parental rights

Jan 16 2026

Colorado Bill Would Force Parents to Accept Child’s New ‘Gender Identity’

The Colorado General Assembly is threatening parent’s rights if they oppose “transitioning” their child to a new “identity.”

In cases where parents divorce or separate, Senate Bill 26-018 mandates that courts take into consideration whether or not a parent supports a child’s “identity as it relates to a protected class” when “determining parenting time and allocation of decision-making responsibility.”

The bill references a Colorado law that includes “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected classes.

A parent in a custody dispute who refuses to embrace a child’s rejection of his or her sex would be penalized by the court, granting preference to the parent who favors “transitioning” their child.

This is already happening in Colorado — and across the nation — as courts and child protective service agencies are removing sexually confused children from parents, but SB 26-018 codifies this abuse of parental rights into law.

The bill, Legal Protections for the Dignity of a Minor, also suppresses court records of a minor’s name change, hiding the child’s original name and sex.

In Colorado, 14-year-olds can initiate a legal name change without parental consent, and one parent can petition to change a child’s name and identity, without the other parent’s permission, as long as a judge decides this is in the “best interests” of the child.

The parent pushing a child toward dangerous, experimental “transgender” medical procedures gains an advantage in custody cases over the parent who believes in biological reality.

This is the second year in a row Colorado’s state legislators have tried to force parents to agree with a child’s sexual identity confusion — or lose out in custody battles.

In 2025, as the Daily Citizen reported, the state passed House Bill 1312, Concerning Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals.

Governor Jared Polis signed the bill into law, despite vehement opposition from thousands of Colorado citizens who signed petitions, attended rallies at the Capitol, testified against the measure, and made phone calls and sent emails to the governor and legislators.

That bill originally had a provision which would have allowed the government to remove children struggling with sexual identity confusion from their parent’s custody if they “misgendered” or “deadnamed” their child — meaning they simply affirmed their child’s true sexual identity and given name.

Because of the backlash, that provision was finally dropped, but the final version of the bill still contained horrible provisions. HB 1312, now the law, allows a student to choose a different name and sexual identity while at school — and requires staff to lie by using the student’s “chosen name” and recognize his or her new identity.

HB 1312 also requires schools to allow “each student to choose from any of the options provided in the dress code policy.” So boys may wear girls clothing — and vice versa. The law is facing litigation from several parents’ rights groups.

Colorado is one of many states where courts and child protective service agencies are already attacking parents who do not support their child’s sexual identity confusion.

Erin Lee, founder and director of Protect Kids Colorado, recently stated in an interview:

I’ve now helped over a dozen families in Colorado who have lost custody of their children, even in two parent loving households, for not affirming their child’s gender confusion.

In a post on X, Lee pointed to families in Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Montana and Texas where one or both parents lost custody of their children so they could be medically damaged by transgender interventions.

The parental rights activist, who works to protect children from transgender harms, spotlighted SB 26-018 in a separate post on X, saying:

Once again, Colorado is passing laws to TAKE CHILDREN AWAY FROM PARENTS who will not trans them. If you won’t tell your child they’re born in the wrong body & sterilize them, the state will take them. (Her emphasis.)

Lee encouraged Coloradans to fight back against this destructive legislation — as does Focus on the Family.

Related articles and resources:

Colorado Legislature Passes Radical ‘Transgender’ Bill With Amendments

Colorado Law Mandates Health Insurance Coverage for ‘Transgender’ Mutilations

Focus on the Family Testifies Against Nightmare Bill, Colorado’s Radical ‘Trans’ Legislation Advances

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Parents’ Rights Groups Sue Colorado Over Radical Trans Law

Protect Kids Colorado

Radical Colorado ‘Transgender’ Bill Threatens Parents’ Rights and Free Speech

Sign These Three Ballot Petitions to Protect Kids and Parental Rights in Colorado

Jan 16 2026

UPDATED: Pornography Age Verification Laws — What They Are and Which States Have Them

Half of all states — Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia, Utah, Montana, Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, Idaho, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming, North Dakota, Missouri, Arizona and Ohio — require pornography companies to verify the ages of their online consumers.

