laws, such as the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. §1232; 34 C.F.R. Part 99). Parents have the right under FERPA to request their student’s records and if requested, the District will provide the student’s educational records to the parent according to 3231/3231P – Student Records modify number and name of policy as accurate for your district. To ensure the safety and well-being of the student, school employees should not disclose a student's transgender or gender-expansive status to others, including other school personnel, other students, or the parents of other students, unless the school is (1) legally required to do so or (2) the student has authorized such disclosure.”
History of the claim that it is OK to Lie to Parents
The original source for School District Model 3211 appears to be a 2016 15 page document written by GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Educator Network) in collaboration with the ACLU called Know Your Rights: A Guide for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students. On page 5, it states “If your school reveals [your transgender status] to anyone without your permission, it could be violating federal law… tell them very clearly that you want your information kept private and that they shouldn’t out you to other students, parents, or anyone else without your consent.”) The guide on page 8 then refers to both Title IX and FERPA as protecting the rights of Trans students when in fact Title IX protects rights based on biological sex and FERPA protects the rights of parents to be informed. https://perma.cc/RPD4-UFJJ
More than 1,000 School Districts ban Parental Notice
As of August 30, 2024, the database maintained by Parents Defending Education lists 1,116 public school districts in 38 states and the District of Columbia with written policies that authorize or require withholding gender-related information from parents. These districts include 20,473 schools attended by nearly 12 million students. https://defendinged.org/investigations/list-of-school-district-transgender-gender-nonconforming-student-policies/
Parents and Teachers go to Court to oppose the Lie to Parents Policy
As a result of these insane policies, since 2020, there have been at least 32 cases filed across the US opposing state laws and school district policies that ban Parental Notice when kids as young as 5 decide to change genders. We will review several of these cases in order to better understand the challenges parents face in protecting their parental rights.
At 4 cases were filed in 2020 and 2021:
Doe v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., (Dane Cnty., Wis., filed Feb. 18, 2020);
John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., (removed to federal court on Dec. 7, 2020);
Littlejohn v. Sch. Bd. of Leon Cnty., Fla., (N.D. Fla., filed Oct. 18, 2021);
T.F. v. Kettle Moraine Sch. Dist., (Waukesha Cnty., Wis., Nov. 11, 2021);
At least 11 cases were filed in 2022:
Perez v. Broskie, (M.D. Fla., filed Jan. 24, 2022);
Doe v. Manchester Sch. Dist., (N.H. Sup. Ct., filed Mar. 3, 2022);
Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon Sch. Dist. (W.D. Pa. 2022)
Ricard v. USD 475 Geary Cnty., KS Sch. Bd., (D. Kan., Mar. 7, 2022);
Foote v. Ludlow Sch. Comm., (D. Mass., filed April 12, 2022);
Figliola v. Sch. Bd. of the City of Harrisonburg, Va, (June 1, 2022);
Konen v. Caldeira, (N.D. Cal., removed to federal court on Sept. 12, 2022);
Thomas v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs., ( filed June 29, 2022);
Parents Defending Educ. v. Linn-Mar Cmty. Sch. D, (Iowa, Aug. 2, 2022);
Parents Protecting our Children v. Eau Claire Sch D, Wisc, Sept 7, 2022).
Doe v Bethel Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., S. D. Ohio (file Nov 22, 2022)
At least 13 cases filed in 2023:
Regino v. Staley, No. 2:23-cv-32 (E.D. Cal., filed Jan. 6, 2023);
Kaltenbach v. Hilliard City Schs., (S.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 16, 2023);
Doe v. Washoe Cnty. Sch. Dist., (D. Nev., filed Mar. 27, 2023);
Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Cmty. Sch. Bd. (D. Me., filed Apr. 4, 2023);
Willey v. Sweetwater Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, (D. Wyo., filed April 20, 2023);
Mirabelli v. Olson, (S.D. Cal., filed April 27, 2023);
Lee v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1, (D. Co., filed May 3, 2023);
McCord v. S. Madison Cmty. Sch., No 1 (S.D. Ind., filed May 18, 2023);
Blair v. Appomattox Cnty. Sch. Bd., (W.D. Va., filed Aug. 22, 2023)
Tapia v. Jurupa Unified School District; C.D Cal. (filed 08/24/23).
Short v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., No. 1 (D. N.J., filed Oct. 12, 2023)
Walden v. Mesa Unified Sch. Dist., (Maricopa Cnty., Az. Nov. 20, 2023);
Mead v. Rockford Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 1: (W.D. Mich., filed Dec. 18, 2023)
Four cases files so far in 2024:
Doe v. Del. Valley Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., (D. N.J., filed Jan. 5, 2024)
Doe v. Pine-Richland Sch. Dist., No. 2 (W.D. Pa., filed Jan. 12, 2024);
Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 5 (N.D. N.Y., Jan. 31, 2024);
Landerer v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., (M.D. Pa., filed Apr. 3, 2024)
We will cover a few of the most shocking cases in the order that they were filed or decided.
2020 Doe v. Madison Metro. Sch. District
In February 2020, several parents sued the Madison School District in Wisconsin state court. The parents claim that the policy of lying to parents violates parental rights by allowing students to use names and pronouns at school different from those they were assigned at birth. The Wisconsin Supreme Court stated it was a federal matter and not a state matter.
2020 John and Jane Parents 1 et al. v. Montgomery Cty Bd of Educ.
In October of 2020, three parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education over its gender identity policy which falsely stated that: “All students have a right to privacy. This includes the right to keep private one’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation at school. Information about a student’s transgender status, legal name, or sex assigned at birth may constitute confidential medical information. Disclosing this information to other students, their parents/guardians, or third parties may violate privacy laws, such as the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).”
The parents alleged that the guidelines were unconstitutional, though none of them alleged that their children had gender support plans, were transgender, or were struggling with their gender identity.
While the parents were seeking relief in the form of information about any possible future gender support plan for their children, the parents did not allege that their children were likely to direct the school to refuse to share their gender identity with their families. However, the parents alleged that the parental preclusion policy violated their fundamental right to parent their individual children by violating their right to obtain information about them.
In rejecting the parents’ claim and granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Judge Paul Grimm acknowledged that while government actions infringing on a fundamental constitutional right are subject to strict scrutiny analysis, there was no fundamental parental right to be “promptly informed of their child’s gender identity, when it differs from that usually associated with their sex assigned at birth.” Grimm noted that the Fourth Circuit has rejected the use of strict scrutiny analysis for parental rights claims based on an alleged substantive due process violation unless an associated allegation of a violation of one’s right to the free exercise of one’s religion is also asserted.
The plaintiffs cited the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County, Alabama, in which the court concluded that a “parent’s constitutional right to direct the upbringing of a minor is violated when the minor is coerced to refrain from discussing with the parent an intimate decision such as whether to obtain an abortion; a decision which touches fundamental values and religious beliefs parents wish to instill in their children.” But Judge Grimm distinguished Arnold, saying that none of parents in this case alleged specific facts regarding the application of the guidelines to any of their children.
In fact, every one of the children had been exposed at school – which they were required by law to attend - to a severely harmful program which falsely told them that they could not trust their parents, that it was OK to lie to parents and – worst of all – that it was possible for the child to change their gender and become someone else merely by changing their name and their pronouns – a pathway so deadly that it is the equivalent of turning trusted teachers into drug pushers whose goal is to get kids addicted to toxic transgender drugs.
In claiming that parents do not have standing to protect their kids from such harm, judges are turning their backs on millions of victims and allowing drug dealers to continue harming millions of innocent children.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit did not address the merits of the parents’ claims. Rather, a majority of the three-judge panel determined that the parents lacked standing to bring the challenge in the first place. In an opinion by Marvin Quattlebaum, the court held that because none of the parents’ children had gender support plans, were transgender, were struggling with the issue of gender identity, or were suspected to be at a heightened risk of considering gender transition, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that they had suffered an injury in fact and therefore lacked standing. While the court did acknowledge the Board of Education’s policy was “staggering,” and that it might be “repugnant as a matter of policy,” it noted that “just because a policy or practice exists and is unconstitutional does not mean a particular plaintiff has been injured and has standing to challenge it.”
Judge Quattlebaum acknowledged that the parents’ strongest support for standing was its reliance on Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, because there, too, the harm (being forced to participate in an unconstitutional, race-based system) depended on a chain of future events involving the decisions of others. But the court determined that nothing about Parents Involved applied beyond the context of equal protection claims, and it did not read the opinion so as to abrogate the “certainly impending” test that applies to cases involving future injuries.
Neimeyer Dissent. In dissent, Judge Paul Neimeyer took issue with the majority’s finding that the plaintiff parents lacked standing, relying specifically on Parents Involved and the Supreme Court’s finding of standing even though the harm in that case was only speculative. Writing that “parents whose children are subject to the policy must have access to the courts to challenge such a policy.”
The policy, Neimeyer argued, directed staff to engage in a form of cover-up by providing that “[s]chools should seek to minimize the use of permission slips and other…forms that require disclosure of a student’s gender or use gendered terminology.” In shutting parents out from an open relationship with their children, the parents had experienced a redressable injury and had standing.”
Because the complaint alleged a broader constitutional injury—that of usurping parental roles—it was dispositive that the guidelines were not voluntary but mandatory and applied to all students in the system. As a result, the parents now had to “contend with the worry that school officials might…deem ‘unsupportive’ the Parents’ view that their child ought to transition only after professional psychological or psychiatric consultation.” He also charged the majority with suggesting that “injury under the Due Process Clause yields rank to injury under the Equal Protection Clause”—something not supported by the Parents Involved decision, or in any decision from the Supreme Court, since.
Judge Neimeyer’s dissent is in line with the notion that “federal courts have long held that the deprivation of a constitutional right is irreparable.” He also recognized that intangible harms can and do give rise to standing. Developing and implementing a gender transition plan for minors without their parents’ knowledge does not simply implicate a curricular or policy decision, but goes to the “very personal decision-making about children’s health, nurture, welfare, and upbringing, which are fundamental rights of the Parents.”
Prior to the publication of this Legal Memorandum, the parents in this case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in which they asked the Court to address two discrete questions:
1. When a public school, by policy, expressly deceives parents about how the school will treat their minor children, do parents have standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief in anticipation of the school applying its policy against them?
2. Assuming the parents have standing, does the Parental Preclusion Policy violate their fundamental parental rights?
Their petition to the US Supreme Court was dismissed on May 8, 2024.
2021 Littlejohn v. Sch. Bd. of Leon Cnty., Florida
In late 2021, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn learned that the school had developed a gender support plan with their daughter without their knowl- edge, affirming their daughter’s belief that she was nonbinary, providing housing and bathroom recommendations, and instituting a plan to use “they/them” pronouns for their child. The Littlejohns subsequently filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Leon County, Florida, School Board and various school officials alleging a violation of, among others, their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The trial judge, Chief Judge Mark Walker, rejected their claim, stating that “the law regarding substantive due process rights afforded to parents is an unsettled area of constitutional law, such that a reasonable person would not be able to know when their conduct is in violation of the law.”
His opinion ignored more than 100 years of jurisprudence establishing the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process parental right as “fundamental.” Because he determined the law on parental rights to be “unsettled,” Chief Judge Walker held that the individual school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting within the scope of their employment and discretionary state authority. When assessing the actions of the school board, Chief Judge Walker ignored binding Eleventh Circuit precedent indicating that when fundamental rights are at issue, a shocks-the-conscience analysis is inappropriate; rather, the court should employ a strict scrutiny analysis that balances the interests of both the individual claimant and the state.
The case is currently on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals. On May 30, 2023, 26 states filed a 31 page Amicus brief in favor of Littlejohn. Here is a quote: “Appellants claimed that shutting them out of A.G.’s decision-making process for these crucial decisions, including the use of a new name and pronouns, caused A.G. emotional distress and exacerbated A.G.’s psychological and educational difficulties, increased the costs associated with providing educational alternatives to A.G., and damaged their family.”
2021 T.F. v. Kettle Moraine Sch. District
https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/TF-Decision.pdf
This judge disagreed with the school district claim that their policy was required by Title IX. The judge said: “such legal assumptions, without the benefit of Supreme Court or Seventh Circuit authorities establishing Title IX liability for transgender discrimination, present merely speculative risk of Title IX liability for the School District.” https://adflegal.org/case/tf-and-bf-v-kettle-moraine-school-district#case-documents
On October 3, 2023, the state court found in favor of the parents: “This particular case is simply whether a school district can supplant a parent’s right to control the healthcare and medical decisions for their children. The well established case law in that regard is clear – Kettle Moraine can not. The School District abrogated the parental rights of B.F. and T.F. on how to medically treat A.F. when the district decided to socially affirm A.F. at school despite B.F. and T.F. requesting it does not. Through its policy of disregarding parental wishes on a medical or health related decision and with how fast questioning ones gender can arise, P.W. and S.W. are at real risk of being harmed by the current School District policy. The current policy of handling these issues on a case-by-case basis without either notifying the parents or by disregarding the parents wishes is not permissible and violates fundamental parental rights.”
On November 21, 2023, the school board apologized to the parents for violating their parental rights. https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2024-03/TF-and-BF-v-Kettle-Moraine-School-District-2023-11-21-Kettle-Moraine-School-Board-apology.pdf
2022 Perez v. Broskie
In January 2022, Wendell and Maria Perez learned their 12-year-old daughter had attempted suicide by hanging twice on campus at Paterson Elementary. Their daughter's suicidal ideation reportedly stemmed from initial bullying by peers during the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year over being too "boyish". The 12-year-old reported the bullying to school administration, though her parents were not informed. The student reportedly felt conflicted about her sex and subsequently conducted internet searches about self-harm, to which administration notified Mr. Perez who said he and wife Maria would address the matter.
