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.
That’s a very significant ruling. It’s going to spark a lot of discussion about parental rights and school policies.
The culture appears to be built upon child abuse. The net has caught all people in pedophilia. The absence of innocence is the goo of mental illness and bereft of common sense. Religious objections required deleting common sense.
Poor children
The same “experts” who are the reason Sally Can’t Read want a child’s parents to trust them to, with no notice to the parents, cause the whole school should call Sally, Bob.
The child in question is maybe 1 of the teacher’s 80 or 90 students (if we’re talking about middle or high school). The teacher sees the child maybe 40 minutes, 4 times a week, in a class of maybe 22, for 1 school year.
The arrogance and carelessness is astonishing,
Home schooling looks better and better.
America has gone nuts because the judicial branch has gone full communist.
America must be placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
“the Rockford Public School district concealed changes to the gender identification of their biological daughter, identified as G.M. ”
In related news, they also concealed which students liked kickball and which preferred the color yellow.
Concealment should be a positive action to disguise something that normally have been discovered. The school has no duty to disclose every detail of a child’s life within the school, particularly one that has no effect on their physical health. If an argument is to be made over mental health, the teachers are not licensed mental health experts and would be practicing without a license to make such determinations. The child in question was already being seen by a psychologist the parents sent them to. If the psychologist was unconcerned, why would the teachers be concerned?
It does not sound like concealment by the school. It sounds like the child was terrified of the potential reaction of the parents, but felt safe to tell those at the school who would neither judge nor punish. Given the fanatical pursuit of legal means to inflict economic and job-ending damages, I’d say these Apocalyptic (and apoplectic) parents hate the way their child is turning out. Maybe they should have talked to the child more and not depended on educators to tattle.
The concealment was clearly by the child who did not share information with their parents. The parents didn’t seem to participate in evaluating homework or test results or they would have seen the other name. They seem unconcerned about anything but raw performance and conformity. No wonder the child’s results in school declined if that was the hostile home environment.
The parents seem to have wanted some other child than the one God gave them to raise and care for and are blaming the school for not overriding God’s will.
See my new book “The Right to Rage: How Billionaires Weaponized Media to Reshape Conservatives Into Minions”
Rabble:
Please, no one justify this with a response. Ignoring the trolls just outs them or makes them go somewhere else.
Go away. The child belongs to the parents. End of story. My children had they been going to school in this Age, would have been homeschooled. This is horrific how you ppl think.
Your logic is mind-boggling! No 11 year old child knows that they want to be another sex definitely. This is absolutely up to the parents NOT the school! I cannot believe you would make this comparison “they also concealed which students liked kickball and which preferred the color yellow”. There is by no means a logical comparison. What the school is doing is called INDOCTRINATION. A child often thinks wild things but it is called imagination. If a child says he/she wants to be a horse, your logic would then say it is ok to let the child walk around with a saddle on his/her back and feed the person hay and oats. If a parent is responsible for a child until he/she is 18, that means the WHOLE child – mind & body – NOT some school administrators..
What indoctrination? No one at the school requested the name change. No one said one choice was better than the other. If they could “indoctrinate” they would do so on learning English, Math, History, Science. Just a few lessons and they would be moving up to Calculus by 3rd grade. Why were the parents unable to indoctrinate a child they had since birth? There’s no teacher’s college course on indoctrinating children on gender alone that doesn’t work for any other aspect of their life.
At one time teachers literally beat left handed children for being left handed. It turns out for sexuality there is more than a binary switch that closes at conception and there’s no reason one’s genitals absolutely determine what people think. People do all sorts of gender affirming things, from plastic surgery and breast reductions on male children (the number 1 sex affirming surgery on children) to hair cuts, shaving, and so on. People look in the mirror and decide they wished they looked different in some way to make themselves more attractive.
If the parent would act on their responsibility they would have had this conversation at home and noticed the preferences long before. Instead they are treating the child like a broken possession. They should have bought a dog, but I bet they would have not been responsible pet owners either.
So much TALK when you are ignorant of the particular situation. Or do you consider yourself equal to God in omniscience?
It seems to me that the school seems to consider itself equal to God in this particular situation. I cannot imagine instituting a gender and name change without even informing the parents. It’s nuts.
Thank God
1. I consider transgenderism and gender dysphoria to be matters invoking MEDICAL education, law and practice.
2. As such, transgenderism and gender dysphoria should be treated the same way as pregnancy and abortion among minors.
3. Parental notice and consent is generally required in most jurisdictions regarding pregnancy and abortion, and I see no reason whatsoever why gender dysphoria should be treated any differently.