Ten more states hope to pass age verification legislation in 2026.

Described by Politico as “perhaps the most bipartisan laws in the country,” age verification laws help parents protect their kids by making it harder for minors to access adult content online.

Most age verification bills:

Require companies who publish a “substantial” amount of adult content — usually 1/3 or more of their total production — to check the age of every person accessing their website.
Create a way for parents to sue pornography companies if their kids access content they shouldn’t.

The Supreme Court found age verification requirements like these constitutional in June 2025, silencing critics who argue they infringe on free speech and privacy rights.

While most age verification laws contain the same basic components, few are identical.

Some states add age-verification requirements for social media companies. Minnesota’s House Filing 1875 would require social media companies to exclude children younger than 14 from their platforms.

Michigan’s Senate Bill 284 would require manufacturers like Apple to verify device users’ ages and communicate that information to other apps and websites.

Wyoming’s HB 43, now law, requires all online websites which publish or host adult content — no matter how little — to verify consumers’ ages.

States also employ different strategies to pass age verification bills.

Ohio rolled its age verification law into the bill establishing the state’s 2026-2027 budget. Missouri legislators introduced five bills this month to build on the state’s existing age verification regulations.

Hawaii separated its legislation into two bills — one establishing age verification requirements and another creating penalties for violators — so representatives could approve the requirements even if they disagreed with proposed penalties.

While not perfect, age verification laws greatly restrict the amount of porn young people can access. After Louisiana became the first state to pass such legislation in 2022, traffic to Pornhub.com from that state dropped by 80%, one spokesperson told the Institute for Family Studies.

Scroll down to see the status of age verification bills in different states. To find out more about age verification and parents’ rights legislation in your state, contact your local Focus on the Family-allied Family Policy Council.

Age Verification Laws

Louisiana
HB 142 became law on June 15, 2022.
Date effective: January 1, 2023

Arkansas
SB 66 became law on April 11, 2023.
Date effective: July 31, 2023

Virginia
SB 1515 became law on May 12, 2023.
Date effective: July 1, 2023

Utah
SB 0287 became law on May 4, 2023.
Date effective: May 3, 2023

Montana
SB 544 became law on May 19, 2023.
Date effective: January 1, 2024

Texas
HB 1181 became law on June 12, 2023.
Date effective: September 19, 2023

North Carolina
HB 8 became law on September 29, 2023.
Date effective: January 1, 2024

Indiana
SB 17 became law on March 13, 2024.
Date effective: August 16, 2024

Idaho
HB 498 became law on March 21, 2024.
Date effective: July 1, 2024

Florida
HB 3 became law on March 25, 2024.
Date effective: January 1, 2025

Kentucky
HB 278 became law on April 5, 2024.
Date effective: July 15, 2024

Nebraska
Online Age Verification Liability Act became law on April 16, 2024.
Date effective: July 18, 2024

Georgia
SB 351 became law on April 23, 2024.
Date effective: July 1, 2025

Alabama
HB 164 became law on April 24, 2024.
Date effective: October 1, 2024

Kansas
SB 394 became law without the Governor’s signature on April 25, 2024.
Date effective: July 1, 2024

Oklahoma
SB 1959 became law on April 26, 2024.
Date effective: November 1, 2024

Mississippi
HB 1126 became law without the Governor’s signature on April 30, 2024.
Date effective: July 1, 2024

South Carolina
HB 3424 became law on May 29, 2024.
Date effective: January 1, 2025

Tennessee
HB 1642/SB 1792 became law on June 3, 2024.
Date effective: January 13, 2025

South Dakota
HB 1053 became law on February 27, 2025.
Date effective: July 1, 2025

