Should school districts be allowed to lie to parents about their children’s well-being?

That question is currently before the US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit in Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District, a case out of New York that involves a school district conspiring to hide a child’s mental health struggles and subsequent “gender transition” from her parents. This is a clear and egregious violation of parental rights. That’s why South Dakota Family Voice, along with 34 other family policy councils from around the nation, signed onto an amicus brief supporting the idea that “it is the parents, rather than the state, who know what is in the best interests of their minor children.” 

The case began when Jennifer Vitsaxaki noticed her 12-year-old daughter suffering from anxiety and depression and often expressing opposition to going to school. When Mrs. Vitsaxaki reached out to employees of the Skaneateles Central School District, asking if they had noticed anything troubling her daughter, they denied it. That denial was a lie. For over three months, the school district had helped Jennifer’s 7th-grade daughter “socially transition” to being a boy by using a masculine name and third-person plural pronouns (they/them). Simultaneously, in accordance with the district’s policy, the school plotted to deceive the girl’s parents by carefully reverting to her female name and pronouns when communicating with them. After the principal came clean about the school’s lies at the urging of a teacher, Jennifer withdrew her daughter and filed a lawsuit. The case was appealed to the 2nd Circuit earlier this month after a district court granted the school district’s motion to dismiss.

“Parents have the right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children without government meddling,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Kate Anderson shared. “When parents drop their kids off at school, they place great trust in the school. And when schools cut parents out of weighty decisions about their own kids, they betray that trust. That’s what happened here.”

ADF, Jennifer’s legal representation, argues that the school’s actions violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which establishes, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The school clearly violated Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s intrinsic and constitutionally protected rights as a parent. Consider the precedents laid out in our amicus brief:

• “[The] primary role of . . . parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” (Wisconsin v. Yoder)
• “[T]he child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus and Mary)
• “[I]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” (Prince v. Massachusetts)
• “The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society.” (Wisconsin v. Yoder)

There can be no doubt that America’s longstanding legal view upholds parents’ inherent right to direct the upbringing of their children without state interference.

An important note – Jennifer transferred her daughter to a private school after the debacle with the Skaneateles public school. She quickly improved both emotionally and physically, and no longer wants to identify as a boy. This goes to show not only that parents know how to best care for their children, but also that the school district likely led Jennifer’s daughter down a path she may never have discovered on her own. She needed her parents’ help to navigate her anxiety – not to be radicalized by the LGBT agenda.

“This to me shows how these schools, in concert with this whole LGBTQ transgender agenda, are trying to lock these kids into a path that would lead to irreversible damage,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins noted.  

Unfortunately, this is a story that’s all too common in today’s education system. This is not a one-in-a-million case or a freak accident; this is the dominating policy in America’s public schools. This is the reason we need swift and lasting action on this issue in South Dakota and in every state. We pray the 2nd Circuit relies on clear, longstanding precedent and establishes that parental rights are constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment and that no school or government entity should have the ability to violate that fundamental freedom.