In a landmark ruling, a federal judge in California has issued an order prohibiting school employees from deceiving parents about their child's gender transition at school.
The judge emphasized that parents have a constitutional right to be informed about such significant changes in their child's life.
According to The Post Millennial, the order was issued by Judge Roger Benitez of the US District Court for the Southern District of California. He ruled that state and local officials are barred from enforcing or implementing laws and guidelines that compel school employees to mislead parents about their child's gender presentation at school.
This includes direct deception, withholding access to educational records, or using a different set of preferred pronouns or names when communicating with parents than those used at school.
The order also prevents school staff from using a name or pronoun that does not align with the child's legal name and birth pronouns, especially when the child's parent or legal guardian has expressed their objection to such use. Furthermore, it prohibits the concealment of a child's social gender transition from their parents, even if the employee has conscientious or religious objections.
Judge Benitez's order extends to teachers, school administrators, counselors, and other staff, barring them from withholding information from parents about their child's manifestation of gender incongruity, such as changing preferred names or pronouns. The judge also mandated that a statement be prominently displayed in the states PRISM cultural competency training for educators, affirming parents' and school staff's federal constitutional rights to be informed if a student expresses gender incongruity.
In a comprehensive 52-page opinion accompanying the order, Judge Benitez highlighted the historical role of school teachers in informing parents about physical injuries or concerns about a students health and well-being. He criticized the current state policy for leaving parents in the dark about something as significant as a students expressed change of gender.
Judge Benitez expressed concern over the state's interference with a parents access to meaningful information about their childs gender identity choices. He criticized the state's prohibition of public school teachers from informing parents, arguing that the state's justification of preventing bullying and harassment does not hold water. He pointed out that the policy seems to presume that parents will be the harassers from whom students need to be protected.
The judge argued that even if the state could prove that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents constitutional rights. He emphasized the long-lasting issues of gender nonconformity and the adverse consequences parents may suffer over a lifetime.
Judge Benitez underscored the importance of early parental involvement when a student expresses a non-conforming gender identity. He outlined five probable outcomes, four of which are positive, if parents are informed early on. These include parents affirming their childs gender identity, seeking therapeutic help, waiting to see if the new gender identity persists, or disagreeing while still loving their child. The negative outcome, he noted, would be physical abuse by parents in isolated instances.
The judge cited the court case Regino as an example, where an 11-year-old student began to express feelings of being a boy due to depression and anxiety. The schools counselor addressed issues of gender identity and sexuality with the student, leading to a change in name and pronouns.
However, when the student's mother was informed, she arranged for counseling, and over time, the child's feelings about being a boy subsided. The mother's support and the counseling helped address the child's depression and anxiety, highlighting the crucial role of parental involvement in such situations.
Judge Benitez's ruling underscores the importance of parental rights and involvement in their children's lives, especially in matters as significant as gender identity. It serves as a reminder that state policies should not infringe upon these rights, and that open communication between schools and parents is crucial for the well-being of the child.
Login