4. As parents are the dutifully and duly recognized persons responsible for health and welfare of their children, “parental notice and consent” is consistent with “need to know” legal, practical, and ethical principles. Can this be resolved by requiring parents/guardians of enrolled students to fill out and file school-provided forms allowing or denying schools’ “in loco parentis” authority regarding such topics?
5. I think we all know that many states have specific laws allowing for minors to avoid notifying their parents if the minors can satisfy certain criteria in a court of law, which ultimately can grant “emancipated minor” status to them. First, the courts must adjudicate whether those minors as mentally, emotionally, and physically mature enough to be granted self-autonomy regarding healthcare. There are several steps and inputs involved.
6. IMHO, NO school should be allowed to unilaterally defer to and placate a young student’s requests without parental involvement. Deferring to young children the power and authority to demand that parents not be notified….is ‘in loco nonsensis!” The only exception should be if the child has advised of parental abuse, which would invoke a whole different set of considerations and investigations (including ultimate “guardian ad litem” resources if needed) .
7. That is to say, the ONLY role school personnel should play is to:
(a) (after advising the student that they are required to get the parents involved), either notify parents of the minor’s gender dysphoria/requests (exception of parental abuse allegations); OR
(b) refer older minors to school counselors, who can advise them of legal “emancipated” status for healthcare decisions, and school health officials who can refer them to guardian ad litem resources for representation in court.
I cannot end my opinion without referring to a June 25 SCOTUS decision regarding the imposition of required LGBTQ texts, books, and class discussions without notifying parents in MAHMOUD v. TAYLOR, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf The Court expressly rejected the school board’s characterization of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” instruction as mere “exposure to objectionable ideas” or as lessons in “mutual respect.” Pictures and drawings from some of the textbooks are attached to the end of the decision.
“In light of the record before us, we hold that the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks-combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs—substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable.”
I regret that this decision was limited to adjudication on religious grounds.
No need to wonder why 12-13% of Massachusetts K-12 students are enrolled in private schools. (National average ~10%)
-g
You have to realize that this is a white girl, who no longer wants to be a girl. or they say. So the state pushes her , because in their eyes she will never bear anymore white children since they hate white people and blame those who are white on all of their problems. Reduction in white people.
I cannot decide whether you sincerely believe that, or are instead a troll wanting to provoke approval/upvotes to merely gauge sentiment/response???
I’ll take Door number 2 Lin for $10,000
The Supreme Court has ruled since 1923 that parental rights are protected by the 14th amendments due process clause. In numerous cases since then the same determination has been made by the Supreme Court. Parents have a fundamental right to care, custody, control, and education of their own.
Democrats in many states are actively violating constitutional law and the rights of the parents. It’s time that these Democrats pay out of their own pocket. Parents need to form a large block and Sue individual politicians for the violation of their constitutional rights to their children.
42 USC 1983 Gives parents that ability to File suit against individual politicians, Holding them personally responsible. It is one of the ways that Congress Gave us to hold politicians accountable.
In addition to the right of care, custody, control and education, parents also have the right to determine the medical care of their children. The judge also held that the school engaged here in a “psychosocial intervention” to treat gender dysphoria. This is an important conclusion, since it correctly characterises the facilitation of “social transition” as a medical intervention that cannot be undertaken without parents’ consent. Other courts have resisted this correct result.
Daniel,
Thank you for that legal analysis.
Daniel: Well, thank you for that, because I (atypically) posted my comment without reading either the case OR your comment. Gotta sign off here, but glad you posted that.
“This right was not granted to us by the grace of the state. It rests with us as human beings.”
Well put.
*. It’s all so clever. SCOTUS opinion recently was cross gender hormones aren’t allowed by physicians for treatment of minors? Puberty blockers?
Oh, I know, let’s determine parents make these decisions in a reverse case and establish the ownership of their children. Let’s go back to court and say they’re my children, you said it and my child needs puberty blockers.
On a lighter side clear the slate. Suddenly 11 year old Tommy comes to class in a dress and pigtails. Teacher asks Tommy the reason. Tommy says because I’m a girl. What would teacher do? Call child protective services moving it out of the school’s arena.
Whenever a Republican appointed judge makes a decision, it is generally diametrically opposed to the decision that a Democrat appointed judge would make. The judicial system is nothing more than a random number generator and the outcome is determined by the flip of a coin of who hears the case. This is why confidence in the judiciary is at an all time low!
So now children belong to the state? Parents are just there to pay for them?
They/them already have the same rights as the rest of us. They’re coming for the children.
Sanity. Welcome. Lately rare in federal courts filled with DEI autopen appointments.