parenting

Mar 03 2026

Supreme Court Affirms Parents’ Rights Over California’s ‘Transgender’ School Policies

The United States Supreme Court struck a blow against the California Department of Education and schools that hide information from parents about a child’s sexual identity confusion.

In a 6-3 per curiam [by the Court] decision, the justices struck down a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had blocked a lower court decision affirming parents’ rights over school “transgender parental exclusion policies.”

The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, involved California teachers who were forced to lie to parents about children’s “transgender” ideation, as well as the parents whose rights were violated by those lies.

In a press release announcing the victory for parental rights and religious freedom, the Thomas More Society called the decision “historic and groundbreaking,” saying the ruling “dismantles California’s secret gender transition regime.”

“Transgender identity” is a serious mental health issue, often accompanied by other significant mental, social and psychological problems. Children wrestling with sexual identity confusion often have deep-seated hatred of their bodies, accompanied by the mistaken belief that they can somehow change their sex with dangerous and experimental medical interventions.

Of course schools should inform parents if their children are wrestling with these challenges.

Following the Court’s ruling, California schools can no longer hide this vital information from parents while this case continues to make its way through the courts.

The Thomas More Society, which fights on behalf of life, family and freedom, explained the significance of the ruling:

The landmark 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. The Court found that California’s secret transition regime likely violates parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the state “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

The opinion has important ramifications, as almost 40 similar cases are making their way through the courts.

The case began in April 2023 when Thomas More brought a lawsuit on behalf of two middle school teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, against the Escondido Unified School District “over policies requiring them to keep secrets from, and even lie to, parents about their minor-age students.”

In its recent decision, the Supreme Court explained how the case grew from there:

During litigation, the school district claimed that state law, as interpreted by the California attorney general and Department of Education, required it to adopt these policies. So the teachers added state officials as defendants, and parents of California schoolchildren joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

One set of parents, “John and Jane Poe,” rejected transgender dogma, including the idea that children have a “gender identity” different from their sex. But their school affirmed their seventh-grade daughter’s use of a male name and male pronouns.

Sadly, as the opinion explains:

At the beginning of their daughter’s eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school.

The parents moved her to a different school, but educators there also affirmed her delusion,“citing their obligations under California state law.”

Similarly, a school hid another seventh-grade girl’s shift to using a male name and pronouns from her parents, “John and Jane Doe,” who also joined the case.

From these beginnings, the case grew into a class action lawsuit on behalf of all California parents and educators who disagreed with state transgender mandates, for religious or other reasons.

The California Department of Education had based its parental exclusion policies on state anti-discrimination and privacy statutes. The department argued that telling parents about children’s sexual identity confusion violated students’ right to privacy and was discriminatory.

But parents and teachers countered, saying their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction.

He ruled that the school district and the state could not enforce the “offensive policy while the case is under court consideration.”

The Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling in favor of the state, so plaintiffs appealed to the high Court.

This decision only overturned the Ninth Circuit ruling on behalf of parents and did not discuss the issue of educators being forced to lie.

Per curiam decisions are usually anonymous and unsigned, but several Justices signaled their agreement with this one: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the request to overrule the Ninth Circuit in full; Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the application; and Neil Gorsuch was part of the 6-3 majority.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion discussing the religious freedom and substantive due process issues, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining her.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, saying the Court had acted precipitously and could have chosen one of the almost 40 similar cases to fully evaluate the issues.

The case is Mirabelli v. Bonta.

Related articles and resources:

Thomas More Society: Mirabelli, et al. v. Bonta and U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Historic, Groundbreaking Victory for Parental Rights, Dismantles California’s Secret Gender Transition Regime

BREAKING: Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Says California School District Cannot Force Teachers to Lie to Parents About Their Children’s ‘Gender Identity’

California Teachers Told to Hide Information About Students’ ‘Gender’ From Parents – They’re Suing

California Schools May Not Hide Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ From Parents

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

Florida Parents Sue School for Helping Teen ‘Transition’ – Without Their Knowledge or Consent

Homosexuality Resources

Six California School Districts Pass Parental Notification Policies for Children Confused About Their Sexual Identity

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Colorado Case on Parental Rights, Still Considering Two Similar Cases

Transgender Resources

What’s Your School District’s ‘Transgender’ Policy?

