WICKED: New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules Schools Can Keep Parents in the Dark About Their Children’s Gender Transitions

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has upheld a Manchester school district policy that allows schools to keep parents in the dark about their children’s gender transitions.

This ruling, which flies in the face of fundamental parenting rights, sends a dangerous message: that schools can prioritize the so-called “rights” of students over the rights of parents to know and participate in their children’s lives.

The court’s decision comes as part of the case Jane Doe v. Manchester School District, where the justices concluded that the policy does not infringe on parental rights.

The Doe v. Manchester School District involves a challenge to a policy implemented by the Manchester School District regarding the rights of transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

The plaintiff, known only as Jane Doe, who is the parent of a minor child (M.C.) enrolled in the district, argued that the district’s policy violated her constitutional rights as a parent by potentially allowing the school to withhold information about her child’s gender identity from her.

The policy in question allows students to keep their transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation private and requires school personnel to avoid disclosing this information to others, including parents, unless the student consents or it is legally required.

The plaintiff discovered that her child was being addressed by a name and pronouns different from those assigned at birth, which the school had not disclosed to her due to the policy.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment that the policy violated her constitutional rights, was beyond the school’s legal authority (ultra vires), and violated federal laws like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA).

The court dismissed the parent’s claims in a closely scrutinized 3-1 decision under the leadership of Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, concluding that the policy did not violate a fundamental right and did not require strict scrutiny because it had survived a rational basis review.

According to the ruling reviewed by The Gateway Pundit, “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 is not a substitute for being informed about critical aspects of a child’s life, such as their gender identity. Parents should not have to play detective to understand what their children are going through; they deserve transparency and trust from educators.

A dissenting opinion from Justice Countway argued that strict scrutiny should have been applied, as the policy interferes with the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

Justice Countway believed that the policy’s requirement for non-disclosure, even in response to a parent’s direct inquiry, constitutes a significant burden on parental rights and that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s claims without applying strict scrutiny.

The Court’s decision sends a clear message: parents no longer have the right to know what is happening in their children’s lives if the state deems it “inappropriate.” This kind of government overreach is not just an affront to parental rights; it is a direct attack on the family unit itself.