Wyoming
HB 43 became law on March 13, 2025.
Date effective: July 1, 2025

North Dakota
HB 1561 became law on April 11, 2025.
Date effective: August 1, 2025

Missouri
Rule 15 CSR 60-17.010 published on May 7, 2025.
Date effective: November 30, 2025

Arizona
HB 2112 became law on May 13, 2025.
Date effective: September 26, 2025

Ohio
HB 96 became law on June 30, 2025.
Date effective: September 30, 2025

Age Verification Bills

Hawaii
HB 1212: carried over to the 2026 session on December 8, 2025.
HB 1198: carried over to the 2026 session on December 8, 2025.

Iowa
HF 864 (formerly HF 62): placed on subcommittee calendar for the Senate Committee on Technology on January 13.
SF 443 (formerly SF 236): referred to Senate Committee on Technology on June 16, 2025.

Michigan
SB 901: referred to Senate General Laws Committee on January 8.
SB 284 (HB 4429): referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection on May 6, 2025.
HB 4429 (SB 284) : referred to House Committee on Regulatory Reform on September 18, 2025.

Minnesota
HF 1875: referred to House Committee on Commerce, Finance and Policy on March 5, 2025.
SF 2105 (HF 1434): referred to Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection on March 3, 2025.
HF 1434 (SF 2105): referred to House Committee on Commerce, Finance and Policy on February 24, 2025.

Missouri
HB 1878: referred to House Committee on General Laws on January 8.
HB 1839: referred to House Committee on Children and Families on January 15.
SB 901: referred to Senate General Laws Committee on January 8.
SB 1346: read in the senate on January 7.
SB 1412: read in the senate on January 7.

New Hampshire
SB 648: heard by Senate Judiciary Committee on January 8.

New Jersey
S 1826: referred to Senate Judiciary Committee on January 13.

New York
S 3591 (A 03946): referred to Senate Committee on Internet and Technology on January 7.
A 03946 (S 3591): referred to Assembly Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee on January 7.

Pennsylvania
HB 1513: referred to House Communications and Technology Committee on May 29, 2025.
SB 603: referred to Senate Judiciary Committee on April 9, 2025.

Washington
HB 2112: heard in the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Business on January 16.

Wisconsin
AB 105: second amendment proposed in the senate on January 7.

Nov 13 2025

Victory: CA School District Agrees to Notify Parents Before Teaching Gender Ideology

A California school district agreed Monday to notify parents before teaching gender ideology in school “buddy programs” and allow them to opt their children out.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against Encinitas Union School District in May, requiring it give parents at least three days to opt their children out of activities promoting gender ideology in school “buddy programs” — mandatory mentorship initiatives pairing older students up with younger ones.

On Monday, the district voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the injunction, effectively agreeing to abide by the order until the case against it concludes.

“This is a big win,” Carlos Encinas told the Daily Citizen. “We’ve had highs and lows, so right now, we’re just enjoying the moment.”

Carlos and his wife, Jenny, sued Encinitas Union School District in September 2024 for allegedly violating their parental rights and right to religious freedom. The district had repeatedly refused the couple’s request to opt their sons out of “buddy program” lessons promoting gender ideology, which conflicts with the family’s faith.

The district further violated their son’s right to free speech, the Encinas argue, by compelling him to promote gender ideology to a younger classmate.

The 11-year-old and his kindergarten buddy had been forced to listen to an audiobook about a little boy who discovers his shadow — his “innermost self”— is pink, not blue. The Encinas’ son, a devout Christian, was subsequently required to help the younger child identify the color shadow that “best represented him.”

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the Encinas on May 12. First Liberty Attorney Kayla Toney, the couple’s lawyer, says the judge agreed Encinitas Union School District likely violated their son’s right to free speech.

“The judge basically found that, under Supreme Court case law, schools cannot force students to speak messages that go against their beliefs or their conscience,” she told the Daily Citizen.

Toney also believes the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor this summerinfluenced the school district’s decision to drop its appeal.

