Colorado Parents Sue State Over Controversial Laws Impacting Family Decisions

Colorado Parents Sue State Over Controversial Laws Impacting Family Decisions
Empty school classroom

Who has the final say in a child’s life-altering medical decisions: parents or the state?

At a Glance

  • Colorado parents sue the state and educational bodies over their daughter’s gender transition without their consent.
  • The lawsuit argues the infringement of parental rights under the Fourteenth and First Amendments.
  • New state law mandates schools to use the preferred names and pronouns of transitioning students.
  • Parents claim their daughter was kept in the dark about her transition and eventually regretted it.

Parental Rights vs State Control

An Adams County couple has filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Colorado, the Department of Education, and the 27J School District, asserting that their constitutional rights were violated by school policies that facilitated their daughter’s gender transition without their knowledge or consent.

The lawsuit, backed by Gessler Blue LLC and the Center for American Liberty, highlights a highly controversial and emotional debate about the limits of parental rights and the role of the state in health care decisions concerning minors.

Filed in Denver’s federal district court, the suit argues that state and school district actions breach protections guaranteed to parents under the Fourteenth Amendment—covering their rights to direct their children’s upbringing—and the First Amendment, which guards family relationships from undue state interference.

The Role of House Bill 1039

Central to this legal battle is House Bill 1039, a state law that mandates public schools to honor students’ preferences regarding names and pronouns. According to the lawsuit, this law enforces a policy requiring educational institutions to use the preferred names and pronouns of transitioning students, yet it doesn’t necessitate parental notification or consent.

“Following school policy, the counselor assisted A.D. with the transition,” the lawsuit states. “But neither the counselor nor anyone else at the school told the parents. Instead, the school concealed the transition from the Does, referring to A.D. as A.D. in conversations and communications with the parents while referring to A.D. as ‘Z.D.’ at school.”

“It happened all in secret for months and months without our clients knowing,” stated Eric Sell, one of the attorneys representing the parents. “What we’re arguing is parents have the constitutional right to consent and be informed of treatment that the government is providing. This isn’t something that the schools should be doing on an ad hoc basis at the child’s direction.”

Policies at 27J Schools

27J Schools have a policy in place that bars high schools from notifying parents about a student’s gender transition without the student’s permission. Parents argue that such policies exclude them from crucial decisions affecting their children’s mental and physical well-being. The parents, in this case, claim that their daughter was encouraged by a school counselor to use a masculine name and pronouns and to seek mental health treatment without their knowledge.

”While the Does informed the counselor they did not want A.D. to be socially transitioned, the school nevertheless continued to treat A.D. as if she were a boy,” the lawsuit reveals. The parents also said their daughter was grappling with depression and anxiety, which they believe contributed to her desire to transition.

Sadly, the state of Colorado, and public schools across the state have erected barriers between these children and their parents—the very people who love and support them—leading to more isolation and harm, the lawsuit states, arguing that under the state law and individual school policies requiring employees not to disclose name changes to parents, schools are socially transitioning children either over their parents’ objection or while their parents are kept in the dark.”

The Aftermath and Larger Implications

This lawsuit underscores a growing national debate over parental rights and state interventions. Republican Rep. Brandi Bradley commented, “When we went to the well demanding HB23-1039 be stopped and they wouldn’t listen, we told the Dems there would be lawsuits and rightfully so. The counselors, teachers and schools have no right stepping into a parental role that takes kids down a path of no return.”

The parents’ lawsuit not only seeks to challenge current policies but also aims to set a precedent defending the constitutionality of parental rights. As the legal process continues under federal district court judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, the case gains national attention and may bring about significant changes in how states handle gender identity issues in schools.

While no hearing has been scheduled, this case has certainly raised vital questions about where the boundaries between parental rights and state interventions should lie. This could very well be the catalyst for more lawsuits nationwide, reflecting a growing concern among parents about being excluded from critical decisions in their children’s lives.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR