Members of the Coalition for Parental Rights (CPR), of which California Family Council is a part, remain steadfast in their support for the Parental Notification Policy passed by Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD), despite the ruling this last week from a state judge putting a temporary halt to the CVUSD policy in response to a lawsuit by California Attorney General Bonta. CPR members are extremely confident the Parent Notification Policy adopted by CVUSD and by three other school districts will be protected from the state by parental rights protections well established by US Supreme Court precedent. They are also confident regarding public support for a policy that prevents schools from keeping secrets from parents regarding their own children. (See polling)
Here are some statements regarding today’s court ruling from some members of our Coalition for Parental Rights.
"Last week's ruling is a temporary setback in the ongoing struggle to affirm parents' God-given and constitutionally protected right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Despite the court's decision, we stand undeterred by intimidation tactics from legislators, executives, and bureaucrats. The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld parental rights, and we are confident they will continue to do so. This is not just a legal battle; it's a defining moment for our culture, drawing a line between government overreach and the sacred realm of family. We encourage school districts to remain steadfast in upholding transparency and the rights of parents. This fight is far from over."
Assemblyman Bill Essayli:
“Last week’s ruling does not impact our fight to protect parental rights. The opinion of one state court judge is not binding on any other school board or court. This ruling will be appealed and ultimately decided by the United States Supreme Court, which will reaffirm over a century of jurisprudence that parents have the right to raise their children free from government interference.
“I encourage other school districts to continue their deliberative process and to not be deterred by the Attorney General’s intimidation tactics we saw displayed in court today.”
Lance Christensen, Vice President of Education Policy and Government Affairs at California Policy Center:
“The attorney general’s lawsuit is a political gimmick to intimidate school boards, nothing more. Bonta is using the power of his office to scare other school boards that are considering adopting parental rights policies. They should not be intimidated. Gov. Newsom and other state officials are on a mission to strip parents of their rights and give control over their kids to the government,” said Christensen. “A battle line has been drawn in California over this question: Who has ultimate authority over our children?”
“The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed parents’ rights to direct the upbringing, care and education of their children. The law is on the side of parents and ultimately parents will prevail.”
Dean Broyles, Constitutional Attorney and President of the National Center for Law and Policy
“Parents have a fundamental right to direct the care, education, and upbringing of their children, a civil right protected by the 14th Amendment. Because the U.S. Constitution is ‘the supreme law of the land,’ it supersedes any state law or state constitutional provision to the contrary. It is stunning that, without even reading CVUSD’s legal briefs, the state judge today granted the state a temporary restraining order against a school district’s lawful policy that simply discloses concerning issues to parents, including a child’s gender dysphoria openly expressed at school—based on the false assumption that parents will abuse and harm their children.”
“No one is “outed” as Bonta falsely claims, because the child has already outed themselves at school as having gender dysphoria. Why should this fact be concealed from loving parents? Unless they are ruled unfit, parents have the right to know what is happening with their child’s health and safety at school. Children belong to their parents and families, not the state. This is only the beginning of this fight.”
Julianne E. Fleischer, Esq., legal counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom
“CVUSD’s parental notification policy not only fosters the parent-child relationship, which is critical to the development of a child, but it also recognizes that parents—not the government—are better suited for ensuring the well-being of their children. The State’s lawsuit against CVUSD is a direct attack on the parent-child relationship and is shrouded with vague and meritless allegations that undercut the fundamental right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children. The Court’s ruling on the temporary restraining order is just that—temporary. A review of the law and the evidence will show that CVUSD’s policy is consistent with state and federal law, and we look forward to the Court recognizing that the State’s lawsuit against CVUSD is without merit.”
Karen England, President of Capitol Resource Institute
We are disappointed with the recent decision made by the judge in regards to school district personnel withholding information from parents. It is concerning that the judge admitted to not reading the briefs prior to the hearing and seemed to side with the heavy hand of the state. It is important to note that there is no law in California that states school district personnel must keep secrets from parents. We strongly believe that parents have the right to be informed about their child’s education and any issues that may arise. We hope that more districts will continue to pass policies that prioritize transparency and open communication between parents and school personnel. We also believe that this issue should be taken to the US Supreme Court to ensure that the rights of parents are protected.
Nicole Pearson, Attorney and Founder of FACTS LAW TRUTH JUSTICE
“Last week’s ruling was, of course, not what we would have liked – we believe children are being endangered by being kept away and prevented from sharing this critical decision from their parents – but also to be expected.
The State presented anonymous claims that students would die if the policy remained in effect and the judge decided to err on the side of caution to prevent this possibility. But he also set a quick hearing in a little over 30 days to give the parties – and himself – time to fully brief and understand the issues. We are be grateful for the opportunity to respond to the State’s evidence and address the judges concerns and are hopeful that, with this time and additional evidence, the judge will better understand the Policy’s goals and effects and support it.”
Tim Thompson with Our Watch
“The issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order today hasn’t shaken our resolve in this matter. We are dedicated more than ever to continue to fight for parental rights in our state.”
For more information about the Parental Notification Policy go to caparentalrights.com
