Wisconsin Court: Keeping Gender-Dysphoric Child’s ‘Pronouns’ Secret Violates Parental Rights

A Wisconsin judge has ruled that Kettle Moraine School District “violated parental rights by adopting a policy to allow, facilitate, and affirm a minor student’s request to transition to a different gender identity at school without parental consent and even over the parents’ objection.” Good.

The case involved a female minor (A. F.) who questioned her gender identity. The parents took her to a mental-health center that promoted her social transition. That was permitted for a time, but later A. F.’s parents changed their minds and “went to the school informing them they wished to refer to A.F. by her legal name and female pronouns.” Tough toenails. Kettle Moraine told the parents that school personnel would follow the guidance of A. F. as to what pronouns to use, even over her parents’ objections.

In other words, when it comes to gender identity, children raise themselves with the support of school personnel.

A. F.’s parents wisely withdrew her from the school — and waddya know — she who soon realized that she is a girl after all (no thanks to Kettle Moraine or the mental-health center).

Two other parents became worried that the same secretive approach would be taken if their child sought to transition. They and A. F.’s parents sued to enjoin school personnel from keeping such crucial information about students’ gender identity secret and from referring to a student by opposite-sex pronouns without parental knowledge.

The plaintiffs won on summary judgment because socially transitioning a child is a “medical decision” that rightly belongs with parents, not the school. From T.F., et. al. v. Kettle Moraine School District:

This case is not about parents controlling how a school specifically educates its students. This is also not a case about the broader societal debate or implications of transgenderism in our youth or the political movement that supports it. One of the main rights plaintiffs have suggested this case implicates is the parental decision-making authority, such as making healthcare decisions, which they argue is a fundamental liberty interest that requires passing of strict scrutiny. . . .

The School District could not administer medicine to a student without parental consent. The School District could not require or allow a student to participate in a sport without parental consent. Likewise, the School District cannot change the pronoun of a student without parental consent without impinging on a fundamental liberty interest of the parents.

Superb. Here’s some other interesting text from the decision. State actions that impact parental custody rights must be explicit and narrowly tailored:

Under Michels v. Lyons, [citation omitted], parents have fundamental liberty interest in the decisions regarding “care, custody, and control of their children.” The state only has an interest when the child’s physical and mental health or welfare is in jeopardy. However, the state’s interest if violating a parent’s right, must still be narrowly tailored…Further, “[s]imply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.”. . .

As Plaintiffs correctly point out, even in cases where Wisconsin’s Child Protective Services are involved there is still a right to proper procedural fairness before a parent is deprived of their child within Wis.

I’m glad that the court kept the ruling narrowly focused on the issues at stake and did not make an exception to generally applicable law based on gender ideology as some might have done.

Here’s some more common sense from the ruling:

A child is not granted the same autonomous rights as adults because “[m]ost children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.”

One is tempted to say, “Duh!”

Here’s the judge’s strong conclusion:

This Court has before it what modern society deems a controversial issue — transgenderism involving minors within our schools. Clearly, the law on this issue is still developing across the country and remaining largely unsettled. However, this particular case is not about that broad controversial issue. This particular case is simply whether a school district can supplant a parent’s right to control the healthcare and medical decisions for their children. . . .

Through its policy of disregarding parental wishes on a medical or health related decision and with how fast questioning ones gender can arise, P.W. and S.W. are at real risk of being harmed by the current School District policy. The current policy of handling these issues on a case-by-case basis without either notifying the parents or by disregarding the parents wishes is not permissible and violates fundamental parental rights.

The commonsense wisdom of the ruling is axiomatic. But I have little doubt the case will be appealed. Gender ideologues are on the march and aren’t about to let a local court impede their momentum.