Mr. Perez claims that Clay County District Schools then secretly "transitioned" his 12-year-old daughter without his knowledge and "affirmed" a male name and pronouns, which contributed to her attempted suicide in a school bathroom. Without the consent or knowledge of the Perez family, the student began weekly counseling sessions with school counselor Destiny Washington, who allegedly assisted the 12-year-old in adopting a male identity and insisted on referring to the student by a male name. Washington promised the 12-year-old her parents would not be notified of their meetings nor the content discussed. Washington also reportedly referred to the 12-year-old with a male name around the student's peers, which made the bullying worse.
The student informed Washington of the increased bullying, though the counselor did not contact the Perez Family citing the family's Catholic faith.
In July, 2022 the Clay County School District released a statement at the time saying "the district has performed a thorough and complete investigation into this matter as it was presented to us and has determined that the allegations are completely false, fabricated, and appear to be intended solely for the purpose of inciting the public."
The school district filed a motion to dismiss citing the plaintiff's lack of stating a federal law in which the Board violated, along with a failure to identify a violation of a cognizable right: "Defendants are not under any constitutional obligation to notify Plaintiffs of the issues complained of, nor do they possess protected constitutional right to receive such notification that these discussions took place, if they even occurred, which is disputed."
The Board's Parental Rights And Student Welfare policy appears to violate Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill, which passed in March 2022. The bill prohibits "school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification and involvement in critical decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical well-being."
The bill also prohibits "a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner" and further authorizes "a parent to bring an action against a school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that a school district procedure or practice violates certain provisions of law."
The case is still being litigated.
2022 Doe v. Manchester Sch. Dist., (N.H. Supreme Court)
In 2021, the Manchester School District in New Hampshire adopted a policy allowing students to keep their gender identity while at school hidden from their parents. The lawsuit was filed by the mother of a student who found out inadvertently that their child was using a different name and pronouns while at school. The mother, who disapproved of their child’s transgender status, alleged the school was violating her parental rights by shielding that information. On August 30, 2024, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the policy does not violate a parent’s constitutional rights.
Here are quotes from the majority opinion: “We respectfully note that there appear to be differences among federal district courts in addressing cases such as this. See Doe v. Del. Valley Reg’l High Sch. Bd. Of Educ., No. 24-00107, 2024 WL 706797, at *11 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2024) (finding that the United States Constitution does not mandate school districts to notify parents of a minor’s gender identity and receive consent before using alternative names and pronouns).”
Here is a quote from the Dissenting opinion which cited three other recently decided cases concluding that parents have a right to know about the status of their child: “This case involves a substantive due process challenge to a Policy, which, I believe, on its face, interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to parent. I believe that this case—which involves whether a public school may conceal from a child’s parent the child’s decision to identify as a gender other than that assigned at birth—implicates such a right. Cf. Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon Sch. Dist., 675 F. Supp. 3d 551, 569 (W.D. Pa. 2023) (noting that the school-related defendants’ “alleged conduct implicates the violation of parental interests of the greatest importance about forming the gender identity of their children”); Ricard v. USD 475 Geary Cnty., KS Sch. Bd., No. 5:22-cv-04015-HLT-GEB, 2022 WL 1471372, at *8 (D. Kan. May 9, 2022) (opining that “it is difficult to envision why a school would even claim—much less how a school could establish—a generalized interest in withholding or concealing from the parents of minor children, information fundamental to a child’s identity, personhood, and mental and emotional well-being such as their preferred name and pronouns”).”
“Because accurate information in response to parents’ inquiries about a child’s expressed gender identity is imperative to the parents’ ability to assist and guide their child, I conclude that a school’s withholding of such information implicates the parents’ fundamental right to raise and care for the child. Cf. Willey v. Sweetwater County School District No. 1, 680 F. Supp. 3D 1250, 1277 (D. Wyo. 2023)”
2022 Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon Sch. Dist. W.D. PA
On May 5, 2023, the court issued an opinion which can be downloaded from this link: https://casetext.com/case/tatel-v-mt-leb-sch-dist-2
Here are quotes from this opinion:
“This case involves the extent of parents' constitutional rights when a public school permits a teacher to inculcate the teacher's beliefs about transgender topics in first-grade students over the objections of their parents.Here, the parents allege that their children's first-grade teacher pursued her own transgender agenda outside the curriculum, which included: (1) instructing the children in her first-grade class that their parents might be wrong about their children's gender; (2) telling a student that the child could dress like a different gender and be like the teacher's transgender child; (3) telling a student that she, the teacher, would never lie (implying that the parents may lie about their child's gender identity); and (4) instructing students not to tell their parents about the transgender discussions.”
“The defendant (School District) argument (that parents have no rights regarding what is taught in school) is contrary to Third Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, which recognizes that a public school's actions may conflict with parents' fundamental constitutional rights and when conflicts occur on matters of the greatest importance, the parents' rights prevail unless the public school can demonstrate a compelling interest for its actions. C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. Of Educ., 430 F.3d 159, 184 (3d Cir. 2005) (“C.N.”); Gruenke v. Seip, 225 F.3d 290, 305 (3d Cir. 2000). “
“Defendants' refusal to recognize any parental rights in a public school setting is contrary to clear, binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals authority. The court's initial motion to dismiss opinion quoted numerous Supreme Court decisions which emphasized the fundamental nature of the parental rights at issue. (ECF No. 38 at 20-23). In Gruenke, the court cautioned: “Public schools must not forget that ‘in loco parentis' does not mean ‘displace parents.'” Gruenke, 225 F.3d at 307. In C.N., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that “ parents, not schools, have the primary responsibility to inculcate moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship.” C.N., 430 F.3d at 185 (emphasis added). In C.N., the court recognized that “introducing a child to sensitive topics before a parent might have done so herself can complicate and even undermine parental authority.”
“Parents' fundamental constitutional rights have been recognized as superior to the interests of a public school. Mahanoy, 141 S.Ct. at 2053 (Alito, J., concurring) (“In our society, parents, not the State, have the primary authority and duty to raise, educate, and form the character of their children.”); C.N., 430 F.3d at 185. The institution of the family predates the Constitution and was recognized as fundamental from the beginning of the nation. See Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, (1977) (“The Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition”).
Defendants' argument that parental rights must always yield to public school preferences is directly contrary to binding Third Circuit Court of Appeals precedent. In Gruenke, the court held exactly the opposite: “when such collisions occur, the primacy of the parents' authority must be recognized and should yield only where the school's action is tied to a compelling interest.” Gruenke, 225 F.3d at 305
It is not educators, but parents who have primary rights in the upbringing of children. School officials have only a secondary responsibility and must respect these rights… Under Gruenke, if a conflict occurs on a matter of greatest importance, the primacy of the parental rights must be respected.
The court adheres to its conclusion that there is a fundamental circuit split between decisions like Parker and Fields and Third Circuit Court of Appeals' precedents like Gruenke, C.N. and Combs. Parker and Fields represent a “school-primacy” view, under which parents whose children attend a public school have no constitutional rights. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, adopts a “parent-primacy” approach.
2022 Ricard v. USD 475 Geary Cnty., KS Sch. Bd
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63140436/ricard-v-usd-475-geary-county-ks-school-board/
Here is a quote from this case: “The court held that the district's reason for adopting the policy was not a legitimate or compelling state interest as it was premised on an erroneous understanding of federal law. The district initially told parents in an email that the policy was adopted to comply with FERPA. The district's email stated that "USD 497 will not communicate [names and pronouns] to parents unless the student requests the administration or counselor to do so, per FERPA guidelines."
“The court pointed out that FERPA actually empowers a parent to receive a child's education records and districts are required to disclose a child's education records when requested. Additionally, the court noted that FERPA does not exempt records that include a student's preferred name or pronouns from the law's disclosure requirements. The court commented that under the constitutional principal that parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children, it is "difficult to envision why a school would even claim an interest in withholding or concealing from the parents of minor children, information fundamental to a child's identity, personhood, and mental and emotional well-being such as their preferred name and pronouns.”
After the judges ruling, the teacher and school district reached an out of court settlement where they paid her $95,000.
2022 Foote v. Ludlow Sch. Comm
Because this case was in a Massachusetts federal court, the court decided against Parents Rights based on the Parker decision. In Foote, the parents notified school officials that they were getting their child professional mental health help and requested that school officials not have private conversations with the student. The parents alleged that their parental rights were violated when school officials disregarded that request, supported the child's request to use alternate names and pronouns, and failed to notify the parents about that request. The court dismissed the parental rights claims even though the court found it “disconcerting that school administrators or a school committee adopted and implemented a policy requiring school staff to actively hide information from parents about something of importance regarding their child.”
2022 Figliola v. Sch. Bd. of the City of Harrisonburg, Va
This is a case brought by three teachers who refused to lie to parents about the gender status of their children. The Harrisonburg City Public School Board in Virginia is usurping parents’ right to direct the upbringing of their children and forcing school staff to violate their religious beliefs by affirming the board’s view on gender identity. Upon a child’s request, school district policy requires staff to immediately begin using opposite-sex pronouns and forbids staff from sharing information with parents about their child’s request, instead instructing staff to mislead and deceive parents. The teachers contend that the policy violates their rights to freedom of religon and freedom of speech under the First Amendment. On December 2, 2022, the court declined to issue a temporary injunction because the teachers have not yet suffered “irreparable harm” because they have not yet been disciplined for failing to comply with the new policy. The case is still being litigated.
2022 Konen v. Caldeira
A mother who claims teachers secretly manipulated her 11-year-old daughter into changing her gender identity and name filed a case against Spreckels Union School District. The district was responsible for “extreme and outrageous conduct” that led the student on a path toward transitioning as a boy and drove a wedge between mother and child.
Jessica Konen said two middle school teachers who ran the school’s Equality Club planted the seed that her daughter was bisexual in 6th grade and then introduced the idea she was transgender. Konen’s was kept in the dark about her daughter’s participation in the club and a “gender support plan” created by administrators. She said her daughter was even told how to make a binder to keep her breasts from developing.
In a leaked recording from a California Teachers Association conference, Caldeira and Kelly Baraki were quoted discussing how they kept meetings private and “stalked” students online for recruits. The California Teachers Association said the conference was one of dozens each year that, in part, help educators understand the need to protect students from discrimination, including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. The district hired a law firm to investigate, which is ongoing, and the UBU club was suspended. On July 17, 2023, the Konens settled the case for a payment of $100,000.
2022 Thomas v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs
The case was dismissed when the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing. Although the Court recognized that parents have a self-executing right under the Virginia Constitution to bring cases to protect their parental rights, the Court said that these particular plaintiffs had not alleged appropriate injury.
2022 Parents Defending Educ. v. Linn-Mar Cmty. Sch. Dist.
On February 21, 2024, PDE settled with the school district which agreed to start complying with the First Amendment rights of students, teachers and parents. Parents Defending Education’s lawsuit against Linn-Mar Community School District has ended in a settlement agreement that will end the use of a speech-silencing policy that punished students who “misgender” others.
After PDE prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Linn-Mar agreed to rescind—and promised never to reinstate—the portion of Policy 504.13-R that prohibits an “intentional and/or persistent refusal by staff or students to respect a student’s gender identity.”
PDE also challenged the “parental exclusion policy” component of Policy 504.13-R, which stated that parents of students in seventh grade and older did not have the right to know their child’s gender identity at school. In the wake of PDE’s lawsuit, the state of Iowa passed a bill banning districts from knowingly giving “false or misleading information” to parents about their child’s gender identity, which the Eighth Circuit found mooted PDE’s appeal on that issue. However, PDE’s research has identified more than 1000 districts across the country that still maintain such policies.
2022 Parents Protecting our Children v. Eau Claire school district
On March 7, 2024 the 7th Circuit ruled that parents lack standing to challenge the policy that hides the gender status of their children. On June 5, 2024 Parents Protecting our Children filed a 37 page Petition for Review with the US Supreme Court. Here is a link to their petition. https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Cert.-Petition-FINAL-PDFA.pdf
Here are the questions presented to the Supreme Court:
“The Eau Claire, Wisconsin School District (the “District”), like over a thousand other school districts across the country, has adopted a policy to facilitate gender identity transitions at school and to keep this hidden from parents who would disagree that it is in their child’s best interest to change gender identity. The District even trained all of its staff that “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.”
The plaintiff and petitioner in this case is an association of parents, all of whom have children in the District and do not want school district staff making decisions about their own children that are kept secret from them. Although they are subject to this policy and directly harmed by it, the District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing before it even got off the ground, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The question presented is: When a school district adopts an explicit policy to usurp parental decision-making authority over a major health-related decision—and to conceal this from the parents—do parents who are subject to such a policy have standing to challenge it?
This case, and the many like it, represent one of the most significant failures of the federal judicial system in our lifetime. School districts across the country—by one count, over 1,000, covering nearly 11 million students—have adopted policies to facilitate minor students, often of any age, changing their gender identity at school (names, pronouns, and bathroom use) in secret from their parents. Many of these policies, like the Eau Claire School District’s, prohibit teachers from discussing with parents what is happening with their own child at school and even require staff to actively hide things from parents.
Secret Gender Transitions Can Cause Long-Term Harm to Children
In Florida, a school district withheld from the parents that their 12-year-old was struggling with her gender identity, until she attempted suicide. Twice.
Same story in Ohio—a school district withheld from parents that their daughter was struggling with gender dysphoria and that school staff were addressing her as if she were a boy, until she attempted suicide.
The same thing happened in Colorado where a school ran a “transgender club” which failed to inform parents until after one of the club members attempted to commit suicide.
Many experts believe that facilitating a transition and treating a child as if he or she is the opposite sex by using a different name and pronouns can do long-term harm to the child by reinforcing a false belief, causing that belief to set in and reducing the likelihood that the child will find comfort with his or her body. The vast majority of children who struggle with their gender identity or experience gender dysphoria ultimately resolve to comfort with their biological sex, if they do not transition. Thus, “many experts recommend against ‘affirmation’ and an immediate transition, and instead believe the appropriate first response is to help children dealing with these issues to understand what they are feeling and why.”