“In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court found that school districts are required to provide advance notice and opt-outs to parents when the material [the district] is teaching substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,” she told the Daily Citizen.

“I think there’s no way [Encinitas Union School District] could have won under Mahmoud,” she continued, noting Supreme Court precedent applies regardless of state law. “I think they saw the writing on the wall and decided to withdraw their appeal in light of [that].”

The Encinas weathered significant persecution to stand up for their rights. Carlos and Jenny removed their boys from the public school system entirely after facing vitriol from teachers, parents and students.

But, through it all, Carlos says God has remained faithful.

“There’s a certain awareness [about parental rights issues] within our community now that I think is really beneficial,” he reflected.

“[The district] really isn’t transparent about how it trains its teachers and the way content is distributed in the classroom,” he continued. “We’ve had a lot of parents reach out to us personally and thank us for being a voice on this.”

Carlos also praised God for making a way for his sons to attend a private, Catholic school.

“[My kids] are in a great place,” he told the Daily Citizen. “They’re thriving — and we’ve got a new community [and support system] we’ve been introduced to.”

While Carlos is grateful for God’s provision, he and Toney know most parents do not have the choice to leave public school.

“[The Encinas] never should have had to withdraw from the public school district,” Toney emphasized. “The fact that the hostility rose to that level is really appalling, because most families don’t have other options.”

“It’s an extraordinary effort to move your kids out of public school,” Carlos added. “I’m just so thankful to God for opening those doors.”

Toney and the Encinas don’t know when the case will conclude — but Carlos says the timeline doesn’t matter. He and his family intend to see it through.

“We know God’s got this battle won for us — we just need to be trusting and faithful,” he told the Daily Citizen.

“It’s definitely taken a bit longer than we expected, and it may take a bit longer [still], but we’re in it for the long haul, however long it takes.”

Additional Articles and Resources

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum

California Family Wins Early Legal Victory for Parental Rights, Religious Freedom

California Family Harassed After Trying to Opt-Out of Activities Teaching Gender Ideology

Common Spirit Denied Teen Body Medical Care After Parents Objected to Doctor’s Bizarre Questions

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

Liberal Father Seeks to Disprove Concerns Over Sexually Explicit Books in Schools, Becomes Convinced These Books Are Not for Children

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

Jun 27 2025

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum

In a decisive victory for people of faith, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of parental rights and religious freedom over mandated “LGBT” curriculum in public school classrooms.

The decision affirms schools can’t force children to participate in LGBT classroom material without offering parents the right to opt out based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Background

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involves a group of Maryland parents from diverse religious backgrounds asking to opt their children out of mandated LGBT curricula at school.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the case originated in 2023 when the school district eliminated an opt-out provision for LGBT children’s books read in the classroom.

A multi-faith parent group sued the school district, claiming the policy infringed on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

They requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the school district from requiring their children to read, listen to or discuss the storybooks while the case was being litigated on the merits of its constitutional claims. The parents lost in both lower courts.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April.

Opinion

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The Court ruled parents have the First Amendment free exercise right to opt their children out of LGBT classroom materials in public elementary schools.

The majority affirmed when schools force exposure to content conflicting with sincerely held religious beliefs, like marriage and gender identity, the schools substantially burden the rights of religious parents.

The Court applied strict scrutiny because it involves the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Here, the Court held the school district’s failure to allow religious opt-outs violated strict scrutiny because the school offered opt-outs in other contexts but refused to accommodate religious objections to LGBT material.

The majority reversed the lower court’s ruling and granted a preliminary injunction to the parents, which requires the district to provide notice before using LGBT curriculum and permits students to opt out of the instruction while the case continues to be litigated on its merits.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing an important “implication of this decision for schools across the country.”

He wrote:

The Board may not insulate itself from First Amendment liability by “weav[ing]”religiously offensive material throughout its curriculum and thereby significantly increase the difficulty and complexity of remedying parents’ constitutional injuries.