Feb 10 2026

New Research Shows How Fatherhood Uniquely Boosts Child Health

New medical research from a group of Penn State scholars provides new evidence on the unique importance of a father’s role in boosting the physiological health of his children. Appearing in the journal Health Psychology, this longitudinal research is the first of its kind to document how warm and engaged fathering in early childhood raises “children’s later cardiometabolic health.” Put in plain language, this is one’s essential cardiovascular and metabolic system involving healthy blood pressure, cholesterol levels, insulin resistance and protection from inflammation.

These scholars noted that these physical health benefits “were unique to fathers, underscoring the pivotal role of father-child relationships in shaping children’s long-term physiological health” which “highlights fathers’ unique contributions to family systems and child development.”

This long-term study examined 292 families consisting of (largely) married mothers and fathers and their children, examining them at ages ten months, two- and seven years old. The six scholars found that father-warmth at younger ages positively and uniquely impacted heart and metabolic health in the long-term.

“We of course expected that family dynamics, everybody in the family, fathers and mothers, would impact child development — but it was only fathers, in this case,” Dr. Alp Aytuglu, the lead author of the study told The New York Times.

The Times explained, “Fathers who engaged more sensitively with their babies were better at co-parenting; and the children whose parents more easily co-parented had lower levels of C-reactive protein, or CRP, and glycated hemoglobin, or HbA1c.” This means fatherhood positively impacts the smallest, most remote parts of a child’s body. We are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made.

These developments have very long-term implications on a child’s health, affecting their adult health into middle age and beyond. These findings strongly challenge the long-held assumption that it is mothering which most greatly affects child well-being.

A large body of research has long shown the unique importance of fathers for healthy child development. Dr. Kyle Pruett, a leading scholar on the topic, has long established that fathers are critical in the lives of their children because their parenting practices are unique compared to mothers and these differences provide importantly diverse developmental experiences.

In his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, Pruett explains in chapter one that “Fathers Don’t Mother.” Thus, involved fathers give their children experiences that are unique from mothers. While mothers tend to quiet children down, giving them an essential sense of security, fathers are more likely to rile their children up, giving them a sense of excitement and adventure. Dad builds confidence. While mothers necessarily protect their children from the world, fathers are more likely to prepare their children for the world. Children need both.

Research also shows that fathers are more likely to stimulate greater vocabulary development in their children because they are not as likely to moderate their speech to the child’s level. Mom’s way of speaking to her children facilitates easy and immediate communication. Dad’s way creates a vocabulary lesson. Children benefit from both.

An important 2001 survey of empirical research on the impact of fathers in healthy child development published in the Review of General Psychology found, “The influence of father love on offspring’s development is as great as and occasionally greater than the influence of mother love.” These authors add, “Overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offsprings’ psychological well-being and health, as well as in an array of psychological and behavioral problems.”

More recent research supports these conclusions.

A 2026 meta-analysis published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly, reviewing 65 studies in English and Chinese from 2000 forward, reports, “There is growing evidence demonstrating that father involvement is closely and positively linked to children’s social-emotional development, playing a crucial role in fostering emotional well-being, social competence, and emotion regulation in early childhood.”

And a 2025 study conducted jointly by the University of Virginia and the National Center for Black Family Life at Hampton University documents how boys and girls “are more likely to flourish — to do well in school, enjoy greater emotional and relational well-being, avoid poverty and avoid trouble with authorities — when they have active and engaged fathers” in their lives.

These scholars also tell us, “What’s more: men are more likely to thrive themselves when they have active relationships with their own children.”

A large and robust body of university-based research continues to inform us how indispensable fathers are in the lives of their children. His importance extends far beyond fertilization. His children need him every day, for their psychological, emotional, academic, physiological and verbal development. Every community is enriched in innumerable ways when the level of fatherhood involvement grows, rather than declines. We should make sure everyone appreciates just how true this is.

Why Adoption is Beautiful and Surrogacy Isn’t

The launch of the Greater Than campaign, “[a] coalition of parents, students, researchers, think tanks, influencers, and citizens aimed at ending same-sex marriage in America,” elicited a spectrum of reactions. A common response is to simply deny that children need, deserve, and have a right to their mother and father, or that same-sex “marriage” poses any risks to their health and well-being. Another response is to proclaim the issue “settled” because of the Obergefell Supreme Court decision (apparently by those unaware of the history of the Supreme Court and the story of Roe v. Wade).

Tennis great Martina Navratilova, an advocate of women’s rights and vocal opponent of transgender ideology, condemned the Greater Than coalition:

Speaking of evil. Or, at least vile. According to these people, our relationships, our families and most of all, our kids, DO NOT COUNT. What is it to them? How I, a woman, married to a woman, affect people I never met just because I don’t have a husband? MYOB!!!

