Constitutional expert delivers ‘Bravo’ to judge who rules FOR parental rights

A widely recognized and honored constitutional expert has delivered a “Bravo” to a judge who has ruled that a lawsuit by parents against a school where officials allegedly deceived them, withholding the truth about the school’s gender ideology and officials’ manipulation of a student, can go forward.

“There is a major ruling, Mead v. Rockford Public School Dist., a potentially precedent-setting case on parental rights in our public schools. Judge Paul Maloney (W.D. Mich.) ruled that Plaintiffs Dan and Jennifer Mead could move forward with their claims that the Rockford Public School district concealed changes to the gender identification of their biological daughter, identified as G.M. As I have previously written, parental rights are shaping up as a major battleground for the Supreme Court after years of decisions in the lower court undermining parental controls and disclosures,” explained expert Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but has represented members in court on constitutional issues.

He pointed out, “A century ago, the nation’s highest court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that ‘the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'”

Further, in 2000, he said, in its Troxel v. Granville decision, “the court recognized ‘the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.'”

He said, “There is no greater natural right than the right to control the upbringing of our children. This right was not granted to us by the grace of the state. It rests with us as human beings. It is part of a panoply of natural rights embraced by the framers − a commitment made nearly 250 years ago in our Declaration of Independence.”

The Michigan court, under Judge Paul Maloney, now has recognized a “viable” claim by the parents.

“The court noted that the parents were alleging a key element in the case that the District intentionally deceived them and found that these “allegations show some amount of coercion or interference from the District, which implicates Plaintiffs’ right to make fundamental decisions for [daughter] G.M,'” he said.

“Bravo, Judge Maloney.”

At Reason, columnist Eugene Volokh said the district started treating the girl as a boy, with a name change and more, “but did not inform G.M.’s parents.”

The court now has allowed the parent’s 14th Amendment claim to go forward.

“The right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing originated from three Supreme Court cases: Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), and Farrington v. Tokushige (1927)…. The Court affirmed the life of this right in Troxel v. Granville (2000). There, the Court held that ‘the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children [] is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest recognized by this Court,'” the column said.

In this case, the plaintiffs charge “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….”

Further, Reason charged, “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.'”

And, “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,'” the column said.

A report from the ADF, which brought the case on behalf of the parents, explained the school even “had altered the girl’s official records to remove references to the district’s actions before sending the records home.”

“The Meads only discovered the district’s actions when an employee unintentionally failed to completely alter a report about their daughter before sharing it with them. By concealing this important information, the district violated the Meads’ fundamental parental rights. The U.S. Constitution protects their right as parents to make decisions about the upbringing, education, and health care of their children,” ADF reported.

“Parents, not the government, have the right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children,” said ADF lawyer Kate Anderson. “Schools should never deliberately hide vital information from parents, yet that’s exactly what the Rockford Public School District did. District employees didn’t even notify Dan and Jennifer—let alone seek their consent—before beginning to call their young daughter by a masculine name and male pronouns.”