Posted on 07/22/2025 4:52:12 AM PDT by george76
Appeals courts divided "over whether nonreligious parents’ rights are limited to the initial enrollment decision" and "how broadly to define school authority over curriculum and administrative decisions."
ANew Jersey widower who cannot afford private school is fighting to stop his public school district from treating his gender-confused daughter as a boy against his express wishes, even in its "home education program," and calling child protective services for his resistance.
Parental rights groups, a prominent transgender child psychologist, a mother whose gender-confused daughter killed herself and more than 20 state attorneys general are among more than a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs supporting widower Christin Heaps against the Delaware Valley Regional High School Board of Education.
While the plumber's lawsuit at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals only affects the mid-Atlantic states for now, Massachusetts parents who already lost in the 1st Circuit are petitioning the Supreme Court to strike down secret social transitions nationwide.
Ludlow Public Schools fired teacher Bonnie Manchester for telling Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri the district transitioned their self-described "genderqueer" 11-year-old behind their backs. A federal judge dismissed Manchester's wrongful-termination lawsuit in April, citing the 1st Circuit's ruling upholding the secret transition policy in the parents' lawsuit.
The 1st Circuit contradicted a 25-year-old 3rd Circuit precedent that school districts' authority over students "does not mean ‘displace parents,'" fleshed out five years later in an opinion joined by future Justice Samuel Alito on "actions that strike at the heart of parental decision-making authority on matters of the greatest importance," the petition says.
"The circuits are divided 4–1 over whether nonreligious parents’ rights are limited to the initial enrollment decision," which begs for SCOTUS intervention, the petition says. "Courts disagree over how broadly to define school authority over curriculum and administrative decisions."
Threatened to block her final exams, repeat freshman year..
Heaps' case against the New Jersey school district, which otherwise resembles litigation nationwide against secret social transitions of gender-confused students, is notable for its family dynamics, socioeconomic status, school overriding the girl's therapist and its demand that Heaps let teachers socially transition her even at home.
"Jane Doe" lost her mother at age four and has been diagnosed with autism, ADHD, depression and anxiety, Heaps' opening brief says. The girl had been "seeing a therapist for around a year and a half," who was taking "a cautious approach to Jane’s gender confusion given her underlying trauma and psychiatric comorbidities," when she entered high school.
Heaps put the girl in the district's home-instruction program when another parent "incidentally referred to his daughter by a masculine name," revealing months of secret transitioning, but the district did not stop using male pronouns and name for her in virtual lessons.
After the widower sued to stop the district, it threatened to deem Jane "truant" unless she completed assignments "on school premises after school on a 1:1 basis with a staff member," sent child services to Heaps' home to grill him and threatened to block his child from final exams and make her "repeat her freshman year."
U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner, nominated by President Biden, denied a preliminary injunction because Heaps didn't show his daughter is "suffering or diagnosed with a mental health condition related to gender identity" – by then she had abandoned a boy's identity – or that the school "actively encouraged" her to socially transition.
The brief repeatedly invokes the Supreme Court's new Mahmoud ruling against a Maryland school district for not notifying parents of young children, or recognize opt-outs, before it teaches LGBTQ-themed books. Like those plaintiffs, Heaps cannot afford an "adequate substitute" for a public school and risks fines or imprisonment if he doesn't send the girl there.
'Impenetrable labyrinth' of legal precedents ..
The Liberty Justice Center's friend-of-the-court brief with child psychologist Erica Anderson, who is transgender and has transitioned many children into opposite-sex identities, emphasizes the debate among mental health practitioners over "how "quickly and under what conditions" confused children should transition.
Research "before the recent trend to quickly transition" found the vast majority of children desist from "gender incongruence" naturally, "whereas some newer studies of youth who have socially transitioned show much higher rates of persistence" and are hence much likelier to medically transition, making parental involvement necessary, the brief says.
Twenty-two state AGs led by Montana, and the Arizona Legislature, challenged Judge Castner's use of the lowest standard of judicial review to consider the policy, mischaracterizing Heaps' claims as "seeking to direct how a public school teaches his child" rather than denying his rights to "make educational and healthcare decisions" for his child.
The Biden nominee wrongly relied on the 3rd Circuit precedent Anspach upholding emergency contraception for a minor without parental knowledge or consent, because SCOTUS in Mahmoud rejected the reasoning in Anspach that government circumvention of parents is "not constraining or compelling any action by the parents," the AGs said.
The Child and Parental Rights Campaign, which is co-counsel in the Ludlow SCOTUS petition, said it has faced "nearly identical" challenges as Heaps to its own litigation against secret social transitioning, namely an "impenetrable labyrinth" of legal precedents on municipal liability and pleading standards including 1978's Monell.
They punish parents for not providing "sufficient factual details to state a plausible claim" but the policies are "purposely withholding information from parents," who cannot "engage in discovery unless they survive the motion to dismiss," the brief says. Lower courts misinterpret Monell to create the "very de facto sovereign immunity for municipalities that Monell rejected.
Facilitating gender transition not like giving a child 'book on brick laying'..