He warned, “Insofar as schools or boards attempt to employ their curricula to interfere with religious exercise, courts should carefully police such ‘ingenious defiance of the Constitution.'”

Public schools have officially been put on notice by Justice Thomas.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

Dissenting Justices argued this decision might undermine the role of public education in exposing students to differing perspectives. They suggested the administrative burden to opt students out would be too cumbersome and that this might lead to students being exempted from essential history or science concepts based on religious objections.

Impact

This case will have long-lasting implications not just in Maryland but in public schools across the nation.

Religious freedom and parental rights have been strengthened in every state. This ruling recognizes parents have a First Amendment right to protect their children from instruction contradicting their sincerely held religious beliefs. Based on this case precedent, schools will now be required to provide notice and opt-outs for LGBT materials, especially for young children.

Public school districts and boards nationwide must now reconsider their approach to LGBT content and change their policies or face lawsuits from parents ready to protect their children and defend their religious freedom.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This case draws a clear line in the sand — public education must respect parental rights and the religious convictions of Christians and all people of faith.

Jun 12 2025

Focus on the Family Urges Congressional Leaders to Respect Parental Rights

This June, Focus on the Family is urging congressional leaders to respect parental rights by passing federal legislation that would protect those rights for parents nationwide.

Promise to America’s Parents Coalition led the effort and brought together over 50 diverse organizations on behalf of millions of American parents who feel increasingly sidelined in decisions impacting their children.

The letter coincided with the 100th anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters ruling, which recognized “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

The letter called on congressional leaders to protect families and parental rights by passing the Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act, S. 204 and H.R. 650.

Parental rights are deeply rooted in our cultural traditions and constitutional law. Still, recently, some courts have failed to apply the highest standard of review, strict scrutiny, when considering whether a government’s actions have infringed on parental rights.

Strict scrutiny is reserved for fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. It requires that the government’s action must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary harm. When courts neglect to use that standard of review, they are downgrading parental rights.

The Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act, S. 204 and H.R. 650, would require any federal government action that burdens parental rights must be reviewed using the strict scrutiny legal standard.

In addition, the proposed federal law recognizes that parents have the constitutional right to make decisions about their children’s education, healthcare, and moral upbringing.

It promotes accountability, prevents government overreach into parental authority, protects parental rights to choose healthcare and education options that are best for their child, and requires transparency by guaranteeing parents have access to their child’s medical and school records.

Unfortunately, in recent years, federal law and policies have been weaponized against parents at “an alarming rate and to a greater degree.” The letter cites several actions taken by agencies that undermine parental rights, including:

The Department of Defense’s education arm intentionally withholds information from parents about their child’s medical records.
The Department of Agriculture’s education arm encourages leaders to ignore parental concerns and address students according to their preferred gender identity.
The Department of Health and Human Services is funding a national suicide hotline that connects kids to trans activist organizations without parental knowledge or consent.
Medicaid funding goes to school health centers that refer students for mental health and reproductive services, including the abortion pill “Plan B” for kids as young as 12 years old without parental consent.

At Focus on the Family, we know parents have the God-given, fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing, education, healthcare decisions, and religious training. Children also have the right to be loved and guided by their parents.

Our nation needs strong families because they are the building blocks of thriving communities and, ultimately, a flourishing country.

Related Articles and Resources

Exclusive Interview: Colorado Parents Expose ‘Gender Cult’ at Public School in New Documentary

Florida AG Launches Office of Parental Rights, Defending Parents’ ‘God-Given Right’

Minnesota Mom on the Frontlines for Parental Rights and Protecting Children

Sex Educators Say ‘Early Grades May Be the Best Time’ to Introduce Children to LGBT Issues

Three Important Cases for Parental Rights, Supreme Court Rulings Expected Soon USDA Says, ‘No School Lunch for You!’ – Unless You Embrace LGBT Ideology