Federal Judge Rules for Parents in Case Involving Concealment of Child’s Gender Changes
By: Jonathan Turley | September 19, 2025
There is a major ruling, Mead v. Rockford Public School Dist., a potentially precedent-setting case on parental rights in our public schools. Judge Paul Maloney (W.D. Mich.) ruled that Plaintiffs Dan and Jennifer Mead could move forward with their claims that the Rockford Public School district concealed changes to the gender identification of their biological daughter, identified as G.M. As I have previously written, parental rights are shaping up as a major battleground for the Supreme Court after years of decisions in the lower court undermining parental controls and disclosures.
A recent legal decision captured this growing divide. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled last month that parents had no protected right to be informed when their children change their gender identity in public school.
In Foote v. Feliciano, Marissa Silvestri and Stephen Foote sued Baird Middle School in Ludlow, Massachusetts, after they learned that school administrators did not inform them that their 11-year-old child had self-declared as “genderqueer” and that teachers and staff were using a new name and new pronouns for the student.
The parents were initially told only that their child was experiencing mental health difficulties, including depression. Silvestri said they would seek mental health support for their child and asked that administrators “not have any private conversations with (the Student) in regards to this matter.”
The parents later learned that the school’s staff had continued to meet with their child without their knowledge, implemented the change in gender identity and took active measures not to reveal the change to them (including using the student’s birth name in communications with the parents). The school, without the parents’ knowledge, arranged for changes in everything from the use of male bathrooms to the exclusive use of the child’s new name in class.
The district court in Massachusetts denied the parents’ request for a trial and granted a summary dismissal in favor of the schools.
A century ago, the nation’s highest court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
In its 2000 Troxel v. Granville decision, the court recognized “the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”
There is no greater natural right than the right to control the upbringing of our children. This right was not granted to us by the grace of the state. It rests with us as human beings. It is part of a panoply of natural rights embraced by the framers − a commitment made nearly 250 years ago in our Declaration of Independence.
The right prevailed in Michigan in this critical threshold ruling. While denying a free exercise claim, the court agreed that there was a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim:
The right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing originated from three Supreme Court cases: Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), and Farrington v. Tokushige (1927)…. The Court affirmed the life of this right in Troxel v. Granville (2000). There, the Court held that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children [] is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest recognized by this Court.” … In addition, parents have a fundamental right to control their child’s health. See Parham v. J.R. (1979). “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.” So “[s]urely, [a parent’s right] includes a ‘high duty’ to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek and follow medical advice.” …
The court noted that the parents were alleging a key element in the case that the district intentionally deceived them and found that these “allegations show some amount of coercion or interference from the district, which implicates Plaintiffs’ right to make fundamental decisions for G.M.”
Bravo, Judge Maloney.
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.