Filed Friday, the CPRC petition with the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Foote and Silvestri asks SCOTUS to consider whether "a public school violates parents’ constitutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, the school encourages a student to transition to a new 'gender' or participates in that process."
"The First Circuit ignored this Nation’s history and tradition" on parental rights over children's education even in public schools, with "Reconstruction-era courts" upholding "objectionable curricula" opt-outs but lower courts minimizing their rights since SCOTUS banned the compelled recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school, they said.
The Boston-based appeals court joined 20-year-old precedents from the 9th, 7th and 6th circuits that gave parents no say in taxpayer-funded education except whether to send their children to public school, and the 9th and 7th that public schools can give students of any age "whatever information" they deem educationally appropriate.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit has even excluded parents from any say in "policies about locker-room and restroom access" – such as the sexes dressing and undressing in front of each other – as matters of "school administration," while the 3rd and Atlanta-based 11th Circuit put a tighter leash on what schools can do to students, the petition says.
"This Court has never suggested that parents must show 'coercion' or 'restraint' to establish that a school has violated their right" over their children, yet the 1st Circuit compared the school's facilitation of a gender transition on a "mentally fragile" girl in therapy to claiming that giving a student a "book on brick laying" would force them to become a mason.
Looks like the pro-family people have a good case here, but in most cases, parents are CHOOSING to dump their kids into the public schools (you know, so they can ‘keep up with the Jones’s)...and then bitch when the public kids get to work destroying their kids.
Sorry parent, you CANNOT have it both ways, maybe in Japan or Russia, but NOT in 21st Century America - that’s not how this country works anymore.
The problem is the people fund these schools. They belong to us, only we’ve allowed a cancer to grow and spread within. Same with government, congress, the courts, corporations. The people have forgotten we serve God and now we’re being judged.
It’s hard to believe there isn’t more of an uproar about this. Especially among the parents.
Sorry parent, you CANNOT have it both ways, maybe in Japan or Russia, but NOT in 21st Century America - that’s not how this country works anymore.
The guy is a plumber. I’d think he could yank her out of the cesspool school and move to a free state where he could home school her without any government interference, oversight or knowledge. Being a plumber, he could make a couple phone calls on the drive and have good employment by the time he arrived in his new home.
I forgot to add the obligatory comment: Parents who remotely love their children have a duty to remove them immediately from public schools. Failure to do so is proof that you love your lifestyle more than your children.
“...parents are CHOOSING to dump their kids into the public schools (you know, so they can ‘keep up with the Jones’s)”
Interesting perspective. We home-schooled our children to keep them from being held back with the Jones’s.
“Interesting perspective. We home-schooled our children to keep them from being held back with the Jones’s.”
For a lot of parents, it’s CHOOSING between the nice house, in the nice neighborhood, with the nice new truck (oooh, that truck). Very tempting and not reachable unless mom works and the kids are dumped in the public schools...so, sorry kids, you lose.
Avoid Child Abuse....HOMESCHOOL YOUR KIDS...
Maybe the parents ought to give those encouraging the kids to embrace this a TRANSITION CHANGE. If you get my meaning. No violence intended. (:
As long as the schools are ‘free’, why should I give a damn as to what happens to my kids?
Anyway, here’s the famous quote by Albert Shanker, who wasn’t quite as bad as Weingarden when he ran the American Federation of Teachers.
“When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”
It’s up to parents to decide whether to pay attention to the above quote, or whether that new truck is more important.
Rule of thumb, they can do whatever they want.
You’re only lucky if they don’t.
I was homeschooled and threatened with truancy labels and a few other things.
It may sound a bit overheated but I do think parents should have a backup plan, some sort of insurance in the event of harassment by government agents.
If you can pay for car and homeowner insurance, you can set aside funds toward a second residence. Extreme, but so is the power of a school district when they have you in the crosshairs.
Otherwise when CPS comes for the kiddies, you wish you had a place a thousand miles from where you’re standing.
Understandably, your career and income and community and mortgage and every sort of tie and obligation are all very important. Ask yourself to weigh all those on the scale against your child’s welfare. Possibly your freedom as well. An intact family, too, that they can destroy in no time.
If they’re concerned about one child of yours, your other children fall under the same concern.
Rights are lovely, but fragile. You may need options one day.
Don’t put your kids in public school in the first place, that’s where the insurance plan ought to start.
This is what’s wrong with our country right now. People are calmly litigating this in courts as if it’s just some normal thing. 50 years ago police would be arresting these teachers and they would be thrown in jail.
Of course homeschooling is desirable, but it's no guarantee, and can be a red flag in the faces of the school district authorities. In some areas they will investigate you for that alone.
Schools should be sued and prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.
‘Parents who remotely love their children have a duty to remove them immediately from public schools. Failure to do so is proof that you love your lifestyle more than your children.’
Exactly!
If the Parents opting for gender transitions is stupid if they wanted a specific modle of a child clone the damned thing.
Sadly, win lose or draw, the school and personnel will be onto other children next year. They will completely disregard any damage they may have caused. They don’t really care.
You’d think these doctors and nurses would fear parental revenge more.
Destroy a guy’s kid and he sees reason to not bring justice and stop the next horror?
Silly me, nobody cares.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.