Are federal courts so inadequate to the task of addressing the most blatant and widespread violation of parents’ constitutional rights in our time (perhaps ever)? Is federal standing law so constrained that when a school district openly declares what it will do when a child expresses a desire to transition—that it will not only make the decision for parents about whether that is in the child’s best interest, but will also hide it from them—parents are powerless to challenge that policy until after their children have been harmed by it, hope they discover it, and even then, good luck overcoming all the other obstacles?
Petitioner’s members have standing under at least five different strands of this Court’s standing jurisprudence.
First, Petitioner’s members are presently injured by the loss of their exclusive decision-making authority over whether a gender identity transition is in their child’s best interest. Petitioner’s claim is that they have a constitutional right to make decisions with respect to their own minor children and that the District has transferred that authority to itself. This prevents Petitioner’s members from saying “no” to a transition, because the District will always say “yes” and will hide that decision from the parents when it occurs. Without parental notice and consent, parents have no way to stop a transition at school.
Judge Niemeyer, in his dissent in John & Jane Parents 1, got it exactly right: These policies are “effectively a nullification of the constitutionally protected parental rights,” by “granting the school the prerogative to decide what kinds of attitudes are not sufficiently supportive for parents to be permitted to have a say in a matter of central importance in their children. “
Second, parents have standing to challenge a school policy to which they and their children are subject.
Again, Judge Niemeyer got it exactly right: “As in Parents Involved, the parents in this case have alleged (1) that the school has implemented a policy with systemic effects that reach all enrolled students and their families; (2) that the parents are forced into this systemic policy; and (3) that the policy causes them constitutional injury.”
Fourth, the very existence of a policy inviting minor students to keep secrets from their parents harms the parent-child relationship, which this Court has held is constitutionally protected. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978). Again, the District’s policy “encourages” “transgender, non-binary, and/or gender-nonconforming students” to “contact school staff.”
Indeed, consistent with its training to teachers that “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities,” at least one teacher has put up a sign in her classroom that reads, “if your parents aren’t accepting of your identity, I’m your mom now.”
The existence of the policy alone directly harms parent-child relationships by communicating to minor students that secrets from their parents—including an entire double life at school—are not only acceptable but will be facilitated by the District. Petitioner’s complaint contains more than sufficient allegations of a substantial risk including:
1. a secret gender-identity transition at school can cause “long-term harm” to children.
2. Social transitions are a “psychosocial experiment on children,” with as-yet-unknown “long-term implications.”
3. Gender dysphoria can be a “serious mental health condition” that “urgently needs professional support”—as demonstrated by the cases described above involving suicide attempts.
4. A child’s struggle with gender identity can “arise [first] at school, unbeknownst to parents,” who have “no way to know, in advance, if or when their children” will experience this.
5. The District’s “policy make this more likely by openly encouraging students struggling with these issues to come to teachers first.”
6. The policy “prevents [Petitioner]’s members from knowing if the school has already applied this policy to their children.”
If all of that is not enough to make it past a motion to dismiss on a “substantial risk” theory, it is hard to see what would be sufficient.
2022 Doe v Bethel Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., S. D. Ohio
This case concerns the relationship between a school district, schoolchildren, their parents, and state and federal law. Plaintiffs are: (1) students who attend middle school in the Bethel Local School District in Tipp City, Ohio (2) parents of the students named as Plaintiffs and (3) other parents whose children are Bethel Middle School students but not named as Plaintiffs in this case. Defendants (collectively, “the School District”) are: (1) the Bethel Local School District Board of Education (“the Board”); (2) Lydda Mansfield, the Board’s current president (“Mansfield”); (3) Lori Sebastian (“Sebastian”), the Board’s current vice president; (4) Jacob King (“King”), the Board’s past president and a sitting Board member; (5) Natalie Donahue (“Donahue”), a Board member; (6) Danny Elam (“Elam”), a Board member; and (7) Matthew Crispin (“Crispin”), Bethel Local School District’s current superintendent. Intervenor-Defendant Anne Roe (“Anne”) is the transgender (biological male) student whose bathroom occupancy is at the heart of this case.
Anne transferred to Bethel Middle School in January of 2020. After her parents informed Tim Zeigler, then Bethel Middle School’s principal—that Anne was transgender—Anne, her parents, and Zeigler agreed that she “would use the single occupancy bathroom in the Nurse’s office, or the Faculty Restroom located between the middle school office and the high school office.” In the present case, Anne swore in an affidavit that using the single occupancy bathroom was difficult because it was frequently occupied whenever she needed to use it, and she felt ostracized, humiliated, and targeted by other students who taunted her for using the separate bathroom. This caused her to hold her urine during the day “to avoid using the restroom at school” which she claims “began negatively affecting [her] school performance.”
On August 23, 2021, Anne’s father spoke with Matt Triplett, who had taken over as Bethel Middle School’s principal. He asked “if the school would grant [Anne] an accommodation to use the girls’ communal restroom in addition to the two single-use restrooms she was already allowed to use.” Triplett promised to discuss the issue with other school officials. Then, on December 5, 2021, Anne’s mother emailed Triplett about the issue. She expressed her concern about waiting for the officials to come to a decision and advised that her daughter was being treated unfairly because she did not have access to the girls’ communal bathroom.
Importantly, she noted, “I’ve recently been made aware that I can file a complaint with the . . . U.S. Department of Justice if I feel that [Anne] is being discriminated against and treated unfairly because she is transgender.
Two weeks later, on December 17, Anne, her parents, Triplett, and Justin Firks—Bethel Local School District’s Superintendent—met. At that meeting, Triplett and Firks told Anne that she “would be allowed to use the girls’ communal restroom once she returned from Winter Break in January of 2022.” As Firks would swear later in an affidavit filed in the present case, he “applied the Board’s Anti-Harassment [Policy] and granted Anne[’s] request for an accommodation” to use the girls’ communal restroom.
The Board, pursuant to its bylaws, holds regular public meetings at least every two months. At these meetings, the Board’s members discuss “routine business items[,]” such as “hiring of personnel” or adopting a resolution that sets the Board’s new policy—so long as it occurs in public. However, the Board may also “enter into executive session” to discuss certain matters “that are exempted from public sessions. These topics concern: (1) acting with respect to a public employee or official’s employment; (2) investigating charges or complaints against an employee; (3) considering school property sales; (4) discussing imminent court action with the Board’s legal counsel; (5) preparing for or conducting collective bargaining; (6) reviewing information that federal or state law requires to be confidential; (7) addressing security matters or emergency response protocols; and (8) addressing confidential information about the School District’s economic development. “No official action may be taken in executive session[,]” and “[a]n executive session will be held only at a regular or special meeting.” Likewise, “no member of the Board, committee[,] or subcommittee shall disclose the content of discussions that take place during such sessions.”
The Board also follows the School District’s anti-discrimination policy. Under that policy, the School District “will employ all reasonable efforts to protect the rights of” individuals subject to what the School District determines to be discriminatory conduct.
Likewise, the School District retains all documents and information “pertaining to” discriminatory conduct and treatment, including requests by an individual that is experiencing discrimination. The policy further notes that this information may be exempted from disclosure under federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”).
On September 13, 2021, the Board held a public meeting. See Board Education, Bethel Schools’s Personal Meeting Room. At that meeting, the Board opened the floor to members of the public to raise their concerns. One person brought up “transgender rights” as a topic for the Board to consider, alleging that transgender students attended school in the district. According to this person, these students should be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, and not allowing this violated federal law. King responded that the Board “was still conferring with [its] legal counsel in regards” to those issues. He acknowledged that allowing students to use the bathroom corresponding to gender identity would be a change from the norm throughout the Bethel School District.
The Board held another meeting on December 7, 2021, and, at the end of that meeting, King moved to enter executive session. The Board members reference moving into executive session to discuss legal advice given to them by their attorney. King announced in public that, based on their prior discussions, executive session would fall under the Open Meetings Act’s exceptions for discussions: (1) with the board’s attorney to discuss matters subject to pending or imminent court action; (2) about security arrangements; and (3) concerning employment matters or complaints against a student or employee.
What happened during that executive session is genuinely disputed. The School District submitted an affidavit from Superintendent Firks, claiming that the Board discussed matters under
Ohio Revised Code §§ 121.22(G)(1) and (3); namely, an investigation about an employment into a school district employee and attorney-client matter between the Board and its counsel. Jessica Franz, a member of the Board from January 10, 2022 until September 2, 2022, was invited to the December 7th meeting as a recently appointed Board member. In an affidavit filed for Plaintiffs, Franz claimed that the Board entered executive
session, the purpose of which “was to discuss the school’s rules for bathrooms and locker rooms in accordance with a student’s chosen identity rather than biological sex.”
According to Franz, both King and Firks “explained that they had spoken with the Board’s attorney about the matter,” who “told them Bethel had to allow restroom use in accordance with a student’s gender identity.” However, that attorney was not present at the December 7 executive session. Franz further recalled, “I distinctly remember leaving the meeting with the impression that the [B]oard had reached a consensus to allow the transgender students [to] use the restroom of their preference because I knew I would have to vote in the minority on the issue at my first public Board meeting on January 10, 2022.”
Then, the Board held a meeting on January 10, 2022. Mansfield, who had become Board president by this time, stated the following during the meeting:
A change went into effect the beginning of the year, correct? So at the beginning of the year the district has adopted the stance that transgender students may use the restroom that aligns with their gender status upon advice received from our attorney.
The statement our attorney gave to us follows: Several United States Courts of Appeals, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in which Ohio is located, have determined that Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 requires that transgender students be granted access to the restrooms and locker rooms of their sexual identification. This includes the Third Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit case denied overturning a lower case ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, while not yet issuing a ruling on transgender students using bathrooms of their sexual identifications, in 2020 issued a ruling determining that transgender status is protected by the federal law against sex discrimination in the workplace, or Title VII. Title VII and Title IX have similar prohibitions against discrimination. This ruling will have a significant impact on how the Supreme Court will rule on educational bathroom issues. So again, we have made this change within our district based upon the advice of our attorney that should there be a court case come before us, pending or otherwise, we would not be successful in any battle and would simply cost the district a lot of money that we simply cannot afford to spend. The change will be made. Our students are using bathrooms aligned with their identity at this time.
Plaintiffs filed suit on November 22, 2022 and moved for a preliminary injunction on their state-law claim—that the School District violated the Open Meetings Act (“Count I”)—on December 2, 2022.
They allege five federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) a declaratory judgment that Title IX does not require the School District to implement its new bathroom policy (“Count II”); (2) a violation of the parent Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children (“Count III”); (3) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (“Count IV”); (4) a violation of all Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Free Exercise right (“Count V”); and (5) a violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (“PPRA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232h (“Count VI”).
They further raise claims under Ohio’s constitution for violating the Ohio equivalent of the federal Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses.
Parents point out, “[u]nder Ohio law, [they] must send their children to school[,]” so they lack a remedy at law for these alleged wrongful actions. Id. In their view, because the School District will not answer their questions, this denies them “their right to determine whether their children should attend public school and to remove them from the public school system . . . because they cannot obtain vital information necessary to exercise their rights with full information.”
Because the parties had not addressed standing or the pending state court litigation, this Court ordered briefing on both issues. Plaintiffs’ federal claims were dismissed because they either fail to allege a cognizable case or controversy or, assuming the allegations are true, fail to satisfy the requisite legal standards. On January 2, 2024 the court issued a 52 page ruling dismissing the case.
2023 Regino v. Staley
Parent Aurora Regino filed suit against California School Superintendent Kelly Staley over a regulation that resulted in the school district “socially transitioning” students expressing a transgender identity without notifying and obtaining the informed consent of parents, in violation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to parent her minor child, A.S. A.S., an elementary school student, had expressed her desire to be a boy to her school counselor, and the school’s staff began referring to her by a new name and new pronouns without consulting with Regino. The staff hid this information from Regino until her daughter told her.
Regino filed a motion seeking to enjoin the policy. In denying her request, Judge John Mendez found that Regino was unlikely to succeed on the merits, holding that she could not demonstrate that she had a constitutional right to be informed of her child’s new name or preferred pronouns.
Judge Mendez wrote: “While the cases cited by Plaintiff refer to the generally held presumptions that parents act in the best interest of children and help compensate for their children’s lack of maturity and experience when dealing with intimate and health related decisions…none of the cases cited by Plaintiff opine on whether the state has an affirmative duty to inform parents of their child’s transgender identity nor whether the state must obtain parental consent before socially transitioning a transgender child.”
Significantly, though, the court failed to recognize Supreme Court precedent indicating that a state’s notion of what may be “thought to be in the children’s best interest,” without some “showing of unfitness” on the part of parents, offends the Due Process Clause. In this case, the school district had not demonstrated Regino’s unfitness as a parent, nor had it proven that the policy was developed as a result of demonstrated incidents of Regino’s abuse or neglect of her daughter. Even though Aurora Regino had a child who was directly affected by and who utilized the school’s gender policy, and even though she was completely excluded from the school’s determination on the social transition of her daughter, the trial court erroneously concluded that Regino had not demonstrated that the school’s policy violated her clearly established constitutional rights.
2023 Kaltenbach v. Hilliard City Schools., (S.D. Ohio)
Several parents filed a complaint against the school district for allowing activist teachers (as opposed to trained, supervised counselors) to specifically solicit from children as young as six-years old, private, intimate conversations about sexual behaviors, sexual attitudes, mental and psychological questions of the student and the student’s family, and private religious practices. This is done, not only without parental consent, but the teachers are taking specific actions to hide these conversations from parents. This is a recipe for indoctrination and child abuse.
