A major court has ruled that parents don’t have the right to know that their child is changing genders while at school.
The opinion, from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, determined that it does not violate parental rights for a school to transition a child without the parents’ knowledge.
“[P]arental rights are not unlimited,” the court ruled. “Parents may not invoke the Due Process Clause to create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school.”
“As per our understanding of Supreme Court precedent, our pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials, charged with the responsibility of educating children,” the court continued. “And the Protocol of nondisclosure as to a student’s at-school gender expression without the student’s consent does not restrict parental rights in a way courts have recognized as a violation of the guarantees of substantive due process.”
The decision comes from a case in Massachusetts, where in 2020 a Baird Middle School student referred to in court documents as B.F. began questioning her identity after she received “unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions” on her school-issued computer. The student, in sixth grade at the time, was given an assignment along with her fellow students to create biographic videos about themselves and to include their pronouns in those videos.
It is unknown how B.F. referred to herself in the assignment, but in the following months, she began receiving the “unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions” and started questioning whether she “might be attracted to girls” and if she had gender identity issues, according to court documents.
By December 2020, B.F. told her teacher that she was “depressed and struggling with insecurity, low self-esteem, poor self-image, and a perceived lack of popularity.” The teacher told B.F.’s parents, Marissa Silvestri and Stephen Foote, what their daughter had said, and the parents agreed to get her the help she needed.
But on February 28, 2021, B.F. announced to her teacher and other school officials that she was “genderqueer” and would use her preferred pronouns and go by a new name. B.F. told school officials that she hadn’t explained this all to her parents yet and asked that she be referred to by her birth name and proper pronouns when discussing things with her parents. Teachers immediately switched to the new name and pronouns, and the school librarian started meeting with the student to talk to her about gender identity and to give her “LGBTQ-related resources,” according to court documents. The school counselor also told the girl she could use whichever bathroom she wanted at the school.
At the same time, B.F.’s 12-year-old sibling also suddenly decided to start using a different name and pronouns.
The parents learned in early March 2021 – just days after B.F.’s declaration – learned about her new name and pronouns from her teacher. The parents spoke with the school principal and superintendent to express concern that school officials had ignored their request not to engage with their child “regarding mental health issues.” When the parents eventually sued the school and its officials, they argued that transitioning the child at school amounted to mental health treatment because social transitioning is “recognized as a medical/mental health treatment for children with gender dysphoria.”
Educators at Baird ignored the parents and continued to refer to B.F. by her new name and pronouns. The school counselor also contacted the student through text messages and online chat to keep encouraging B.F. to discuss any gender-related concerns on a weekly basis. At one point, the counselor asked B.F. if her parents were providing her “with appropriate care.” The counselor also asked if B.F. felt comfortable discussing these issues with the counselor her parents were paying for.
When the parents sued, the school district moved to dismiss the case, and the case eventually moved forward to the First Circuit, which ruled the parents had no right to know that the school was transitioning their child behind their back.
The First Circuit’s ruling is filled with biased language, using “they/them” pronouns for B.F. because is it allegedly “gender neutral.”
As Frederick Claybrook, Jr., noted in an article for The Federalist Society — an organization that supports limited government — this is the first time a federal court of appeals has waded into parental rights when it comes to transgender issues. Until now, Claybrook states, the courts “have dodged” the issue as it relates to parental rights.
“When district courts have ruled in favor of parents, for example in a District of Kansas case and in a Southern District of California case, the school districts have not appealed,” Claybrook writes. “When parents have lost, for example in Parents v. Montgomery County Board of Education, they have proceeded to circuit court, but those courts to date have dodged addressing the merits.”
The Fourth and Seventh Circuits, Claybrook noted, have both ruled that parents don’t have a standing to complain schools were keeping things secret from them because they didn’t know for sure the schools were keeping things secret from them. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who dissented from denial of certiorari in the Seventh Circuit, said that the school’s existing policy meant parents weren’t speculating about anything, and suggested circuit courts were avoiding the merits of the cases.
Jonathan Turley, a renowned law professor, posted about the First Circuit case on X, writing that there “is no more cherished right that citizens possess than raising their children.”
“Indeed, the right to raise one’s children according to your own faith and values is the touchstone of freedom,” Turley continued. “Conversely, the subordination of such rights is the harbinger of state tyranny. True pluralism allows families with different norms and values to thrive. Public schools are effectively demanding that parents give up their rights to critical aspects of rearing their children as a condition for public education. It is a virtual slogan for school choice.”
Continue reading this exclusive article and join the conversation, plus watch free videos on DW+
Already a member?
