The New Hampshire Supreme Court has affirmed a Manchester school district policy that permits schools to withhold information from parents about their children’s gender transitions.
This ruling, which contradicts fundamental parental rights, sends a troubling message: that schools can prioritize students’ so-called “rights” over parents’ rights to be informed and involved in their children’s lives.
The court’s decision is part of the case Jane Doe v. Manchester School District, in which the justices ruled that the policy does not violate parental rights.
The Doe v. Manchester School District case challenges a policy implemented by the Manchester School District concerning the rights of transgender and gender-nonconforming students.
The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe and the parent of a minor child (M.C.) enrolled in the district, contended that the district’s policy infringed on her constitutional rights by potentially allowing the school to withhold information about her child’s gender identity.
The policy in question permits students to keep their transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation private and mandates that school staff refrain from sharing this information with others, including parents, unless the student gives consent or it is legally required.
The plaintiff learned that her child was being addressed by a name and pronouns different from those assigned at birth, information the school had not disclosed to her because of the policy.
The plaintiff’s lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the policy violated her constitutional rights, exceeded the school’s legal authority (ultra vires), and breached federal laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA).
In a closely watched 3-1 decision led by Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, the court dismissed the parent’s claims. The justices concluded that the policy did not infringe on a fundamental right and did not require strict scrutiny, as it had passed a rational basis review.
According to the ruling “While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.”
“Whether it is the school curriculum, the hours of the school day, school discipline, the timing and content of examinations, the individuals hired to teach at the school, the extracurricular activities offered at the school or, as here, a dress code, these issues of public education are generally ‘committed to the control of state and local authorities.'”
The justices stated that the policy does not prevent parents from observing their children’s behavior or engaging in conversations with them.
The court wrote, “[The Policy does not prevent parents from observing their children’s behavior, moods, and activities; talking to their children; providing religious or other education to their children; choosing where their children live and go to school; obtaining medical care and counseling for their children; monitoring their children’s communications on social media; choosing with whom their children may socialize; and deciding what their children may do in their free time. In short, the Policy places no limits on the plaintiff’s ability to parent her child as she sees fit.”
However, this argument is fundamentally flawed. Observing behavior cannot replace being informed about crucial aspects of a child’s life, such as their gender identity. Parents should not have to play detective to understand what their children are experiencing; they deserve transparency and trust from educators.
Justice Countway’s dissenting opinion argued that strict scrutiny should have been applied, as the policy interferes with the fundamental right of parents to make decisions about their children’s care, custody, and control.
Justice Countway argued that the policy’s mandate for non-disclosure, even in response to a direct inquiry from a parent, imposes a significant burden on parental rights. He believed the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiff’s claims without applying strict scrutiny.
The Court’s decision sends a clear message: parents no longer have the right to be informed about their children’s lives if the state considers it “inappropriate.” This type of government overreach is not only an infringement on parental rights but also a direct attack on the family unit.
Share your thoughts by scrolling down to leave a comment.
