Parents have a right to know if their minor children are transitioning their gender, a San Bernardino County judge has ruled.
But that doesn't mean a Chino school board can enact a policy forcing teachers and other school personnel to inform parents when they see or hear evidence that a student may be questioning their gender identity or asking others to identify them as a gender that differs from their biological sex.
San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael Sachs delivered the judgment on Sept. 9, handing a partial win to both the Chino Valley Unified School District and California state officials trying to shut down the Chino district's parental notification policy.
The seeming split decision came in response to competing motions for judgment from both sides in the court fight that has flared since California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the district after its board of education enacted the policy in 2023.
The Chino school board enacted the policy by a 4-1 vote, requiring school staff to notify parents if they have reason to believe a student may be transitioning, such as by asking other students to identify them by a different name or pronouns other than those that traditionally correspond with their biological sex.
Bonta has asserted the policy is discriminatory and violates the constitutional rights of students.
In response, the school district, through their attorneys with the Liberty Justice Center, asserted the policy is intended to reinforce the fundamental rights of parents to be informed about their children's health and education and to direct their children's upbringing.
Judge Sachs had sided with Bonta and opponents of the Chino parental notification policy in 2023, when he entered an injunction preventing the school district from enforcing the policy.
In the meantime, other school districts have sought to enact similar notification policies, and have found more success in court.
Democrats in Sacramento responded with AB1955, a new state law forbidding such policies. And that law was immediately challenged in court by the Chino Valley district, represented again by the Liberty Justice Center, who assert the law tramples parents' constitutional rights.
While that lawsuit remains pending, the Chino district and Bonta's office filed competing motions for judgment in the state's lawsuit seeking a permanent prohibition on the school district's move to enforce its parental notification policy.
In the new ruling, Judge Sachs agreed with the state that the policy improperly trespassed on the rights of students and school staff and kept in place the ruling against the sections of the policy that required staff to notify parents.
However, the judge said the school district could enforce the portion of the policy that requires school staff to notify parents about changes to their students' official and unofficial records.
"Children should generally not expect that school staff will keep secrets in general, keep requests made to them secret from parents, or keep secret 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..., the public nature of social transitioning ..., the relatively recent rise of social transitioning for children, deductions or findings parents can make from their own observations and control of the child or discussions with friends and family, and the student's ability to avoid disclosure," Judge Sachs wrote.
However, at the same time, the judge said the school district's policy was still "overbroad," because the judge agreed it improperly targeted transgender students and did not find a "less restrictive alternative that better balance the competing interests" of students and school staff alongside those of parents.
"While case law holds that some forms of treatment without parental notification is a violation of the parents' 14th Amendment rights, this case is not about the legality of a school district actively participating in transitioning at school over parental objection," the judge said. "Instead the action merely involves the validity of a notification policy, but notification is broadly required if school personnel become 'aware' of a child's request regardless of staff's involvement or lack thereof.
"... Finally, ... simply because fundamental parental rights are involved does not mean the parental rights absolutely control without any consideration for the equal protection rights, especially where, as is the case here, both interests can be advanced via a different policy."
In response to the ruling, Emily Rae, of the Liberty Justice Center, said: “We are disappointed in the Court’s decision on sections 1.a and 1.b of Chino Valley’s old parental notification policy and intend to appeal the ruling. But we are pleased that the Court rightly ruled that the District’s policy does not infringe on minor students’ privacy rights and that schools may inform parents of changes to their children’s records."