Schools can’t bar teachers from telling parents if children are transgender, judge rules

Parents have a constitutional right to be informed if their child starts to present as a different gender at school, and schools can’t hide that information from parents, a San Diego federal judge ruled in a class-action lawsuit.

In a 52-page decision handed down Monday night, Dec. 22, Judge Roger Benitez ruled that parents have a constitutional right to know if their child may be transgender and that California public schools cannot prevent employees from notifying parents. In a separate order, he barred them from violating that right.

The injunction bans public school employees from misleading parents about their child’s gender presentation at school, such as by using different pronouns or names with a parent than the student uses at school. The ruling also bars employees from calling students by names or pronouns that don’t match their legal ones if their parents object.

The judge’s order was hailed as a victory by conservatives and others who have supported and passed so-called “parent notification policies” on school boards, including some in the Inland Empire.

The policies began in the Inland region, where the Chino Valley Unified School District in San Bernardino County was the first in the state to pass a parent notification policy in June 2023. Its rule required schools to inform parents within three days if their child identifies as transgender or looked into gender-affirming care.

Chino Valley school board President Sonja Shaw, who is running for state superintendent, was in the courtroom Monday, Dec. 22, when Benitez ruled.

“This ruling confirms what parents have been saying all along,” Shaw said. “Parents have a constitutional right to know what is happening with their own children. Schools should never keep secrets and should never be forced by the state to do so.”

Others expressed concerns Tuesday, Dec. 23, about the ruling.

Murrieta school board member Nancy Young, who has opposed such a policy in her district, said that, in her experience as a teacher, if a child was a member of the LGBTQ community, most parents were already aware their child was transgender and in the rare case a student felt the need to hide it, there was a reason.

The transgender community is one of the most vulnerable, Young said, with high rates of suicide and depression.

“I do think personally that the parents should know, but that is assuming that the parents are going to support their kid,” Young said.

The state, which is defending the case, has already appealed and asked for a stay of Benitez’s decision. State attorneys said his injunction could harm students by having schools out them without their consent.

“The Court’s sweeping injunction, which forecloses enforcement of state constitutional and statutory protections applicable in the school environment, inflicts severe and indisputable irreparable harm on California,” lawyers with Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office wrote in their request.

Monday’s decision caps a lawsuit filed in April 2023 by two now-former Escondido Union School District teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West. Citing their Christian faith, the two challenged their district’s policy barring school employees from telling parents about a student’s transgender status without the student’s consent, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights.

The case has primarily been defended by the state, since Escondido based its policy off state guidance. The district has since changed its policy because of the litigation and no longer bars parental notification.

In granting the plaintiffs’ motion, Benitez wrote that it’s wrong to deprive parents of significant information that may affect their child’s well-being and health. He also said the First Amendment protects teachers’ right to inform them.

Throughout his ruling, Benitez invoked the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the justices sided with religious parents who wanted to opt their children out of reading books with LGBTQ+ content in public schools.

“We believe that the district court misapplied the law and that the decision will ultimately be reversed on appeal,” a spokesperson for Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said in an email Tuesday, Dec. 23. “We are committed to securing school environments that allow transgender students to safely participate as their authentic selves while recognizing the important role that parents play in students’ lives.”

The teachers’ attorney Paul Jonna, special counsel with the conservative law firm the Thomas More Society, applauded the ruling.

“Today’s incredible victory finally, and permanently, ends California’s dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies in schools,” he said in a statement. “The Court’s comprehensive ruling … protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense.”

Meanwhile LGBTQ+ legal advocacy group Equality California called the decision dangerous, saying it broadly targets multiple state laws and protections for transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

“These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear,” Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang said in a statement.

State officials have argued that telling parents of possible changes to their child’s gender without the student’s permission would violate trust between students and teachers that is needed for a safe learning environment.

“A fear of nonconsensual disclosure can not only harm a student academically, but disincentivizes the type of open communication that allows the student to report instances of harm, bullying, or depression,” state attorneys said in their stay request.

State attorneys have also argued that outing a student to parents could put them at risk of abuse.

But Benitez wrote that it’s wrong to assume that and said most parents want the best for their children. He suggested that being transgender involves health problems, such as mental health issues, and parents need to be able to seek medical care for their child.

Chino Valley’s original policy landed landed the district in court after the state sued it in August 2023. Two parts of the policy were halted by a judge, who said they were discriminatory but found one part of the policy to be neutral.

In July 2024, the district sued the state for its law barring the parent notification policy and was  joined in the lawsuit by the Orange Unified School District.

“I have said from the beginning that parent notification is common sense and constitutional,” Shaw said Tuesday, Dec. 23, before recounting that her district was sued by the state. “… This decision makes clear the state was wrong.”

The board revised its policy in March 2024, removing any mention of gender and altering the policy so parents would be notified when there’s a request to change any official records.

In October 2024, the board passed a “no-deception policy” that requires district teachers and staff to be completely “forthcoming” when they speak to parents about their child’s health, safety and education.

“I hope this marks a turning point where California finally puts parents back where they belong at the center of their children’s lives,” Shaw said. “We drew a clear line and the truth came out in court.”

Several districts in Southern California followed suit after Chino passed its policy. They included the Murrieta Valley and Temecula Valley unified school districts in Riverside County.

Murrieta adopted the policy in August 2023 and rescinded it in November 2024 after the state ordered the district to drop it. In an October 2024 letter to the community, district officials said that while the board had passed the policy, the district had not implemented it.

The Temecula district passed and rescinded the same policy, and then brought back a revised policy in June. Under the new policy, a record change will now trigger an automated message to parents.

Temecula school board member Steve Schwartz said Tuesday, Dec. 23, that during the COVID-19 pandemic, crowds showed up to board meetings in shirts with the slogan “Leave our Kids Alone” and shouted that the district had no business parenting “their kids.” Now they are having the opposite reaction, he said.

“If you know anything about my kid, you have to tell me,” Schwartz said. “It is a double-sided sword.”

He said it was a difficult situation without a clear-cut answer.

“Kids have rights too,” Schwartz said. “It is a delicate balance.”

Temecula school board President Joseph Komrosky, first elected in 2022 as part of a conservative school board majority, called the ruling a victory for parents, though it could be temporary.

“I ran on protecting the innocence of children and parents’ rights,” Komrosky said. “… It is a victory for local control. We were elected to pass policies that reflect our communities’ values.”

The ruling does not overturn AB1955 but does bring attention to a conflict between state and federal law and was a victory against the state’s overreaching, Komorosky said.