The New Hampshire Supreme Court has upheld the Manchester school district’s policy that allowed the school to keep parents from knowing about their children’s gender transition.
This ruling, which flies in the face of the basic rights of parents, sends a dangerous message: schools can prioritize the “rights” of students over the rights of parents to know and participate in their children’s lives.
The court’s decision is part of the case Jane Doe v. Manchester School Districtwhere the judges concluded that the policy did not violate the rights of parents.
At Doe v. Manchester School District involving challenges to policies implemented by the Manchester School District regarding the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming students.
The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, who is the parent of a minor (MC) enrolled in the district, alleges that the district’s policy violates a parent’s constitutional rights by potentially allowing the school to withhold information about the child’s gender identity. from him.
The policy allows students to maintain their transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation and requires school personnel not to disclose that information to others, including parents, unless the student consents or is legally required to do so.
The plaintiff discovered that her child was called by a different name and pronoun than the one she was assigned at birth, which the school did not disclose because of the policy.
The plaintiff’s lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the policy violates her constitutional rights, exceeds the school’s legal authority (ultra vires), and violates federal laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA). ).
The court rejected the parents’ claims in a closely-scrutinized 3-1 decision led by Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, concluding that the policy did not violate fundamental rights and did not require strict scrutiny because it had survived rational review.
According to the judgment reviewed by The Gateway Pundit“While parents may have the basic right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have the basic right generally to direct how the public school teaches their child. Whether the school curriculum, the hours of the school day, school discipline, the timing and content of examinations, individual who are hired to teach in schools, extracurricular activities offered in schools or, as here, dress codes, these public education issues are generally “committed to the control of state and local authorities.”
The judges said the policy did not prevent parents from monitoring their children’s behavior or talking to them.
The court wrote, “(The policy does not prevent parents from monitoring their children’s behavior, mood, and activities; talking to their children; providing religious or other education for their children; choosing their home and school placements; getting medical care and counseling for their children as they see fit.”
However, this argument is fundamentally flawed. Observing behavior does not substitute for information about critical aspects of a child’s life, such as gender identity. Parents don’t have to play detective to understand what their children are going through; they deserve transparency and trust from educators.
Justice Countway’s dissenting opinion held that strict supervision should apply, because the policy interferes with parents’ fundamental rights to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their children.
Justice Countway believes that the policy requirement for non-disclosure, even in response to direct questions from parents, is a significant burden on the rights of parents and that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s claims without strict application.
The Court’s decision sends a clear message: parents no longer have the right to know what is happening in their children’s lives if the state deems it “inappropriate”. This kind of government overreach is not only an affront to the rights of parents; it is a direct attack on the family unit itself.