Origination of the Problem
The problem of confusion about Title IX began when federal bureaucracies began attempting to rewrite Title IX in defiance of Congress… The agencies’ interpretations put local school districts across the United States into a precarious position. The “interpretations” are highly controversial, to say the least. They are confusing. They are not based in any known historical practice or legitimate research. They are deeply offensive to a large segment of the American population.
One very important issue arising from the agencies’ “interpretations” is the treatment of gender dysphoria at public schools. Several schools districts throughout the United States, at the express urging of, and with guidance from, the various teacher’s unions, engage in the practice of hiding gender dysphoria from parents.
The Superintendent was asked whether a teacher is at liberty to disclose to parents, that their child seeks to identify as a different name than the one they are registered with or identify as a different gender than their biological gender. The Superintendent answered that the “law is unclear” but that, pursuant to Title IX, a teacher would be putting “his/herself at great personal risk” if teacher were to “out a kid” to their parents without the child’s permission.
Two parents with a child in the District suffered actual damages as a result of the District’s failure to notify Parents of symptoms of gender dysphoria at school. The parents have a teenage daughter who is a student at the Hilliard City School District (“School”). The daughter does not have a history of mental illness that the parents are aware of. The child’s parents live with their daughter and they see and interact with their daughter every day; their daughter is naturally introverted and shy, typical of many pubescent teenage girls.
On the 7th of October 2022 the parents received a call from a social worker (“Social Worker”) at the District. The Social Worker informed the child’s mother that their daughter was making suicidal remarks at the school, related to self-harm. When the mother met with the Social Worker, the Social Worker informed the mother that: 1) her daughter was observed making suicidal, self-harm remarks; 2) the friend informed the Social Worker of the remarks; 3) the Social Worker then asked the daughter to leave class and meet with the Social Worker; 4) the Social Worker, the daughter, and the daughter’s friend all sat together in a room at the school together and discussed the remarks the daughter made; and 5) after this first discussion, the Social Worker called the mother and asked the mother to come into the school.
When the mother arrived at school, the mother spoke with the Social Worker and the school Principal. At this meeting with the Social Worker and the Principal, that the Social Worker informed the mother that several teachers at the school were treating the daughter as a boy while their daughter was at school.
Having seen their daughter every day the daughter’s whole life, the parents have never seen their daughter manifest any symptom of gender dysphoria, heard her ask to be treated as a boy, and they are not aware of any of this type of manifestations anywhere.
They were shocked to learn that she may be suffering some mental health issues at school and that teachers withheld that information from the daughter’s parents.
(Later) Their daughter told the parents that she (the daughter) had been experiencing emotional trauma for several weeks, and that it was manifested at school; the daughter said she was excused from class multiple times due to her emotional distress. The parents were never informed of this activity. The parents repeatedly asked the school principal for an explanation but never received one.
Nothing in Title IX or any other law justifies a school district policy that withholds medical or mental health information about a child from his/her parents. Thus, Defendant Hilliard School District’s policies and practices violate parental rights to direct the upbringing of their children, with no legal justification.
On April 19, 2024, the court granted the school district motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. D.S.’s Claims I, II, and III shall proceed through litigation; all other claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing. On April 24, 2024, plantiffs filed a notice of appeal. On August 30, 2024, the school district filed a motion for summary judgement.
2023 Doe v. Washoe Cnty. Sch. Dist., (D. Nev.)
J. Doe is a student at Depoali Middle School, which is in the WCSD. In January of 2023, J. Doe informed his mother that his teacher had hung “a lesbian flag” in his classroom. Plaintiff complained of the flag to the school's administration and was told by Depoali's principal that “hanging the flag was prohibited” under WCSD policy. During that conversation, she learned of WCSD's Administrative Regulation 5161. AR 5161 establishes guidelines around the treatment of transgender and gender non-conforming students in the WCSD. Among other things, it prohibits teachers from disclosing the gender identity of gender non-conforming students to their parents and indicates that WCSD may consider it harassment for one student to intentionally and persistently refuse to respect the gender identity of another student.
On January 22, 2024, the court issued an opinion dismissing this case. Plaintiff claims that WCSD, by issuing Administrative Regulation 5161, which establishes district protocols related to transgender and gender non-conforming students, has violated her Substantive Due Process parental rights, her child's First Amendment right to free speech, and their shared First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion. In its Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24), WCSD argues, among other things, that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims. The Court agrees and dismisses this action.
2023 Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Cmty. Sch. Bd. (D. Me)
In early December 2022, Lavigne came across a chest binder—“a device used to flatten a female’s chest so as to appear male”—in A.B.’s bedroom. A.B. told Lavigne that a social worker at the School had both provided A.B. with the chest binder and explained how to use it. Lavigne “is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,” that the social worker simultaneously gave A.B. a second chest binder, explained that he would not tell A.B.’s parents about the chest binders, and said that “A.B. need not do so either.” The School had not informed Lavigne about the chest binders before she found one in A.B.’s bedroom.
Around the same time, Lavigne learned that A.B. had previously adopted and was using a different name and different pronouns at school. At A.B.’s request, two social workers used A.B.’s self-identified name and pronouns when addressing A.B. at school; other school officials followed suit. The School had not informed Lavigne about A.B.’s request or the actions of the school staff in response.
Lavigne met with the School’s principal and the Central Lincoln County School System’s superintendent on or around December 5, 2022. They expressed sympathy and concern that information about A.B. had been withheld and concealed from Lavigne. Two days later, however, the superintendent met with Lavigne and told her that no policy had been violated by giving the chest binders to A.B., or by school officials using A.B.’s self-identified name and pronouns, without first informing Lavigne.
Lavigne withdrew A.B. from the School on December 8, 2022, and began homeschooling A.B. On December 12, 2022, agents from the Maine Office of Child and Family Services visited or met with Lavigne in response to an anonymous report that Lavigne was emotionally abusive toward A.B. The agency conducted an investigation, which it closed on January 13, 2023, having concluded “that the information obtained by the investigation did not support a finding of neglect or abuse.”
At the School Board’s meeting on December 14, 2022, Lavigne spoke publicly about what had happened regarding A.B., describing “the trust that had been broken by Defendants withholding and concealing vitally important information from her respecting her minor child’s psychosexual development.”
Thereafter, the School Board and the School’s principal issued a total of three written public statements relevant to Lavigne’s claims. First, on December 19, 2022, the School Board Chair issued a written statement stating that the School Board’s policies comply with Maine law, “which protects the right of all students and staff, regardless of gender/gender identity, to have equal access to education, the supports and services available in our public schools, and the student’s right to privacy regardless of age.”
Second, several weeks later on January 14, 2023, the School Board issued a written statement responding to bomb threats and recent controversy affecting the School.
Finally, on February 26, 2023, the School’s principal issued a written statement addressing questions related to school safety. In it she noted that there had been a “misunderstanding of [federal and state] laws pertaining to gender identity and privileged communication between school social workers and minor clients [resulting] in the school and staff members becoming targets for hate speech and on-going threats.”
The letter noted further that state law protects school social workers from being required to share certain “information gathered during a counseling relation with a client or with the parent, guardian or a person or agency having legal custody of a minor client.”
The Complaint contends that the School Board withheld and concealed information from Lavigne regarding the chest binders and A.B.’s use of a different name and pronouns “pursuant to a blanket policy, pattern, and practice of withholding and concealing information respecting ‘gender-affirming’ treatment of minor children from parents.”
The School Board moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. A hearing was held on the motion on November 1, 2023, and the parties subsequently submitted additional case citations for the Court to consider On May 3, 2024, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted. On May 20, 2024, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
2023 Willey v. Sweetwater Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, (D. Wyo)
Sadly, this court mistakenly found that social transitioning (changing the students name and pronoun) was not a medical intervention and therefore not subject to parental input. The court apparently did not know that this was the first step in a deadly path leading to drug addiction, gender mutilation, cancer and an early death. What the court did find to be a problem was the policy that teachers must lie to parents about a students transgender status: “To the extent the Student Privacy Policy would preclude a teacher or school district personnel, absent a minor student's consent, from answering or responding to a parent's or guardian's inquiry as to whether their child is being called by other than their legally given name or required to lie to a parent or guardian as to the name the minor student is being called by, it creates a likely constitutional problem.”
“To the extent the Student Privacy Policy prohibits a teacher or school employee, upon inquiry by a parent or legal guardian, from providing accurate and complete information concerning their child (and absent a threat to the wellbeing of the student), it burdens a parent's right to make decisions concerning the care, custody and education of their child.”
The court also failed to protect the plaintiff’s First Amendment right as a teacher to refuse to use magic pronouns. The court said that the “Meriwether” decision only protected University professors and not K12 teachers. So according to this judge, K12 teachers do lose their First Amendment rights when they enter the classroom.
Significantly, the school district falsely claimed that “the Policy is in place-at least in part-to comply with Title IX and avoid discrimination on the basis of sex. see “Enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 With Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County,” 85 Fed.Reg. 32637, 2021 WL 2531043 (June 22, 2021); see Bostock v. Clayton Cnty. Ga., 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020). Under the interpretation by the United States Department of Education, Bostock's pronouncement that Title Vil's prohibition of discrimination on “the basis of sex” encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity also applies to Title IX's parallel prohibition on sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. See 86 Fed.Reg. at 32638-39. While a federal district court in Tennessee recently enjoined enforcement of the Department of Education's interpretation in twenty states, Wyoming is not among them. See Tennessee v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 615 F.Supp.3d 807 (W.D. Tenn. 2022).
Note that this court ruling was made months before the US Supreme Court issued their 9 to zero ruling in which they explained that the Biden Final Plan was fundamentally flawed.
On October 3, 2023, the state judge stated: “The School District could not administer medicine to a student without parental consent. The School District could not require or allow a student to participate in a sport without parental consent. Likewise, the School District can not change the pronoun of a student without parental consent without impinging on a fundamental liberty interest of the parents.”
2023 Lee v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1, (D. Co)
On May 3, 2024, several parents and their children filed a complaint against the school district. Plaintiffs alleged that the District ran an after-school organization called the Genders and Sexualities Alliance (“GSA”) at a number its schools, which was not disclosed as part of the District curriculum (and was marketed to parents as the GSA ART club). Plaintiffs alleged that GSA meetings “regularly address sex, sexualities, mental health, suicide, sexual orientation, gender identities, and other topics in discussions, lectures, and distributed materials.” Plaintiffs alleged that a GSA meeting was held at WMS on May 4, 2021, and following the meeting, C.L., then a twelve-year-old sixth grader at WMS, announced to her mother, Ms. Lee, that “she would be transitioning,” although she had never expressed such sentiments to her parents before. Plaintiffs alleged that “C.L.'s experience at the GSA club led to a months-long emotional decline of gender and sexuality confusion that required counseling and included suicidal thoughts.”
Additionally, M.L., the seven-year-old son of Mr. and Ms. Lee (the “Lees”), was a first grader at RES in May 2021. The Lees alleged that they learned that the District offers gender support plans that “prohibit harassment based on gender identities or gender expressions” and that “oblige [District] personnel to use the elected pronouns and names identified” in a plan when speaking with or about the child who is the subject of the plan.
The Lees completed gender support forms for M.L. on three separate occasions, requesting that District personnel refer to M.L. by his biological sex and birth name, but the District denied their request because, they alleged, “gender support plans exist only to benefit and protect the gender identities of transgender children, whereas the Lees sought a gender support plan binding the [District] to benefit and protect the gender identity of their son, including his name and masculine pronouns.
Plaintiffs further alleged that H.J., then a twelve-year-old sixth grader at WMS, attended GSA meetings on May 11 and May 18, 2021. After attending the GSA meetings, H.J. “began to have her first suicidal thoughts.” Throughout the summer of 2021, H.J. began leaving notes for her parents, Mr. Jurich and Ms. Jurich (the “Juriches”), about “transgenderism” and being aromantic or asexual In the fall of 2021, H.J. began to question her gender identity. H.J. then “underwent a significant emotional decline,” and in December 2021, requested to be homeschooled. Shortly thereafter, H.J. attempted suicide. H.J., C.L., and M.L. no longer attend District schools.
Plaintiffs alleged that the District and the Board engaged in a pattern and practice of keeping the GSA activities secret from District parents in that they failed to disclose GSA activities to parents and encouraged students to not discuss GSA activities with their parents. The Lees and the Juriches contended that they were not given notice of the GSA's activities, agenda, or materials; otherwise, “they would have elected to opt their child out based on [their] deeply held religious beliefs.”
Plaintiffs requested the following relief: (1) a permanent injunction requiring (a) that the District provide notice and opt-out rights if gender dysphoria, gender transitioning, or related topics are taught in the District, (b) that these topics only be taught by qualified and trained professionals, and (c) that all materials used in any such instruction be given to parents fourteen days in advance of any instruction; (2) compensatory damages, including the costs of private-school tuition, medical expenses, counseling fees, compensation for damage to Plaintiffs' reputation, transportation, and emotional anguish; and (3) punitive damages.
In addition, the Plaintiff Parents allege that District personnel are “regularly encouraged” to attend professional training sessions during which they are trained to “not reveal a student's in-school transgender or gender non-conforming identity to that student's parents.” They also allege that there is a “common practice” amongst District personnel to discuss the best means of circumventing parental notice when students seek to use alternative names and pronouns in school. To that end, they aver that District officials consistently directed personnel to avoid revealing the divergent name and pronoun use to parents. The Parents point to examples of District officials providing guidance to District personnel, including deferring to the student's use of their preferred name and pronouns in school, while using their given name and pronouns in communications with parents.
