The teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, are suing the district, claiming it has violated their constitutional rights by forcing them to lie to parents about their child’s gender identity.
In his memo, Mr. Bonta cited both the Escondido case and a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of Chino Valley Unified School District’s parental notification policy, which requires school staff to inform parents if their child changes gender identity at school. He stated that the temporary order remains in “full force and effect” and that the Escondido case has no bearing on it.
The state’s request for a preliminary injunction in the Chino Valley case is set for a court hearing on Oct. 13.
Mr. Bonta also claims that disclosing information to parents puts student safety at risk.
“Data underscore the threat posed by forced disclosure policies: only 37 percent of LGBTQ+ youth identified their home as supportive of their identity; one in ten transgender individuals have experienced violence at the hands of an immediate family member; 15 percent ran away or were kicked out of their home because they were transgender; and coming out to adverse parents has been shown to increase the risks of major depressive symptoms, suicide, homelessness, and drug use,” he stated in the memo.
Counter Claim
Paul Jonna, a Thomas More Society lawyer and lead attorney in the Escondido case, countered the memo in an open letter to Mr. Bonta on Sept. 27, saying it’s “deeply concerning, but unfortunately unsurprising” that the state attorney general issued the so-called guidance in defiance of a federal court order even though the judge determined that the state policy encouraging secret gender transitions at schools likely violates the U.S. Constitution.“Californians should be deeply troubled ... that this issue—hiding young children’s gender identity and social transition at school—is such a high priority for the State,” Mr. Jonna wrote. “There is no justification for Attorney General Bonta burning millions of taxpayer dollars in litigation and other resources enforcing ‘guidance’ that he now knows, and should have always known, is both unconstitutional and harmful to children.”
Mr. Jonna said that “instead of doubling down on this dangerous course of conduct,” the state should follow the guidance of seasoned experts such as Dr. Erica Anderson, whose testimony in the Escondido case was unrebutted.
He pointed out that the judge noted in the court order that Dr. Anderson explained that there isn’t “any professional body that would endorse ... policies which envision adult personnel socially transitioning a child or adolescent without evaluation of mental health professionals and without the consent of parents or over their objection.”
Dr. Anderson also testified that “there are many dangers associated with allowing young children to ‘socially transition’ without the knowledge or involvement of their parents.”
‘Trifecta of Harm’
Judge Benitez states in his 36-page ruling that EUSD’s policy of elevating a child’s gender-related choices “to that of paramount importance while excluding a parent from knowing ... is as foreign to federal constitutional and statutory law as it is medically unwise.”Additionally, the judge stated: “The school’s policy is a trifecta of harm: it harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children. And finally, it harms plaintiffs who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students—violating plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”
Mr. Jonna told The Epoch Times in a recent interview that Judge Benitez described the state guidance issued as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page to school districts as very misleading because it implies that parental exclusion is required in the state constitution under privacy rights for children.
“They said it was non-binding guidance, but they used words like ‘required’ and ‘must’ and basically every school district interpreted it as binding,” Mr. Jonna said. “The [district] was convinced it was binding and said so at the hearing ... but in fact, this was not mandatory, it was just guidance.”
According to the 233-page court transcript, the judge asked state attorneys, “Is the FAQ binding on the school district or not?” to which they reluctantly replied it isn’t and doesn’t compel school districts to enact the rule.
Parental Rights Movement
Harmeet Dhillon, CEO and founder of the Center for American Liberty, another civil liberties law group, told The Epoch Times that her organization will continue fighting in the courts against secret gender transitions in schools and the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-transition surgeries on minors.“They all support strong parental rights,” she said.
“Our attorney general and our governor have responded with demagoguery and threats—the governor threatening to fine school districts that try to keep pornographic books out of the hands of children ... and the attorney general is suing school districts for protecting parental rights to information ... with respect to gender pronouns and transgender identification of their children in the schools,” she said.
The initiatives call for parental notification policies, oppose biological boys playing in girls’ sports, and seek to ban so-called gender-affirming medical interventions on minors.
