A San Bernardino Superior Court judge has upheld a temporary injunction barring a school district from requiring parents be notified when a student seeks name or pronoun changes that differ from the student’s biological sex.
Judge Michael Sachs handed down the opinion on Sept. 9 in California v. Chino Valley Unified School District. Sachs concluded that the district’s previous notification policy, which required school staffs to notify parents when students request name or pronoun changes, could fly in the face of students’ legitimate privacy expectations.
In March, in the wake of the court’s initial rulings in this case, the district modified its parental-notification policy by removing the disputed policy language about pronoun changes. Sachs’ ruling this month held that another section of the district’s notification policy mandating that parents be informed when a student requests changes to the minor’s official or unofficial records is constitutional.
The legal fight between the state Attorney General’s Office and the Chino Valley district unfolded in August of last year, when Attorney General Rob Bonta sought a temporary restraining order against the district’s parental-notification policy.
The Liberty Justice Center, which now represents the district in the civil court proceedings, said it would appeal Sachs’ ruling as it relates to sections 1.a and 1.b of the previous notification policy. Those sections, which are no longer in effect, required that parents should be notified of student record requests that relate to transgender issues.
“We are disappointed in the court’s decision on sections 1.a and 1.b of Chino Valley’s old parental-notification policy …” Emily Rae, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement. “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.”
Bonta said the judge’s decision was a win for vulnerable students in California and a reminder that school districts have an obligation to protect their well-being.
“The decision from the court to grant a permanent injunction and declaratory relief against Chino Valley Unified’s initial forced-outing policy is a win for all students in Chino Valley and across the state,” Bonta said in a statement emailed to the Southern California Record. “This ruling, consistent with our previously secured preliminary injunction … (ensures) no child becomes a target again by blocking Chino Valley Unified from ever adopting another forced-outing policy.”
The decision should also send a message to other school districts that have passed or are considering similar positions, according to the attorney general. The state will not tolerate such discriminatory policies, he said.
The Liberty Justice Center continues to criticize the state’s actions targeting the school district.
“I can’t believe we’re at a point in America where authoritarians in power are fighting this hard to keep sexual secrets about children from their own parents,” one of the center’s board members, Corey DeAngelis, said in a prepared statement. “They are now using the heavy hand of the state to subvert local control and try to strip away the most fundamental parental rights. I’m proud of the parents in Chino Valley Unified who are fighting back for their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children.”
Sachs pointed out in his opinion that district parents still have the right to visit and observe their children’s classrooms, speak to instructors and review school records.
“In other words, a parent actually asserting their rights will likely be informed about the child’s gender identity, and it is not necessarily the district’s position to advance the parental rights, at least to the extent it violates the constitutional rights of a minor,” the opinion states.
Invalidating the previous district policy on names and pronoun changes does not infringe on the parental right to be informed, according to Sachs. And invalidating the policy does not equate to unwarranted state interference, he said.