(The Center Square) – A California court ruled in favor of parents having a right to be notified of record change requests at public schools from their minor children, a broad category including gender change requests, while also maintaining a preliminary injunction that upheld and blocked different parts of a California school district’s parental notification policy. This ruling could have a major impact on a larger lawsuit against the state’s new law blocking school districts from adopting and enforcing parental notification policies.
Last year, Chino Valley Unified School district implemented a three-pronged policy requiring parents to be notified when students request: to be identified as a gender not on official records; use sex-segregated school programs and activities of a gender not on official records; and, lastly, change any information on their official or unofficial records.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the school district, citing discrimination and violation of students’ privacy.
A preliminary injunction upheld the third part of the policy, which required parental notification of any official or unofficial records change requests, while blocking the first two on identity and facilities and program change requests due to discrimination on the basis of sex, a protected classification.
In response, the school district removed the two blocked portions from the policy, and argued that the policy’s modification made the state’s continued lawsuit to block Chino Valley’s rule, which has been similarly adopted across the state, moot, saying the offending portions had been removed.
A California Superior Court ruled in full that the case is not moot due to the public interest in resolving the case, noting there are a number of similar pending cases. Its ruling reiterated that the first two notification clauses are discriminatory, but that the third can continue because it is gender neutral. The court also ruled that while students 18 years and older do have a right to privacy — and thus are exempt from the upheld notification clause — that students under 18 do not have a right to privacy when it comes to requests to change their school records, especially because students can live as they like and avoid notification simply by not making a record change request.
“Children should not generally expect that school staff will keep secrets in general, keep requests made to them secret from parents, or keep secrets from parents public (at school) information about a child given the fundamental rights of parents, parents’ corresponding legal obligations, the in loco parentis status of staff, the rights outlined under Education Code Section 51101 (which if exercised would likely lead to disclosure and which shows a superior parental right over records/information), the public nature of social transitioning (which occurs in the context of the Policy even in the view of those outside the student’s inner circle), the relatively recent rise in social transitioning for children, deductions or findings parents can make from their own observations and control of the child or discussion with friends and family, and the students’ ability to avoid disclosure,” wrote the court in its ruling.
Emily Rae, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a legal nonprofit which represented Chino Valley, said the ruling is largely in favor of parents and Chino Valley’s policy, while Bonta said the ruling barred forced outing.
“[The third section] requires parents to be notified if students request to change official or unofficial records, so it’s broader than [the first two sections], and largely includes those sections’ notification requirements within its scope,” said Emily Rae, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a legal nonprofit which represented Chino Valley pro bono, to The Center Square. “So this is ultimately a win for Chino Valley and parents.”
“This ruling, consistent with our previously secured preliminary injunction, reaffirms this obligation by ensuring no child becomes a target again by blocking Chino Valley Unified from ever adopting another forced outing policy,” said Bonta in a statement.
This ruling could have a major impact on another LJC case, in which a number of school districts with parental notification policies — including the Orange County Board of Education, which oversees one of the largest student bodies in the state — are suing to block AB 1955, a law that bars schools from disclosing “any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent,” from going into effect on January 1, 2025.
