There is a major ruling, Mead v. Rockford Public School Dist., a potentially precedent-setting case on parental rights in our public schools. Judge Paul Maloney (W.D. Mich.) ruled that Plaintiffs Dan and Jennifer Mead could move forward with their claims that the Rockford Public School district concealed changes to the gender identification of their biological daughter, identified as G.M. As I have previously written, parental rights are shaping up as a major battleground for the Supreme Court after years of decisions in the lower court undermining parental controls and disclosures.
A recent legal decision captured this growing divide. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled last month that parents had no protected right to be informed when their children change their gender identity in public school.
In Foote v. Feliciano, Marissa Silvestri and Stephen Foote sued Baird Middle School in Ludlow, Massachusetts, after they learned that school administrators did not inform them that their 11-year-old child had self-declared as “genderqueer” and that teachers and staff were using a new name and new pronouns for the student.
The parents were initially told only that their child was experiencing mental health difficulties, including depression. Silvestri said they would seek mental health support for their child and asked that administrators “not have any private conversations with (the Student) in regards to this matter.”
The parents later learned that the school’s staff had continued to meet with their child without their knowledge, implemented the change in gender identity and took active measures not to reveal the change to them (including using the student’s birth name in communications with the parents). The school, without the parents’ knowledge, arranged for changes in everything from the use of male bathrooms to the exclusive use of the child’s new name in class.
The district court in Massachusetts denied the parents’ request for a trial and granted a summary dismissal in favor of the schools.
A century ago, the nation’s highest court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
In its 2000 Troxel v. Granville decision, the court recognized “the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”
There is no greater natural right than the right to control the upbringing of our children. This right was not granted to us by the grace of the state. It rests with us as human beings. It is part of a panoply of natural rights embraced by the framers − a commitment made nearly 250 years ago in our Declaration of Independence.
The right prevailed in Michigan in this critical threshold ruling. While denying a free exercise claim, the court agreed that there was a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim:
The right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing originated from three Supreme Court cases: Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), and Farrington v. Tokushige (1927)…. The Court affirmed the life of this right in Troxel v. Granville (2000). There, the Court held that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children [] is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest recognized by this Court.” … In addition, parents have a fundamental right to control their child’s health. See Parham v. J.R. (1979). “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.” So “[s]urely, [a parent’s right] includes a ‘high duty’ to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek and follow medical advice.” …
The court noted that the parents were alleging a key element in the case that the District intentionally deceived them and found that these “allegations show some amount of coercion or interference from the District, which implicates Plaintiffs’ right to make fundamental decisions for G.M.”
Bravo, Judge Maloney.
There is a simple solution to failing public schools. Require all teachers, administrators and public officials to send their children to the lowest ranked school in the district. No exceptions.
That’s hardly cultivating. Penalize all for the sins of a few. You’d make a reliable liberal.
“Your child belongs to us already”
“Give me a child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be mine forever.”
I am so glad I’m a retired teacher because I wouldn’t follow policy that required me to use wrong pronouns. Teacher parent communication and trust is the bedrock of successful education.
Additionally, there is nothing in God’s law or man’s law that requires me to participate in someone else’s delusion.
I suppose this will all hinge on a definition of “what is best for the child and who gets to decide? Just the thought that a school system could override parental concerns smacks so obviously of fascism/totalitarianism that it should scare the bejeezus out of all of us because if schools can determine individual rights, where would the end be for governmental control over the very air we breath.
This is good news! People who attempt to undermine a parents rights to their children should not be in positions like this. They should not be teachers, or on school boards.
Or a member of the judiciary.
Nor anywhere near wherever the levers of power are located at.
It is quite simple; one cannot be simultaneously be held responsible for the actions of a child while also being excluded from the processes necessary to raise that child.
End government schools. Repeal property taxes and other ways to finance them so parents can afford to find private schools that better suit THEIR values.
Government schools are another embarrassing liberal failure. They siphon off over $1 TRILLION every year and inner city children in Democrat run cities can’t even read or write at a basic level.
I’m pretty sure the last President to send his children to government schools was Jimmy Carter – and that was 50 years ago when government schools were still somewhat rigorous and effective.
===========
“The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”
― H.L. Mencken
Of the last several Presidents, only Bill Clinton attended a public high school. And three of the last six attended a Catholic elementary school.
If one, correctly in my assessment, views adolescent gender dysphoria as a mental disorder, how are school administrators and school teachers who make this diagnosis and prescribe treatment not practicing medicine without a license? School administrators and teachers who buy into a child’s gender dysphoria delusion, and who actively conceal it from the child’s parent or guardian, are negligently enabling a mentally ill child’s delusional. Why are they not investigated by state medical boards for practicing medicine without a license and risk their teacher’s certification for doing so? This abuse of children by school administrators and school teachers likely will not stop until these enablers are litigated to eternity by parents and guardians.
Right on target Vincente.
State medical boards are all liberals. And having a school nurse on board gives liberal school principals cover.
I don’t know which was more frightening. The school in Massachusetts ignoring the parents and proceeding with their child’s transition or the Ruling of the !st Circuit Court of Appeals denying the parents a trial. The fact that the school told the parents that the child was having mental health issues and the parent’s response that they would arrange the health care (as is the parent’s right ) should have ended things right there. The fact that the school then ignored that and proceeded to treat the child, would, in many states constitute assault and/or battery. They are likely other charges that could have been brought.
Massachusetts has had some difficulty in dealing with parents and children and especially when the parents elect not to follow the medical advice that the state deems is proper, even when there are other medical authorities who have advocated a different approach or disagreed with parts of the Massachusetts Medical Establishment.