The School District Guidelines provide that “[s]tudents have a general right to keep their transgender or non-binary status private from other students, parents, or third parties.” They further state: When contacting or communicating with a parent/guardian of a transgender or non-binary student, school staff should use the name and pronouns that the student's parent/guardian use, unless the student requests otherwise. If a parent/guardian asks a staff member about whether their student uses another name/pronoun at school or has other gender-related questions, the staff member should refer them to the school counselor, who can address questions and concerns that the parent/guardian may have. If a school counselor receives questions from a parent/guardian, they should use their professional judgment to determine how best to follow up with the student and then the parent/guardian.
On July 7, 2023, Defendants moved for dismissal of the Original Complaint. The Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court concluded that the minors, H.J., C.L., and M.L., lacked standing to bring a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim rooted in the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. The Court further found that the Plaintiff Parents lacked standing to seek any prospective injunctive relief, because none of their children continued to attend District schools. Finally, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff Parents had not adequately stated a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the Court concluded that M.L., and the Lees as his next friends, had failed to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause.
Their claim remains the assumption that they have a right to receive notice and information about topics discussed within an after-school, voluntary extracurricular club and the manner in which school employees address students. Significantly, the Parents direct the Court to no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit authority demonstrating that the Fourteenth Amendment confers a constitutional right to receive “full and correct information” about topics discussed in the District's curriculum, and particularly, at after-school, voluntary extracurricular clubs that they may find objectionable, so that they may exercise their right to withdraw their children from the District. There is also no clear weight of authority from district courts to suggest the Fourteenth Amendment confers a substantive due process right to receive information. See Doe v Bethel Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2023 WL 5018511, at *13-14 (holding that the district's alleged refusal to answer parents' questions about bathroom policies “[did] not implicate a parent's fundamental right to control their children's upbringing,” reasoning that “the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer parents with an unfettered right to access information about what their children are learning,” to “interject in how a State school teaches children,” or to receive an “answer [to] every demand made of them from frustrated parents (no matter how reasonable that frustration may be).”); John & Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 622 F.Supp.3d 118, 136 (D. Md. 2022) (concluding that parents did not have a fundamental right to be promptly informed of their child's gender identity when it differs from the identity of the child at birth, regardless of the child's wishes or any concerns regarding the potential detrimental impact upon the child), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 78 F.4th 622 (4th Cir. 2023). Even the Willey court did not find one. See Willey, 680 F.Supp.3d at 1280 (in the context of a preliminary injunction, declining to find an affirmative obligation on the District under the Constitution to actively disclose information regarding a student in the absence of a parent's inquiry or request). The Supreme Court has long warned that, “[a]s a general matter, [it] has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this uncharted area are scarce and open-ended. On May 16, 2024, the court closed the case finding that the evidence provided by the parents in their complaint was not adequate.
2023 McCord v. S. Madison Cmty. Sch., No 1 (S.D)
The South Madison Community School Corporation in Indiana fired school counselor Kathy McCord, a 37-year veteran in the education field, for speaking about the school district’s gender identity policy. In August 2021, the school district adopted a policy that required counselors and other employees to use names and pronouns for students that do not correspond with their sex, without requiring parental notification or consent. In some cases, it even required employees to hide these new names and pronouns from parents. This aspect of the Gender Support Plan policy—hiding information from parents, ignoring their instructions about their own children—struck Mrs. McCord as particularly wrong. On May 18, 2023, the counselor filed a 72 page complaint against the school district.
Mrs. McCord spoke with the reporter to explain her views as a member of the community about the Gender Support Plan policy. She never held herself out as speaking on behalf of South Madison, something beyond her authority as a high school counselor.
The reporter published his article exposing the Gender Support Plan policy to the community. A few days later, at the next school board meeting, members of the community expressed outrage that South Madison had implemented this policy without any public debate or even notice to all the families directly involved.
Concerned parents in Pendleton, Indiana, flocked to the Dec. 8 school board meeting three days after The Daily Signal exposed the school district’s secret policy and a so-called Gender Support Plan for transitioning students. “You should be ashamed,” one mother told Hall and the school board at the Dec. 8 meeting. “I trusted you with my children and you lied to me—to us.”
A week after that meeting, South Madison began the process of terminating Mrs. McCord’s employment, when the superintendent began questioning her about the interview.
South Madison would ultimately tie its decision to fire Mrs. McCord directly to the journalist’s article. South Madison fired Mrs. McCord for exercising her constitutional rights.
And even before its unconstitutional retaliation, it compelled her to speak a viewpoint that violates her religion. For decades, Mrs. McCord loved helping students—and excelled at it. Today, she just wants to get back to a school to help more kids. Therefore, she brings this Complaint for injunctive, declaratory, compensatory, and nominal relief. The case is still pending.
2023 Blair v. Appomattox Cnty. Sch. Bd., (W.D. Va)
Plaintiff Michelle Blair is the paternal grandmother and adoptive mother of S.B., a minor. Plaintiff brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of S.B. against the Appomattox County School Board.
At the start of the 2021–2022 school year, S.B., who was a freshman at Appomattox County High School, adopted a male identity at school and began using the boys’ restroom. School employees allegedly did not inform Plaintiff of this, despite gender-based bullying directed at S.B. The day that Plaintiff learned of S.B.’s male identity, S.B. ran away. Shortly after, S.B. fell prey to sex traffickers and ended up in the custody of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services for two months. Then S.B. ran away again, once more falling victim to sexual exploitation.
As a result of these events, Plaintiff has brought claims against Defendants for interference with substantive due process rights to parental control and familial privacy; violation of Title IX; intentional interference with parental rights; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff’s claims focus on events that occurred during the summer and fall of 2021. Prior to the start of the 2021-2022 school year, Plaintiff alleges that S.B. was “gender-nonconforming” in her dress and her interests, such as skateboarding. Plaintiff states that she supported S.B’s “unconventional choices” and helped her buy “emo” style clothing.
In June of 2021, S.B. was admitted to in-patient psychiatric care at CMG Piedmont Psychiatric Center in Lynchburg. On August 5, 2021, S.B. returned to CMG for a psychiatric evaluation. ¶ 26. The resulting report, including a diagnosis of “severe gender dysphoria,” was not available to any party at that time.
On August 10, 2021, S.B. began her freshman year at Appomattox County High School. The next day, August 11, S.B.’s science teacher overheard S.B. telling a friend she preferred a male name, “D.,” and male pronouns. The teacher informed Defendant Dena Olsen, a school guidance counselor. Olsen met S.B. in the hallway of ACHS, asked if she identified as male, and told her she could use the male restroom.
On August 12, Olsen and Avery Via, another counsellor, met with S.B., who told them that she identified as a boy and wanted to use a male name and pronouns. At this time, S.B. told Via and Olsen that she had been bullied and threatened by boys on her school bus on August 11. S.B. reported that the boys on the bus had “directed profane epithets at her because she looked like a boy, threatened to sodomize her until she ‘liked boys,’ threatened to hold her out of the window of the bus by her hair until she apologized, and made other similar threats. Other students reportedly threatened to shoot her and told her they knew where she lived.” Olsen reviewed recordings from the bus that did not contain the behavior S.B. described, but she talked to students who confirmed S.B.’s version of events. Olsen contacted Plaintiff to pick up S.B. However, S.B. asked Olsen to refer to S.B. by her given, female name when discussing the bus incident with Plaintiff because using the male name “might upset [Plaintiff].”
Accordingly, Olsen used the female name when she alerted Plaintiff to the bus incident. Olsen omitted the information that the bullying stemmed from S.B.’s gender presentation.
At some point “a few days” after August 11, Olsen told S.B. that some girls were uncomfortable with S.B. in the girls’ restroom, and that S.B. should use the boys’ restroom.
Between August 12 and 25, boys at school continued to harass, threaten, and assault S.B. in the hallways and bathrooms, including shoving her against the hallway wall and threatening knife violence and rape. During this same time period, Olsen called S.B. to the counseling office some eight times to discuss S.B.’s gender identification issues. Olsen allegedly encouraged to “embrace” her male identity, and Via directed S.B. to trans-focused online platforms.
On August 23, Olsen learned that administrators had received reports about “incidents” in the boys’ restrooms during the time S.B. had been using them. The following day, August 24, Olsen and another counselor who is not a party to this case met with S.B. to discuss concerns relating to her use of the boys’ restroom. S.B. reported that she was threatened, harassed, and sexually assaulted in the restroom. S.B. said “all the boys are rapists” and defined “rape” as inappropriate touching. The counselors and S.B. agreed that going forward, S.B. would instead use the nurse’s bathroom.
On or around this day, Olsen asked School Resource Officer Daniel Gunter to review school surveillance tapes to check for safety concerns. Plaintiff “believes that Officer Gunter contemporaneously reported that the tapes revealed several male students entering the boys’ bathroom during times that S.B. was in there.”
On August 25, Olsen and Officer Gunter spoke with S.B. Recounting the events of the meeting, Plaintiff includes this quote, which appears to be taken from Olsen’s notes. “There was some information you shared from the bus incident that was untrue and there were some parts that were true. When you report information to us it is important to tell us the entire story. You never want to falsify a report. Or when you said yesterday that every boy in the school was a rapist. It is not fair to label every boy in the school a rapist. That is considered defamation of character. If you walked out of here and said every boy is a rapist and a boy called his dad who had the money, he could sue you for defamation of character when you have no basis to call every boy in the school a rapist. I’m not saying there is not an individual in this town that is not that. However, you cannot confidently say and I know and he knows that not every male in this school is a rapist. It is so important to know that you cannot say things because you are upset.”
Officer Gunter advised S.B. that she could face a civil suit if she continued to accuse innocent boys of having threatened her. S.B. responded: “I didn’t want to tell you anything about this. Any time you have called me in here for something, I didn’t want to tell you about any of it.… I think you are here to uphold the law because that’s the way it is. You are supposed to keep your students safe. If you hear something about rape, you have to do something.”
Later that day, Olsen informed Plaintiff that S.B. had been using the boys’ restroom and that there were safety concerns. Olsen said nothing about S.B.’s pronoun use or gender identification provided no specifics about S.B.’s experience of harassment, threats, or assaults.
Olsen also told Plaintiff that she had noticed self-harm injuries on S.B., which she had previously been unaware of. Plaintiff alleges that documentation of S.B.’s self-harm was included in the records provided to the high school from S.B.’s middle school.
At home after school, Plaintiff found a hall pass with S.B.’s preferred, male name on it. S.B. told Plaintiff that she was identifying as a boy at school. Plaintiff asserts that this was the first she learned of S.B. adopting a male identity at school. S.B. told Plaintiff that a group of male students had “jacked” her up against the wall of the boys’ bathroom and threatened her with violence, and that she was afraid of what they would do. S.B. said she would not have used the boys’ bathroom without Olsen’s instruction to do so. Plaintiff told S.B. that she did not have to go back to school and they would “figure it out in the morning.”
The night of August 25, Plaintiff alleges that S.B., still afraid, suffered a psychotic breakdown and decided to run away. S.B. departed through her bedroom window that night, leaving a note including the statements “You’ve done your job, Jesus loves you”; “I’m afraid of what is to come if I stayed. Be on your guard. There are bad people around here” and “All my love.”
Following S.B.’s departure, Plaintiff alleges that S.B. was abducted by an adult male stranger who raped her and then trafficked her in Washington, D.C., to two brothers who also drugged and raped her. . The brothers then trafficked S.B. to another individual in Baltimore, who was a registered sex offender. He likewise drugged and raped her. On September 2, Baltimore law enforcement and the F.B.I. found S.B. at the sex offender’s home.
At this point, two months of juvenile court proceedings as to whether S.B. would be returned home commenced in Maryland; for the interim, S.B. remained in the temporary custody of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services and was placed in a boys’ group home.
Aneesa Khan, a public defender, was assigned to represent S.B. On September 9, Khan communicated with Olsen regarding S.B. While the question of whether or not she would be returned to Virginia was being litigated, S.B. ran away once more. S.B. traveled to Texas to meet up with an individual she had met online, who turned out to be an adult male rather than a teen. This adult “was intercepted by law enforcement” but S.B. was abducted by another adult male “who sexually abused, drugged, starved and tortured her.” She was finally rescued by law enforcement in January of 2022. S.B. has been diagnosed with Complex PTSD from her multiple traumas.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff makes three allegations as to the School District’s policies. First, she alleges that District Policy required that reports of sexual harassment, which includes “unwelcome sexual physical contact, unwelcome ongoing or repeated sexual flirtation or propositions, or remarks sexual slurs, leering, epithets, threats, verbal abuse, derogatory comments or sexually degrading descriptions, and graphic comments about an individual’s body,” had to be reported to the District’s Title IX compliance officer and investigated.
Plaintiff also pleads the existence of “District Policy IJ,” which provided that school counselors should not use counseling techniques “which are beyond the scope of the professional certification or training of counselors, including hypnosis, or other psychotherapeutic techniques that are normally employed in medical or clinical settings and focus on mental illness or psychopathology.”
Finally, Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the District had a protocol or guideline “that directed staff to not inform parents when their children expressed a discordant gender identity and asked to be treated as the opposite sex, using opposite sex names and pronouns and use opposite sex privacy facilities.
On June 26, court issued 34 page order and dismissed case stating:
“S.B. and Plaintiff undoubtedly suffered terrible events. However, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss in their entirety because Plaintiff does not adequately allege any of her claims. Generally, Plaintiff fails both to allege elements necessary for liability and to connect the acts of Defendants with the harms suffered by her and S.B. “
2023 Tapia v. Jurupa Unified School District; (C.D Cal)
Teacher Jessica Tapia filed suit against Jurupa Unified School District, alleging wrongful termination because she refused to comply with Jurupa’s parent-secrecy policy – Policy 5145.3. She also refused to permit males to use the female locker rooms and bathrooms. JUSD’s actions violate Ms. Tapia’s First Amendment rights to free exercise and free speech, as well as her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.
