By Eugene Volokh

Copyright reason

Defendants argue that an unconstitutional infringement of parental rights over their children occurs only when the state requires or prohibits some activity. Defendants cite Doe v. Irwin (6th Cir. 1980) to support its argument. Similar to Doe is Anspach v. City of Phila., Dep’t of Pub. Health (3d Cir. 2007). Both cases involved a governmental entity providing minors with contraception without parental knowledge. And both courts found no deprivation of the liberty interests of the parents in not notifying them of their child’s voluntary decisions[ b]ecause the government did not compel, coerce, or interfere with the parents’ rights to care for control their children….

There’s a major distinction between those cases and the present case. Plaintiffs plead that the District intentionally deceived them. Plaintiffs claim that the District went beyond failing to notify them of their child’s gender transition. According to the complaint, the District “took affirmative steps to deceive the Meads.” Taking complaint in its entirety, Plaintiffs’ allegations show some amount of coercion or interference from the District, which implicates Plaintiffs’ right to make fundamental decisions for G.M….

G.M. was an East Rockford Middle School student from August 2020 to October 2022. When the relevant events occurred, she was thirteen years old and in the seventh and eighth grades at Rockford. Plaintiffs allege that pursuant to the policy, District officials regularly referred to G.M. by male pronouns and a masculine name despite her biological sex being female.

And according to the policy, the District concealed this information from the Meads. The cover-up went so far as to alter any documents the District sent to the Meads by replacing any references to G.M.’s masculine name and pronouns with G.M.’s female name and biological pronouns. But outside of those meetings the District referred to G.M. by her requested masculine name and male pronouns. And when Plaintiffs raised the issue with the principal and requested that issues like this not be kept secret, the principal couldn’t guarantee that.

Plaintiffs also allege that the District’s actions amount to medical health treatment. They plead that the District engaged G.M. in a “psychosocial intervention for gender dysphoria.” Viewing the complaint in a light most favorable to the Meads, Rockford’s “psychosocial intervention for [G.M.’s] gender dysphoria” can be seen when Ms. Slater engaged in a confidential evaluation on G.M.: “Ms. Slater’s file on G.M. closed on November 14, 2022, with a handwritten note labeled ‘Confidential File’ at the top memorializing that ‘[e]vaul. Was not completed due to parent withdrew student to be homeschooled.'”

Plaintiffs plead this “intervention” began when school officials referred to G.M. by a masculine name and male pronouns for G.M.’s social and gender transition. Gender dysphoria, they assert “is complex” and proper “diagnosis very commonly suffer[s] from other clinical mental health conditions, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder,” three disorders G.M. allegedly suffers from. The District’s policy and practice allowed school officials to deceive the child’s parents, which undermined their ability to choose appropriate medical treatment for their child (a third-party therapist or psychologist). The District’s policy and practice “undermines a meaningful role for parents if the child decides his or her biological gender is not preferential.”

In sum, when viewing the complaint in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the allegations make plausible that the District’s actions infringed upon Plaintiffs’ fundamental parental rights in directing G.M.’s medical treatment, and G.M.’s upbringing and choice of education….

Defendants contend they have a compelling interest in “ensuring the safety of its students” [that would overcome the parental rights claim -EV]. That interest, however, does not give school districts carte blanche to tell a child’s parents nothing about their child’s gender transition. Defendants do not suggest that G.M. faced harm from her parents if the District were to have informed the parents about G.M.’s request. Defendants have not met their burden to show how concealing a child’s gender transition from its parents promotes that child’s safety.

Defendants also argue they have a compelling interest in promoting student privacy. But school employees did not keep G.M.’s gender transition private. School employees used G.M. by her preferred masculine name openly and publicly at school….