Lawsuit Alleging School District Wouldn’t Inform Certain Parents About Their Children’s “Sign[s] of an LGBTQ+ Identity” Dismissed for Lack of Standing
From today’s opinion by Judge Michael Watson (S.D. Ohio) in Kaltenbach v. Hilliard City Schools (a notice of appeal has been filed):
… Plaintiffs allege that, if the District believes a parent holds anti-LGBTQ views, the District will not inform that parent if the parent’s child shows any sign of an LGBTQ identity. The [District’s] Policies allegedly work as follows: The District’s “default” is that it will tell parents anything important about their children, including things related to LGBTQ issues. However, there is a “health and safety” exception to this default. Separately, the District labels people who do not support LGBTQ youth as “unsafe.” Plaintiffs allege that when a parent is labelled “unsafe,” the “health and safety” exception applies and, therefore, the parent will not be told important information. Thus, Plaintiffs allege, if a child reports that the child is struggling with LGBTQ -related issues, and if that child’s parent has been labelled “unsafe,” that parent will never be informed about the child’s struggles.
Plaintiffs allege that these fears came to pass for one Plaintiff, D.S. D.S.’s child, who was assigned female at birth, was struggling with mental health issues during eighth and ninth grade. At some point, employees at the child’s school started using a male name and male pronouns to refer to the child, apparently believing that doing so would help with the child’s mental health. D.S.’s child attempted suicide but, fortunately, survived and has received professional mental health care. No one at the school told D.S. that employees referred to the child with male pronouns, until after the suicide attempt. D.S. has since removed the child from the District. D.S. does not allege whether the District labelled her as “unsafe” or perceived her as having anti-LGBTQ views.
In addition, Plaintiffs allege that school employees may have exposed students to graphic sexual material. Some school employees wore a badge (the “Badge”) that communicates that the wearer supports LGBTQ youth. On the back of the badge, there is a QR code that, if scanned, brings up resources and materials related to LGBTQ issues. At least some of these resources allegedly contain sexually explicit material….
In-District Plaintiffs … allege that the [District’s] Policies violate different rights: (1) Claim IV, freedom of conscience; (2) Claim V, familial integrity; (3) Claim VI, freedom of speech; and (4) Claim VII, due process….
In-District Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue the Claims because they
Article from Latest
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.