“Because Jessica did not conform to her school district’s religious ideology regarding certain transgender policies, her school district no longer considered her qualified to serve as a public school teacher, “ she said via email.. “However, the First Amendment protects individuals like Jessica—no educator of faith is required to leave their religious beliefs at the “schoolhouse gate.”
The school attempted to dismiss the case but was unsuccessful. On May 13, 2024, Tapia settled for $360,000. The attorney’s fees expended by the district is estimated to be about $60,000. Tapia was represented pro bono by a firm that is creating state-wide guidance to protect teachers who do not wish to deceive parents. Tapia was represented by the Murrieta, California-based non-profit law firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which says it focuses on “protecting constitutional and religious liberty in the courts.” The settlement is a victory for individual freedom and a rebuke to a cultish philosophy that normally squelches dissent with impunity.
Inspired by Tapia’s victory, Advocates for Faith and Freedom has launched a new program called “Teachers Don’t Lie” that is intended to support and encourage like-minded teachers to know their rights. “The purpose of TEACHERS DON’T LIE is to support teachers of faith who are feeling the weight of the darkness that has infiltrated the education system,” the program’s mission statement says. We believe teachers of faith have the right to be in the public education system without sacrificing their convictions and the truth.”
2023 Short v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., No. 1 (D. N.J)
The New Jersey Legislature passed N.J.S.A. 18A:36-41 in 2017, directing the commissioner of the Department to establish guidelines for issues common to the needs of transgender students and to assist schools in fostering supportive, nondiscriminatory environments for transgender students. The Department issued Transgender Student Guidance for School Districts (Guidance) the following year, encouraging school districts to communicate confidentially with students regarding their gender identities; transgender statuses; and preferred names, pronouns, and levels of parental notice. Districts are further advised to accept students' asserted gender identities without parental consent required. Acceptance of a student's gender identity is not tied to any requirement that the student receive any diagnosis, undergo any treatment, or legally change their name. The Guidance advises school districts to issue documentation such as student-identification cards with the student's chosen name, permit students to dress in accordance with their gender identity, and- if the student has stated a preference for a name other than their birthname- keep student records containing the student's birth name in a separate and confidential file. The Guidance does not place an affirmative duty on school districts to notify a student's parent or guardian of their gender identity and cautions against disclosure of information that may reveal a student's transgender status except as permitted by law.
The Cherry Hill Board of Education adopted the Guidance into a district policy in 2019. The Cranford Board of Education followed suit in 2020. Short resides in Camden County with this wife and three children-all of whom attend Cherry Hill High School West within Cherry Hill Township School District. Short asserts that he has been and will continue to be harmed by Cherry Hill Defendants' policy as he and his children have been forced to participate in the policy and he is being deliberately excluded from conversations about his children's gender identity.
Costello resides in Cranford and her child attended Cranford Public Schools from kindergarten through seventh grade. Costello claims that she has already been harmed by way of her child's change in gender identity without her knowledge or consent. Cranford Defendants, primarily through a guidance counselor, allegedly had conversations with Costello's child about their gender identity while they were in the seventh grade, leading to mental-health complications and Costello's removal of her child from Cranford Public Schools from eighth grade on.
Short originally filed this action on October 12, 2023 and, as amended with the inclusion of Costello, they allege that the Guidance promotes deceit and that social transitioning and gender-identity transitioning are psychotherapeutic interventions for which parental notification, consent, and participation are beneficial if not necessary. The amended complaint quotes liberally from the affidavit of Dr. Stephen Levine, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, and the amicus brief filed in a separate case by Dr. Erica E. Anderson, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist practicing in Berkeley, California who identifies as transgender-which state the importance of parental involvement and input in the transition process.
The amended complaint asserts three counts. Count 1 alleges violation of Short and Costello's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights to upbring and make healthcare decisions for their children. Short's rights are impinged on a daily basis as the Cherry Hill Defendants' policy promotes confidential conversations between his children and school personnel on issues of grave importance while Costello has already been harmed as her child's gender identity was affirmed without her knowledge, resulting in psychological harm. Count 2 asserts that the Guidance iexceeds the authority provided in the enabling statute by keeping student-district communications confidential from parents and providing no affirmative duty to notify parents and guardians.Finally, Count 3 brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim premised on Short and Costello's constitutional harms. Short and Costello seek, among other relief, a declaration that the Guidance and policies are unconstitutional; injunctions against the Department and Cherry Hill Defendants from continuing to impose the Guidance and applicable policy; an order directing that the Guidance and policies be stricken or, alternatively, amended to require parental notification and consent and exclude students' parents and guardians from confidentiality requirements; and an order requiring Cranford Defendants to reimburse Costello for out-of-district tuition expenses paid and to be paid through high school.
Maldonado is a resident of Camden County whose two children attend school within Cherry Hill Township School District. Maldonado filed a motion to intervene in this case on January 24, 2024 (ECF No. 33), which United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert (Ret.) granted.
The amended complaint alleges that Short has and will continue to be harmed as he and his children are forced to participate in Cherry Hill Defendants' policy and his children may at any time adopt new identities without his knowledge or consent. The complaint does not allege that any of Short's children are transgender or questioning their gender, that they have or are imminently going to engage in conversations with school officials about their gender, or that his children will not otherwise share their gender identities or related questions or feelings with him. Instead, “[n]otwithstanding the current transgender or transitioning” statuses of his children, Short claims that he “will likely have no knowledge-from the school-of a gender identity change in his children. Such lack of knowledge could continue prospectively for an indeterminate time-weeks, months, or even years.” In response to Defendants' standing arguments, Short asserts that Cherry Hill's policy-and by extension the Guidance-impacts his ability to control the healthcare of his children and he does not have to wait until he learns of his child's impending or active gender change to satisfy standing. Cherry Hill parents are the objects of government actions that conceal their children's gender statuses, invite students to have confidential conversations with the school district concerning gender and name and pronoun preferences, and violate the fundamental right of parents to direct the healthcare of their children.
Short's claims as presented provide little reason to distinguish this matter from the Fourth Circuit's persuasive reasoning in John and Jane Parents 1. There, the board of education adopted guidelines that permitted schools to develop gender-support plans for students without parental knowledge or consent and authorized the withholding of related information if school officials deemed parents to be unsupportive. Parents challenged the “Parental Preclusion Policy” that permitted development of gender-support plans and withholding of related information from parents. The District of Maryland granted dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). After the issue of standing was raised for the first time on appeal, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the parents' arguments that the Parental Preclusion Policy was in effect, applied to their children, and interfered with their right to raise their children were insufficient to support standing absent a current or certainly impending injury or substantial risk of a future injury. The parents did not allege that any of their children had gender support plans or conversations with school officials about their gender or that their children might have been considering a gender transition or have a heightened likelihood of doing so, leaving the parents' claims dependent on speculative fear and an injury too attenuated to confer standing.
The reasoning of John and Jane Parents 1 and similar decisions were recently applied within this Circuit in Doe v. Pine-Richland School District, Case No. 24-00051, 2024 WL 2058437 (W.D. Pa. May 7, 2024). There, the plaintiff-parent sought to enjoin enforcement of a district policy that allegedly interfered with her parental rights. The plaintiff specifically challenged provisions that noted that sharing a student's transgender status with parents may violate privacy laws, advised that a student's transgender status should not be disclosed to parents without legal requirement or student authorization, and required that district staff work closely with a student before notifying their parent of their transition to assess the degree of parental involvement and the student's health and well-being. The plaintiff supported her concerns about her child's possible transition with allegations that her child viewed TikTok videos relating to gender transitioning and sexuality; socialized with new friends, some of whom identified as transgender or were undergoing social transitions; and the district rejected her request to be notified of any gender-identity issues involving her child.
Short compares his standing here with the petitioner in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007). He argues that he is compelled to participate in the Cherry Hill Defendants' policy, derived from the Guidance, that creates an ongoing constitutional injury and that he does not lack standing simply because he “has not yet [been] empirically prejudiced.” Seattle School District No. 1 adopted a plan for assignment of students to its ten public high schools based on student preference. The plan had a tiebreaker for oversubscribed schools based on the racial composition of the school and race of the student, with the goal being to reach a desired ratio of white and nonwhite students. The petitioner, a nonprofit corporation of parents whose children were or may have been denied assignment to their preferred schools due to race, challenged the plan. The Supreme Court rejected the school district's standing challenge, concluding that simply because it was possible that children of the petitioner's members might not ultimately be denied admission due to race did not eliminate the claimed injury. “[B]eing forced to compete in a race-based system” was itself an equal-protection injury that the Supreme Court had previously found parents could raise on their children's behalf.
The petitioner in Parents Involved represented multiple parents with multiple children in a school district with just ten high schools, five of which were oversubscribed at the time of suit and three outside the desired ratio. Upon the school district flipping a proverbial switch and resuming implementation of the plan, which the Court presumed, the petitioner moved down a path toward a sufficiently imminent injury. There are simply more switches to flip in the present case and I will not presume any one of them. Short has made no showing that any of his children are transgender or otherwise questioning their gender, any of his children have communicated with school officials about their gender, any disclosure to school officials would not be shared with him for an excepted reason, or any one of his children would not otherwise share their transgender or gender-questioning status with him. As the number of switches increases, Short's injury becomes too speculative to support standing. I conclude that the injury pleaded by Short is too speculative to satisfy Article III standing. I will therefore grant dismissal of his claims against Moving Defendants. Opinion July 15 2024 granting motion to dismiss
2023 Walden v. Mesa Unified Sch. Dist., (Maricopa Cnty., Az.)
Rachel Walden, a current member of the Governing Board of Mesa Public Schools, AFL sued MPS and Superintendent Andi Fourlis for encouraging and assisting students to identify as having a gender different from their biological sex and to hide this from parents, violating the laws of the state of Arizona. Mesa Public Schools (MPS) policy (the “Trans Policy”) assists and encourages students to “transition” their gender while keeping this information hidden from parents. After this policy of parental non-notification caused controversy in the local community, the school district rewrote its policy to obfuscate what was going on. In practice, however, the non-notification policy appears to continue in force, and MPS employees do not notify parents about a student’s sexual identity issues unless the student consents to notification. Furthermore, MPS still encourages confused students to transition their gender, and at most, parents only get notified after their child has already started to socially transition at school.
The Trans Policy violates Arizona’s Parents’ Bill of Rights, which establishes that “[t]he liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children is a fundamental right,”, that is “exclusively reserved to a parent of a minor child without obstruction or interference from this state, any political subdivision of this state, any other governmental entity or any other institution.” In fact, the Parents’ Bill of Rights specifically prohibits what MPS is doing—all public employees, including school employees, are prohibited from “encourage[ing] or coerc[ing]” minors “to withhold information from the child’s parent.” Moreover, Arizona law absolutely forbids school employees from ever talking to children about any matters related to human sexuality without advance parental notification and consent.
In the suit, the first-year board member asks the court to order the district to revoke the current guidelines and implement a policy of immediate parent notification “any time a student attempts to discuss any matters of sexuality with school employees, including when students express confusion or concern about their gender or sexual identity.”
The 58-page complaint also asks the court to declare the current MPS transgender guidelines illegal. It also asks the district be blocked from implementing any guidelines or procedures related to gender or sexuality without the board adopting an official policy.
2023 Mead v. Rockford Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 1: (W.D. Mich).
When a child struggles with gender dysphoria, many public schools will intentionally and actively conceal that information from the child’s parents. Does that violate any constitutional rights of the parents?
In Mead v. Rockford Public School District, Michigan parents sued their local school district after it treated their thirteen-year-old daughter as a boy for two months—while actively concealing these actions from them. While she was at school, the district referred to the Meads’ daughter by a masculine name and male pronouns, part of the controversial practice often called “social transition.” But the district used her correct name and female pronouns when communicating with her parents. It even altered official documents before sending them home.
As detailed in the complaint, the district’s actions only came out when a school employee accidentally failed to alter some references to the masculine name on an evaluation form before showing it to the Meads.
The district’s concealment implicates the Meads’ fundamental parental rights given the prospect of harm to their daughter.
The scientific literature demonstrates that, absent any intervention, the vast majority of children who experience body discomfort will naturally embrace their biological sex over time. But interventions like social transition—including changing names or pronouns—have been shown to interfere with this natural desistance. Social transition can greatly increase the chances that the child will continue on to medical procedures such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. And this pathway to medical transition exposes the child to a risk of serious, potentially life-long harms.
The Meads raise three constitutional claims in their response to the school district’s motion to dismiss.
First, the Meads argue that the school’s actions violate their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. In the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court held that free-exercise rights include the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs, including the right to direct their children’s religious education and upbringing. By secretly transitioning the Meads’ daughter, the district directly undermined their religious beliefs. In the words of the Eleventh Circuit in Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County, it “deprive[d] the parents of the opportunity to counter influences on the child the parents find inimical to their religious beliefs or the values they wish instilled in their children.”
Second, the Meads argue the district violated their fundamental right as parents to make decisions about the upbringing, education, and healthcare of their children—a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. As a plurality of the Supreme Court recognized in Troxel v. Granville, the liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized” by the Court. By deciding to treat the Meads’ daughter as a boy without their consent—indeed, by concealing that decision from them—the district deprived the Meads not only of the right to make healthcare decisions for their daughter, but also of the right to make educational decisions about the best schooling environment for her. Parents cannot make informed decisions for their children if schools hide pertinent information from them.
Third, the parents argue the district violated a separate right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment: the right to procedural due process. This right guarantees adequate procedural protections before the government deprives a person of a cognizable liberty interest. One such interest is the right to parent one’s children. Far from providing adequate procedural protections to the Meads, the school district did not provide them with any procedural protection—not even notice—before secretly socially transitioning their middle-school daughter.
