Another Federal Court Determines Parents Had No Right to Know School Was Socially Transitioning Daughter; Federal Court Rules ‘Parental Rights Are Not Unlimited,’ Schools Can Hide Children’s Gender Transitions

Another Federal Court Determines Parents Had No Right to Know School Was Socially Transitioning Daughter:

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit recently determined that the efforts of a Florida middle school to help a minor child socially transition to a different gender behind her parents’ backs were not sufficiently egregious to “shock the conscience” and allow the parents’ claim to proceed. But in granting the school officials’ motion to dismiss the case, the panel’s ruling in Littlejohn v. Leon County wasn’t just bad policy, it was bad legal analysis as well.

In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic swept the nation, and most children were relegated to virtual school, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn’s 13-year-old daughter told January that “she no longer felt like a girl.”

This revelation appeared at the same time that three of their daughter’s friends at her local middle school had also suddenly declared a transgender identity, and while their daughter was struggling with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder that made online learning challenging.

Over the next two years, January and Jeffrey’s daughter’s claimed identity changed four times. She revealed she had met with school administrators and was requesting that her teachers refer to her by a different name and “they/them” pronouns. Under the school board’s “gender support” guidelines, school officials had developed a gender identity-related “Student Support Plan” for and with the Littlejohns’ daughter without her parents’ involvement and contrary to their express wishes.

Their lawsuit followed. Unfortunately, in assessing their claims, both the trial court and the appellate court got it wrong.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rightly started its analysis with the question of whether the Leon County School Board and its employees’ actions were more “legislative” (a policy or regulation applicable to a larger segment of society) or “executive” (a specific act of a governmental officer applicable to only one person) in nature. That distinction governs which framework a court must apply in cases rooted in the due process clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, like the one brought by the Littlejohns.

When reviewing legislative action, a court is supposed to apply the traditional levels of judicial scrutiny from lowest (rational basis review, wherein a challenged policy is presumptively constitutional) to highest (strict scrutiny, wherein a challenged policy is presumptively unconstitutional), depending on the type of right asserted. When a plaintiff asserts a right that is considered “fundamental,” strict scrutiny review applies. And in Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court in 2000 noted clearly that the parental right to direct a child’s upbringing is the oldest of the “fundamental” liberty interests ever recognized by that court.

So, because a fundamental right was at issue, the court should have applied strict scrutiny. Specifically, the school board and its officials should have had to prove that the policy and their actions were necessary to achieve a “compelling” government interest and were the most narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest. Strict scrutiny is a high bar for any government defendant to overcome. —>READ MORE HERE

Federal Court Rules ‘Parental Rights Are Not Unlimited,’ Schools Can Hide Children’s Gender Transitions

The U.S. appellate court system has largely avoided debating the contentious issue of parental rights as it relates to children’s gender transition efforts in schools — until now.

In a unanimous decision published late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District issued a ruling in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, a case centered on a Massachusetts middle school facilitating a student’s social gender transition while keeping the transition a secret from the student’s parents. Addressing the merits, the court dismissed the case, writing that “parental rights are not unlimited. Parents may not invoke the Due Process Clause to create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school.”

According to the court’s background summary, the case originated with a student at Baird Middle School in Ludlow. The 11-year-old student, who is not named in court documents but is identified as biologically female, began a social gender transition at school in 2020, after her school computer account began generating “unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions” for her. By the end of the year, the student confided in a teacher that she felt “depressed” and was “struggling with insecurity, low self-esteem, poor self-image, and a perceived lack of popularity.”

Initially, school administrators contacted the student’s parents, Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri, to alert them to their daughter’s depression and possible mental health struggles. Foote and Silvestri thanked the school administrators and, in an email to the school principal, shared that they had sought professional help for their daughter. The parents added, “With that being said, we request that you do not have any private conversations with [the student] in regards to this matter. Please allow us to address this as a family and with the proper professionals.”

Just a few months later, however, the student told her school counselor that she now identified as “genderqueer” and asked to be called by a new name and new pronouns. Since the student said that she had not yet shared this new “identity” with her parents, the school counselor alerted teachers and staff that they ought to address the student by her new name and pronouns at school but to refer to her by her given name and biological pronouns when talking to the student’s parents. The school librarian also began conducting “one-on-one” meetings with the student and “provided” her with “LGBTQ-related resources.” Additionally, the student was informed that she could now use the bathroom of her choice.

When the student’s parents discovered the following month that the school had ignored their request not to have “any private conversations” with their daughter on the subject, school Superintendent Todd Gazda said that he wanted the school to be a place where children could “‘express who they are’ despite parents’ wishes to the contrary.” School administrators and teachers continued to refer to the student by her new name and pronouns and the school counselor even discussed the student’s gender transition with her via text and online chat messages. The girl’s parents claimed that the school’s handling of their daughter’s case amounted to a “psychosocial” intervention and that “social transitioning” is “recognized as a medical/mental health treatment for children with gender dysphoria.” —>READ MORE HERE

Source

Jesus Christ is King