Massachusetts has some outstanding medical centers but they are not infallible or godlike. Parents from outlying states who bring their children to Mass because of those referral centers are sometimes caught in medical attitudes that are not consistent with the state that the parents and children come from and that leads to conflict.
These decisions definitely require Supreme Court Intervention.
I think the decision in Michigan is a breath of fresh air in legal and common sense that the 1st circuit could not reach (for some reason that remains unclear). The trial should be interesting and hopefully reveal the legal pros and cons more clearly.
Taking your children out of state to a world renowned medical center used to be a no brainer in some difficult medical issues. The politics of today and states like California and Massachusetts having very different legal outlooks in child health, makes those decisions more likely to be fraught with legal complications. A sad state for some unwitting parents.
As usual, the comments thus far see the subject matter as a mere political issue, totally ignorant and incompetent of the US FDA role in this tragedy, a preventable epidemic of gender dysphoria. By the late 1960s the FDA approved the use of modified common allergen, incomplete protein, phytoestrogen (similar to human female estrogen) rich soy as a food additive. By 2006 at least one more astute brave writer published a six part article on the subject: https://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39253/ How about addressing the underlying causes instead of just the most obvious symptoms for a change? Charles G. Shaver/anonymous.
Get your precious offsprings out of public schools
The solution to this is for the parents who OWN the schools to fire the Superintendent and the teachers who are caught. School Boards exist at the will of the parents and taxpayers. Change the school board and elect only those who will stop the perverts and groomers. Problem solved.
This is the left’s (democrat) version of Lebensborn. There was a time that students couldn’t go on a school related trip without their parents consent. I hope the parents recover money for what those involved were doing to the child and money to deprogram the kid.
Lebensborn was primarily focused on propagating the Aryan race. Young female Nazi sycophants willing to use their reproductive systems to further the Aryan race by letting Himmler’s personally chosen studs to assist.
Also, independent of that thought. I think Trump by eliminating the DOE passed up a valuable tool to coerce educators with new laws and monetary grants.
But, but, but this means that a bunch of random queers and weirdos at school will have less power to groom kids! What about their rights, huh???
Seriously, what is wrong with the Judges in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals??? That decision will never hold up.
I suspect your mind is at odds with reality. If one wants to believe conservative news reporting, it gives the public the impression that every teacher from grade school to college in the USA is an alphabet person lurking and ready to pounce on a child. I do not believe that. Even conservative media has it reporting quirks. And folks here have been infected with hate and malice towards all educators. Mr. Floyd is a perfect example.
You say “Hate and Malice” as if they were bad things??? Anyway, 12 million kids are subject to these “secrecy at school” policies. Here is a video in support of my hatred and malice:
You are either very stoopid or a mental degenerate. In any case – dangerous.
@T. Moore
It has gotten to the point that yes, at least by varying degrees, it is nearly universal in schools. It is already universal in some form at the university level (who of course, are training future educators). Don’t kid yourself on this: districts differ, yes, but this is not an isolated phenomenon by any means; its opposite is.
Doesn’t mean hatred is the answer but acquiescence would be madness, it’s already a runaway train.
T. Moore, and James,
I agree with both of you. What we need is more transparency into what children are being taught in public education, and parents need to be more involved with their children’s education. If a school board decides it wants to interfere with parents rights, those parents have every right to change schools or home school.
Bravo. Also, Prof. Turley, will you begin to honestly address how parental rights to exercise a measure of control over what their children are exposed to eclipses the “free speech” rights of other adults to publicly reach out through the internet to influence their children?
Your book “The Indispensable Right” is silent on this quite reasonable exception, by only considering a (social media) public square occupied by adults. Seems like every reductionistic assumption we make about free speech is going to come back to bite us. Why not address the topic in its full complexity?
Okay, however there are many parents who are incapable of raising children – liberal parents for example. Imagine the psychic damage they cause.
This has gotten ridiculous. These lower court judges who think they own our children have gone way to far. The activist in the public school system must be stopped. It is maddening to think that the school was entertaining the whims of an 11year old girl and purposefully deceived the parents. The school endangered her well being by allowing her to use the boys room. Boys of that age can be pretty brutal. We didn’t have this problem on schools when I was 11 in 1975 nor when my two sets of twin girls were 11 in 1999 and 2001 and I live in the very liberal state of NJ. It is happening in NJ schools now. The Supreme Court needs to put an end to the violation of parents rights in regards to their children. I hope the parents sue the hell out of this school district.
Schools are like taxi cabs.You pay them to take your children where you want them to go…PERIOD.
I agree that parents have inalienable rights to fully look after the welfare of their children. States or school districts should not be able to promote or allow significant noneducational aspects of a child’s life. The function and job of school districts is the education of children, not to manage their sexuality. Perhaps we need and amendment to the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of sexuality,” exactly parallel to the separation of church and state. That is, we need to create another “wall of separation,” ala Thomas Jefferson.
I too agree. However the threat to parents who dare fight for their children’s education and mental well being is to be declared incompetent by a court of liberal judges, as is the case in MA. Liberals will use every trick possible to destroy the child and parent bond. Parents only current solution is home schooling and that too has its limitations when school boards implement near impossible grade level verification and curriculum conditions on them.
Puberty is such a crazy time for children, confusing and awkward. With the advent of social media, a diminished moral compass and online LGBTQ influencers kids don’t know what to believe. A school’s purpose is to educate, it’s not to decide how someone’s child is to address lifetime decisions of sexuality at eleven years old, that is a parenting role. Remember, RBG promoted the age of consent to 12 years old, what a sick old witch she was.
Sheer madness and Evil
Your response is no better. Hopefully you have no children. If you do, I pray for them.
That is good news!
Now off to the Supreme court to reconcile these opposing lower court rulings.