While some states (including Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, and North Dakota) have passed legislation to ensure that parents aren’t left out of the loop in such circumstances, many school districts are being told by activist organizations they are breaking the law if they speak to parents about their children’s struggles with gender dysphoria. This messaging is misleading some schools into deceiving parents like the Meads about the well-being of their children.
2024 Jan 5 Doe v. Del. Valley Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., (D. N.)
Jane Doe is a freshman at Delaware Valley Regional High School in Frenchtown, New Jersey. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3, 5.)2 Jane is a minor diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Unspecified Mental Disorder (UMD), and has been under the care of a therapist for anxiety, depression, and gender confusion since April 2022.
Plaintiff John Doe is Jane’s father. Plaintiff alleges that he and mental health professionals “agreed to take a cautious approach to Jane’s gender confusion” given her mental health diagnoses and the trauma following the death of Jane’s mother. At school, Jane participated in an extracurricular club known as “Students Advocating for Equality,” or “SAFE,” which “promotes open discussion and awareness about modern cultures and topics surrounding intersectionality while aiming to make positive contributions to [the] community and school.” Defendant Ashley Miranda is a school counselor and the staff advisor of SAFE. According to the Complaint, “Jane attended a SAFE meeting and expressed to Miranda that she would like to undergo a social transition from female to male in school.”
Plaintiff alleges that Miranda “immediately affirmed Jane’s expressed identity and began to facilitate Jane’s social transition” and“asked Jane if she would like to change her name and pronouns and be known only as a male at school, to which Jane agreed.” Plaintiff alleges that Miranda subsequently emailed the entire high school staff, except two teachers, informing them of Jane’s name change, but that Plaintiff was not notified. Plaintiff alleges that Miranda and the school concealed Jane’s social transition from him in several ways. In her email to the staff, Miranda informed the staff that Plaintiff “was not to be informed of Jane’s social transition.” Miranda also allegedly excluded two teachers from the email because they “have contacts with members of the Doe household.”
Plaintiff claims that when he communicated with the school about Jane, the school only ever referred to Jane by her given female name “for the purpose of concealing Jane’s social transition.”
Plaintiff learned of Jane’s social transitioning at school “months after it commenced,” when another parent called Jane by a male name in Plaintiff’s presence. In response, Plaintiff pulled Jane from the regular classroom and placed her “on home instruction.”
In December 2023, Plaintiff met with the high school administration, including Miranda. Plaintiff informed the administration that he and Jane’s therapist “were not in agreement with Jane’s social transition and expressly denied his consent to the continuance of Jane’s social transition.”
The school district replied that it was compelled by law and policy to call Jane by her preferred male name until such time as Jane indicated otherwise. Following that meeting, Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Scott McKinney, the superintendent of Delaware Valley Regional High School and chief executive of the school district. In the letter, Plaintiff reasserted his parental rights and demanded that the administration stop socially transitioning Jane. By letter dated December 14, 2023, counsel for the Board advised Plaintiff that “the District has and will continue to act in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, and the New Jersey Department of Education’s guidance on transgender students.” The Board also advised that because Jane had not attended school for more than ten days, she would “be considered truant and the District may have to take further action, as it is required by law to do . . . if she continues to be absent.”
In early January 2024, while the school district worked to implement approved home instruction for Jane, counsel for the Board informed Plaintiff that “during home instruction the teachers will comply with district policy, NJDOE guidance, and federal and state laws” regarding Jane’s name preference. Plaintiff contends that the school’s insistence to refer to Jane by her preferred name and pronouns against Plaintiff’s wishes “interfere[s] with . . . [Plaintiff]’s parent-child relationship,” violates his “fundamental parental rights,” and establishes “a policy that makes it impossible for Jane to receive a public education unless Plaintiff yielded his constitutional and statutory parental rights.”
Since commencing this lawsuit, Plaintiff has further alleged that “Jane was threatened with truancy” if Plaintiff did not send Jane to approved instruction. Plaintiff also alleges that two workers from the Department of Children and Families, Division of Child Protection, visited his home to conduct a wellness check and that they “obviously had been sent”by the school.
Board Policy 5756, titled “Transgender Students.” n relevant part, the Policy states the following: “The school district shall accept a student’s asserted gender identity; parental consent is not required. A student need not meet any threshold diagnosis or treatment requirements to have his or her gender identity recognized and respected by the school district, school, or school staff members. In addition, a legal or court-ordered name change is not required. There is no affirmative duty for any school district staff member to notify a student’s parent of the student’s gender identity or expression. If a parent disagrees with the minor student’s use of a different name and pronouns, the Policy instructs “the Superintendent or designee to consult the Board Attorney regarding the minor student’s civil rights and protections under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, but staff “should continue to refer to the student in accordance with the student’s chosen name and pronoun at school.”
The Policy also notes that school officials “should have an open, but confidential discussion with the student” about the student’s preferences and “parental communications,” and “should also discuss with the student, and any other individuals at the student’s request, the risks associated with the student’s transgender status being inadvertently disclosed.” The Board Policy mirrors the New Jersey Department of Education’s guidance that “provides direction for schools in addressing common issues concerning the needs of transgender students.” New Jersey’s guidance also “assists schools in establishing policies and procedures that ensure a supportive and nondiscriminatory environment for transgender students” consistent with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
In Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County Florida, a middle school developed a support plan for a student who requested to socially transition —including changing the student’s name, pronouns, and preferred restroom — without including or immediately notifying the parents, despite the parents’ previously informing the school that they did not consent. The school was also aware that the student had previously been diagnosed with ADHD and was “expressing gender confusion.” In bringing suit, the parents alleged that the school had violated their protected liberty interests in familial privacy, the upbringing of their child, and the medical and mental health decision-making for their child. On a motion to dismiss, the District Court for the Northern District of Florida found that the school had not infringed on the parents’ substantive due process rights in part because the student had approached the school on his own volition and asked the school to use his preferred name and pronouns.
Similarly, in Willey v. Sweetwater County School District No. 1 , the parents argued that a school district’s policy directing school officials to refer to students by their preferred names and pronouns, and to “respect the privacy of all students regarding such choice,” violated the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to direct the upbringing of their children, make decisions regarding their children’s medical care, and familial privacy. On a motion for a preliminary injunction, the District Court for the District of Wyoming found it unlikely that the parents would successfully assert a right to direct medical care absent “evidence the Student was suffering or diagnosed with a mental health condition related to gender identity.” The court opined that even if the student had been diagnosed with a mental health condition related to gender identity, the school’s policy did not constitute a “treatment” that interfered with the parents’ right to make medical decisions, because the school did not actively suggest that the student change their name and pronouns —“the school merely addressed the Student by the Student’s requested preferred name and pronoun.” The court found that the policy was likely unconstitutional only to the extent that it “would preclude a teacher or school district personnel, absent a minor student’s consent, from answering or responding to a parent’s or guardian’s inquiry as to whether their child is being called by other than their legally given name or required to lie to a parent or guardian as to the name the minor student is being called by.”
The school officials’ actions inLittlejohn, Willey, and Regino, like those in this case, are different from those at issue in Tatel v. Mount Lebanon School District, 637 F. Supp. 3d 295, 336 (W.D. Pa. 2022). In Tatel, the plaintiff parents were found to have asserted a plausible substantive due process claim against a teacher who discussed gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning with first graders. The teacher did so despite the published first-grade curriculum not mentioning these topics, and despite a school official assuring parents who expressly objected to these topics that “there were no formal lessons about gender identity, especially in first grade.” The teacher in Tatel showed the children books and videos on transgender topics; told first graders that “parents make mistakes about gender; instructed students not to discuss this topic with their parents; told a child she would never lie (implying the parents may be lying about
The child’s [gender] identity); targeted one student for repeated approaches about his becoming like her transgender child; and caused another child to be confused about how her parents determined her gender.” Under these circumstances, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania found that the plaintiffs asserted plausible substantive due process violations of parental rights because transgender topics “implicate a core parental interest in forming the identity of their children” and that “[t]eaching a child how to determine one’s gender identity at least plausibly is a matter of great importance that goes to the heart of parenting.” (citing Doe by & through Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 897 F.3d 518, 522 (3d Cir. 2018)).
Here, unlike in Tatel, Plaintiff has not yet established that the Board Defendants engaged in coercive behavior that violate parental rights. Again, it appears undisputed that the Board Defendants acted in response to Jane’s affirmative request to be recognized as to her preferred gender identity. Under Board Policy 5756, “the decision to openly express a transgender identity through the use of a different name and pronouns is made by the student,” not the Board Defendants. . The Court’s ruling aligns with several other courts’ holdings that a school district’srecognition of a student’s preferred gender identity does not violate parental constitutional rights. Nor does the Policy encourage students to keep their preferred gender identities secret from their parents.
2024 Jan 12 Doe v. Pine-Richland Sch. Dist., No. 2 (W.D. Pa)
Doe is the parent of a student in the District. She challenges AR 103(B), specifically as to the areas where that policy interacts with parental rights. AR 103(B) is titled: “Nondiscrimination in School and Classroom Practice-Gender and Gender Identity.” AR 103(B) includes a “Privacy and Confidentiality” provision that states:
“All students have a right to privacy [,] and this right includes the right to keep one's transgender status private at school. Information about a student's transgender status, legal name, or birth-assigned sex may also constitute confidential protected health information. Disclosing this information to other students, their parents/guardians, or other third parties may violate privacy laws, such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). “
“To ensure the safety and well-being of the student, District personnel should not disclose a student's transgender status to others, including the student's parents/guardians or other District personnel, unless: (1) legally required to do so, or (2) the student has authorized such disclosure. Relevant school staff, such as the building principal, guidance counselor, and school psychologist, will work actively and immediately to discuss disclosure to parents/guardians given their legal rights and the importance of collaboration between the school staff, student, and parents/guardians. When contacting the parent or guardian of a transgender student, District staff should use the student's legal name and the pronoun corresponding to the student's birth-assigned sex unless the student, parent, or guardian has specified otherwise. “
Doe pleads and avers that she “has legitimate concerns regarding her child's risk of transitioning” because she “found her child viewing TikTok videos related to transitioning, videos of transgender individuals advocating transitioning, and videos on sexuality.” She also states that her child has “recently begun hanging out with a new friend group, which includes children who identify as transgender or who are socially transitioning.” Doe “sent written notice to the School District that absent her prior written consent, the School District shall not refer her child to any mental health counselor or social worker for evaluation” and requested notice within three days of the District's learning of any gender identity issues concerning her child.
She also had a meeting with District personnel, making the same requests, only to be told that “under no circumstances” would she be notified if the District “becomes aware that her child has requested to be addressed by different pronouns, a different name, or otherwise exhibited behavior consistent with gender incongruity, gender dysphoria, or a desire to transition to a gender other than her biological gender” unless “legally required to do so.”
Because Doe has not demonstrated that she has suffered any harm or that harm is imminent, the Court finds that she does not have standing to challenge the District's policy. The Court must, therefore, deny the requested preliminary injunction.
2024 Jan 31 Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 5 (N.D. N.Y)
Officials at the Skaneateles School District began treating a middle-school girl as a boy without her mother’s knowledge or consent. Jennifer Vitsaxaki trusted that the counselors, teachers, and other employees of the Skaneateles School District would share with her any information she needed to help her daughter Jane,1 then 12 years old, to thrive. So Mrs. Vitsaxaki quickly turned to them when her daughter began struggling with anxiety and depression related to school—at times, even refusing to leave home. Again and again, she asked School District employees whether they had noticed anything troubling about her daughter during the school day. Perhaps there was a bullying problem? Perhaps an academic cause? But everyone with whom Mrs. Vitsaxaki spoke reassured her. No one had noticed a bullying problem, nor anything else worrying about her daughter
Those repeated reassurances concealed the truth. While school officials kept telling Mrs. Vitsaxaki that there was nothing to report, a school counselor was regularly meeting with her daughter and her peers to address ongoing bullying suffered by Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s daughter, Jane, and other girls in the group. But worse than that, the School District began treating her as if she were a boy, without telling her mother, just as it had done with several other girls in her grade.
The same counselor instructed school staff to treat Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s daughter as though she were a boy by referring to her with a boy’s name and the third-person plural pronouns “they” and “them”—part of a controversial psychosocial intervention often called “social transi- tion.” Then, a school psychologist, who told school staff to keep their actions secret from Mrs. Vitsaxaki, began meeting with Jane regularly without Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s knowledge. Yet no one informed Mrs. Vitsaxaki that the School District had made any of these decisions about and taken all of these actions toward her daughter.
Not one School District employee notified Mrs. Vitsaxaki or sought her consent before socially transitioning her daughter. Worse, although those employees knew about the School District’s actions, they told Mrs. Vitsaxaki nothing. School staff carefully used Jane’s given name and female pronouns when speaking with Mrs. Vitsaxaki, and they repeatedly said everything was fine, all the while treating Jane as a boy and sending her resources for medical transition behind Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s back.
For months, School District employees concealed this information about the well-being of Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s daughter—sensitive information about the girl’s struggles with gender. And for months, Jane’s mental condition got worse. She resisted going to school. She was anxious. She became increasingly negative, especially when speaking about herself. At one point, and at her daughter’s request, Mrs. Vitsaxaki even took a job as a bus driver to learn more about what could be causing her daughter’s distress. By concealing from Mrs. Vitsaxaki this important information about her daughter, the School District betrayed Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s trust. It also violated the U.S. Constitution.
Eventually, one staff member could no longer stomach the School Dis- trict’s deception of Mrs. Vitsaxaki and urged the principal to come clean. When he finally did, Mrs. Vitsaxaki was shocked. She and her husband, Jane’s father, met with the School District. They directed the School District to stop taking any further action without their consent and sought open communication with the teachers to understand what had happened. But the principal told them School District policy required employees to deceive them, and despite assurances to the contrary, the deception continued. Left with no other options, Mrs. Vitsaxaki withdrew her daughter from the School District.
Like all parents, Mrs. Vitsaxaki has a fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and healthcare of her children. It is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). And that right is inconsistent with the deceptive, heavy-handed, and disruptive intervention that the School District perpetrated against Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s daughter— an intervention that gravely interfered with her ability to raise her daughter and contradicted her religious beliefs.
Ultimately, parents—not school employees or other government officials—ought to decide how to resolve a child’s questions about sensitive topics like identity and gender confusion. Parents like Mrs. Vitsaxaki know their children better than anyone else. And parents, not school employees, will be there for a child in the long run, when the consequences of these decisions become fully apparent. By violating these principles, the School District violated Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s constitutional rights. Therefore, she brings this civil-rights lawsuit for damages and declaratory relief to vindicate those rights. This case is still pending.
2024 April 3 Landerer v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., (M.D. Pa)
In a significant legal battle, Michelle Landerer has filed a lawsuit against the Dover Area School District alleging violations of her fundamental parental rights. This case underscores the critical issues of parental authority, children's mental health, and religious freedoms within the educational system.
Michelle Landerer, a mother of two students in the Dover Area School District, discovered that school personnel had been secretly affirming her daughter's request to be treated as a boy named "Caleb." This action was taken without Landerer's knowledge or consent, despite her daughter, O.G., having a history of childhood trauma and diagnosed mental health conditions, including PTSD and ADD.
In violation of Parental Rights, the school district implemented a policy that conceals students' requests to be treated as a different gender from their parents, requiring parental consent only if the child agrees. To decieve the parents, school staff were instructed to use students' legal names and biological pronouns when communicating with parents, while using the students' preferred names and pronouns at all other times.
The school personnel's actions disregarded the known risks to O.G.'s mental health, exacerbating her conditions by affirming her gender transition without professional oversight and parental involvement.
Plaintiff files this action seeking damages for Defendants’ violations of her fundamental parental rights to direct the upbringing, physical and mental health decision-making for her children, her fundamental right to familial privacy, and her fundamental right to free exercise of religion under the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions.
Defendants violated and continue to violate Plaintiff’s fundamental rights by establishing and implementing an ad hoc policy and/or directive, (hereinafter “Directive”), that deliberately conceals from Plaintiff critical information regarding her daughter’s mental health and well-being, i.e., her assertion of a discordant gender identity and request to be affirmed in that identity through the use of alternative names, pronouns, and other measures, without the knowledge and consent and even over the objection of Plaintiff.
Defendant Dover Area School District (“District”) administration mandates that school staff purposefully and intentionally withhold information from, and mislead and deceive parents by, referring to their child by his or her legal name and biologically-accurate pronouns when communicating with parents, but using the child’s expressed assumed name and pronouns at all other times, unless the child has consented to informing his or her parents. In so doing, Defendants have violated and continue to violate Ms. Landerer’s fundamental parental rights under the United States Constitution and free exercise rights under the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions.
Defendants’ actions are particularly egregious with regard to Ms. Landerer’s daughter, O.G., whom Defendants know is a survivor of childhood trauma and has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”), and General Anxiety Disorder (“GAD”) for whom affirming a discordant gender identity is antithetical to her health and well-being. Despite this foreknowledge, Defendants purposefully and recklessly disregarded the known risk of harm to O.G. and continue to do so, even stating that District personnel have and will continue to intentionally lie to Plaintiff about referring to O.G. as a boy, using the name “Caleb” and male pronouns.
Plaintiff is asking this Court to remedy the violations of her fundamental rights and the resulting harm to her daughter and possible, if not likely, harm to her son by granting injunctive and declaratory relief and awarding damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs, to Plaintiff.
Ms. Landerer’s daughter, O.G., is 14 years old. She experienced childhood trauma and has been under the care of physicians and mental health professionals since that time. O.G. was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), Conversion Disorder (“CDO”), General Anxiety Disorder (“GAD”), and Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”), all of which manifest in the form of diminished emotional regulation. Because of O.G.'s diagnoses, she qualified for, and has in place, an Accommodation Plan pursuant Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et. seq. (“Sec. 504”) with the District.
O.G. was a student in Dover Area School District from 2016 to May 2023. In 2022, during her eighth grade year of middle school, O.G. was experiencing significant anxiety and behavior issues. O.G. was already under the care of a private counselor chosen by her mother who was providing mental health therapy. When O.G. began experiencing increased stress and anxiety, Plaintiff increased the frequency of the therapy sessions. In August 2022, O.G. told her private counselor that she thought she might be “trans.” The counselor and Ms. Landerer began discussing that issue with O.G. and working through her feelings with her.
Defendants’ fashioning and implementation of the Directive as de facto policy resulted in the deception of and withholding from parents of information necessary for parents to make informed decisions concerning their children's health and welfare. Defendants made statements in public and private meetings that children’s safety requires concealing information from parents because some parents will not affirm the child’s wishes.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, during the 2021-2022 school year, O.G. told her teachers at Dover Area Middle School that she wanted to be treated as a boy and use the name “Caleb”. Ms. Landerer was not informed or advised by the District regarding O.G.’s request to be treated as a different sex and called by an alternate name, despite O.G. having mental health diagnoses and qualifying disabilities pursuant to Sec 504, all of which the District was fully aware.
During the 2021-2022 school year, Defendant Williams, unbeknownst to and without Plaintiff’s consent, regularly met with O.G. for the purpose of affirming O.G.’s request to be treated as a different sex and called by an alternate name and facilitating O.G.’s gender transition.
In August 2022, Ms. Landerer first learned that O.G. had been and was being affirmed as a boy named “Caleb” at school by personnel of the District when her son, J.G., then a student at Dover Area School District, was approached by a teacher/employee of the District and asked, “How is your brother ‘Caleb’ doing?” J.G. responded by stating that he did not have a brother named Caleb and the teacher informed him that his sister O.G. had requested and was being affirmed by District staff as a boy named “Caleb”. J.G. then told his mother, Plaintiff Michelle Landerer, about his conversation with the teacher. Had it not been for J.G.’s conversation with the District teacher, Ms. Landerer might never have learned that her vulnerable daughter was being secretly and deliberately affirmed as a boy (socially transitioned to a male identity) by District personnel.
Ms. Landerer spoke with O.G. She told her she is too young to make such decisions, that her legal name is “O”, that she can legally change her name when she becomes an adult and that she could work through her feelings on the issue in the counseling she was receiving. O.G. said that she felt pressured to continue using the male name and being identified as a boy because that was now how District personnel at school regarded her.
On August 11, 2022, Ms. Landerer sent a text message to Hufnagel at Dover Area Middle School saying: “O. is registered as O.G. and I expect she will be addressed as such. NOT CALEB… There is NO room for discussion about this matter and I have discussed this with [O.G.’s therapist] as well so I am expecting there to be no confusion…”
On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff met with Hufnagel and other District personnel. During this meeting, District personnel confirmed that during the 2021-2022 school year District staff had in fact affirmed O.G. as a boy, used the name Caleb, and male pronouns when referring to O.G.
Ms. Landerer asked O.G. to tell her teachers to call her “O” instead of “Caleb” and O.G. said she did so. Ms. Landerer later learned that O.G. had told her teachers to call her “O” in Ms. Landerer’s presence because her mother wanted it. Hufnagel confirmed that she, Hufnagel, would refer to O.G. as “O” in Ms. Landerer’s presence, but as “Caleb” in all other scenarios. This complaint is therefore needed to order the school district to comply with the parents instructions for her daughters mental health.
2023 Mirabelle v Olson
A good example of lawsuits challenging Parental Notice bans is a statewide class action complaint filed on April 27, 2023 by two middle school teachers in a federal court in California. The complaint is called Mirabelle v Olson et al. These two teachers are opposing State and Federal laws that require them to lie to parents and hide information about students from their parents regarding the gender status of their children. The class action lawsuit will include both parents and teachers in California. Here is a link to a page with all of the court documents on this case: https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/case/mirabelli-v-olson
On September 14, 2023, the District Court granted the teachers motion for a preliminary injunction against the school district policy. Here is a link to the judge’s 36 page ruling: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/65034f906c8a3969f9bd31d1_Dkt.%2042_Order%20on%20Cross%20Motions.pdf
Here are quotes from this ruling: “If a school student suffers a life-threatening concussion while playing soccer during a class on physical fitness, and the child expresses his feelings that he does not want his parents to find out, would it be lawful for the school to require its instructor to hide the event from the parents? Of course not. What if the child at school suffers a sexual assault, or expresses suicidal thoughts, or expresses aggressive and threatening thoughts or behavior? Would it be acceptable not to inform the parents? No. These would be serious medical conditions to which parents have a legal and federal constitutional right to be informed of and to direct decisions on medical treatment. A parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, control, and medical care of their children is one of the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that Americans enjoy. “
“Though it does not require the wisdom of a Supreme Court Justice to see, the Supreme Court recognizes that youth tend to make impetuous and ill-considered life decisions. “First, as any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies . . . tend to confirm, ‘a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.’” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005). In the same vein, and perhaps especially true in the school setting, “juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure.” And “the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed.” Id. at 570. “Indeed, notes the Court, “the relevance of youth as a mitigating factor derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside.”
With regard to Constitutional rights of parents, the court stated: “The United States Supreme Court has historically and repeatedly declared that parents have a right, grounded in the Constitution, to direct the education, health, and upbringing, and to maintain the well-being of, their children”.
These parental rights also include the right to know when a student transitions genders at school. By requiring the two teachers to withhold information about a student’s gender from the parents, the teachers have a strong free speech claim against the policy by being required to “violate the law or deliberately convey an illegal message”.
In addition, the court found that, because the teachers hold sincere religious beliefs that include “that the relationship between parents and children is an inherently sacred and life-long bond, ordained by God, in which the parents have the ultimate right and responsibility to care for and guide their children” and “that God forbids lying and deceit” (page 24), the teachers pled a strong enough free exercise of religion claim to obtain the preliminary injunction.
Despite the injunction, California Attorney General Bonta has ignored it, and state officials have pursued legal action in open defiance of the court’s order. In doing so, Attorney General Bonta continues to violate the Constitutional rights of parents and teachers.
On September 26, 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta wrte a letter titled “Guidance Regarding Forced Disclosure Policies Concerning Gender Identity,” which discusses the relationship between apparently conflicting orders in People v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (Cal. Super. Ct. San Bernardino County, No. CIV SB 2317301), and Mirabelli & West v. Olson (S.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-768).
The California AG claims the Mirabelli injunction - which concerns Constitutional rights of all parents and teachers - is limited merely to taking any action against the two teacher plaintiffs and that the policy regarding hiding student information from parents remains in place. Meanwhile, People v Chino Valley, which is about a local school district policy, applies to the entire state.
In response, on September 27, 2023, the attorneys for Mirabelli and West published a letter. This letter points out that: “Federal Courts have supremacy over state courts, and can enjoin state court orders to protect or effectuate Federal Court orders. Thus, to protect its own preliminary injunction order, a Federal District Court can enjoin a state court temporary restraining order. See NBA v. Minnesota Pro. Basketball, Ltd. P’ship, 56P F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 1995). If California continues to openly defy Judge Benitez’s preliminary injunction, and undermine its holding and reasoning, an injunction against the Chino Valley litigation may be necessary.
Second, the reasoning of the opinion makes two points abundantly clear: (1) any teacher in California who objects on religious grounds to these dangerous and unconstitutional policies could file their own lawsuit in Federal Court and obtain similar relief; and (2) any parent who has standing to sue and challenges these dangerous policies could obtain relief against the State and any school district—asserting their fundamental rights as parents under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
It is deeply concerning, but unfortunately unsurprising, that the State Attorney General issued a press release and “guidance” in defiance of a Federal Court order—directing school districts and state officials to act in a manner that a Federal Court determined likely violates the U.S. Constitution. The State’s newly issued guidance exposes the State, School Districts, and public school employees to massive liability in the form of attorneys’ fees and damages.
Californians should be deeply troubled by the fact that this issue—hiding young children’s gender identity and social transition at school—is such a high priority for the State. There is no justification for Attorney General Bonta burning millions of taxpayer dollars in litigation and other resources enforcing “guidance” that he now knows, and should have always known, is both unconstitutional and harmful to children. As Judge Benitez noted on page 35 of his 36-page ruling:
The school’s policy is a trifecta of harm: it harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children. And finally, it harms plaintiffs who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students— violating plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Parents, teachers, and students deserve leaders that respect and follow the law—especially fundamental Constitutional rights.
On January 29, 2024, the court allowed the teachers to file a 328 page amended complaint which you can download and read at this link:
https://assets-global.website-files.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/65b804fb83c8d726ab8b8bd4_Dkt.%2080_First%20Amended%20Complaint%202.pdf
On April 29, 2024, the California AG claimed in court that he and the Governor should not be listed as defendents because the rule prohibiting teachers from being honest with parents was just a “guidance policy of the State Department of Education” and was not an actual state law!
Conclusions
Currrently, parental rights are being recognized in some federal courts but not others. It all depends on whether the court believes that Parents Rights have priority or State Rights have priority. It is truly insane for any judge to think that states have a greater interest in the well being of children than parents. Millions of children are now being harmed in 25 states where laws require gender confused kids to be given drugs instead of counseling.
While it is possible that at some point the US Supreme Court may rule that Parent Rights should prevail over State Rights, we as parents can not and must not remain passively on the sidelines and watch helplessly as every day more children are harmed. Instead, we must make Parental Rights a central issue in every local school district race, every legislative district race, every Congressional race and every State and National election.
It all begins by informing other concerned parents and grandparents about the harm of the Transgender Takeover of our schools. I therefore hope you will share this article and other articles on our website, Washington Parents Network.com with others in your community.
As always, I look forward to your questions and comments.
Regards,
David Spring M. Ed.
Washington Parents Network