However, her comments, posted on X, reinforce the basic argument the coalition is making: that same-sex “marriage” is about the desires of adults, not what’s best for children.

The claim that our social policies should align with what is true, that children deserve to be raised in a home with a married, biological, mom and dad, also brought questions from those who care deeply about children; so much so, in fact, that they are adoptive parents. What does the reasoning about God’s created intent for family structure mean for adoption?

It’s a good question; and like what follows when a similar critique is made of surrogacy. It is no accident that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” has increased demand for the legalization of surrogacy. Having chosen an inherently sterile union, many same-sex couples demand children. Acquiring children requires a technological workaround like IVF and surrogacy. In the process, a child is created and immediately robbed of either its mother or father or both.

So, if children have a right to their married, biological mom and dad, are the implications for adoption the same as for surrogacy, sperm donors, or redefining marriage? Not at all.

God’s design for the family is that a man and wife become one flesh and raise children together. The Fall frustrates this design in different ways. Families break. Couples find that their sexual union is infertile. Biological parents find themselves unable to care for their children for various reasons. A sexual act, disordered toward illegitimate pleasure or even selfish violence, produces a life unintended and unexpected.

Whatever the brokenness, adoption offers a means of restoration. Implicitly, the act of adoption recognizes that something is not as it should be, whether or not someone is morally culpable. Through adoption, the brokenness is addressed and restored by a new family.

In these ways, adoption portrays God’s relationship with us. Adoption is among the many marriage-and-family metaphors used in Scripture to describe how God relates to His people. Paul, in Ephesians, calls Christians “adopted” sons and daughters of God through Jesus Christ. The fracture created in the Garden and extended by our own brokenness is repaired by Jesus. As a result, we are adopted children of God, with all the rights and benefits and status involved.

Some question whether a woman’s relationship to a child that she bears in pregnancy is important. Are not adoptive moms just as emotionally and spiritually connected to their children as a biological mother could be? Yes, but it is also true that there is an inherent connection for the child to the woman who bears him or her. This is true whether she is a surrogate or enters an adoption contract. A mom that relinquishes her right to raise a child is still a mom. Adoption recognizes the reality that she has done what is best for her child and, at some level, brings redemption to the brokenness. Surrogacy intentionally creates the brokenness. In the case of surrogacy, the mother-child relationship is created only to be knowingly and intentionally severed.

In adoption, a woman who did not bear the child becomes a mother. In surrogacy, a mother is treated as less than a whole person, wanted for her procreational parts that are treated as consumer products, especially as commercial surrogacy becomes more common. Surrogacy also treats the child as a consumer product, instead of as a gift.

According to a Williams Institute study, the majority of same-sex couples prefer technologies such as insemination, surrogacy, and IVF, to adoption as a means to acquire children. Studies indicate that up to 40% of all surrogate pregnancies are commissioned by gay couples. Of course, even in adoption a same sex couple further deprives a child of either a mother or father.

Unfortunately, same sex “marriage” and surrogacy have become so normalized that, even in the Christian world, speaking against either is considered controversial. It should not be. In our fallen world, families break, but we should never break them on purpose.

Feb 03 2026

Close Family Relationships Offer Long-Term Social Benefits, Study Finds

Humans are social creatures. Our success as adult citizens rests largely in the vibrancy and size of our social networks. After all, the unapologetically Christian poet, John Donne properly noted, “No man is an island, Entire of itself.”

A new study published in JAMA Pediatrics documents how important close family relationships in adolescence are in helping our children develop robust and meaningful social connections throughout adulthood. The four Columbia University researchers who conducted this study explain, “Higher family connection in adolescence was significantly associated with a greater prevalence of high social connection in adulthood.”

As well, they state, “These findings suggest that safe, stable, and nurturing family relationships during adolescence may contribute to greater relational well-being in adulthood, potentially reducing social disconnection.”

Specifically, this research team reported that high levels of meaningful social connection were“more than twice as common” for adults who had “high” levels of family connectedness as adolescents compared to peers who grew up with the lowest levels of family connectedness.

Closer connections in one’s family of origin contributed not only to more social relationships, but also higher quality community friendships compared with those who grew up without close family ties.

Young adults with high levels of family relatedness in adolescence were consistently shown to have higher levels of weekly connection with friends and neighbors, and to have two or more close friends.

They also benefit from high social support, feel very close with both parents, never report feelings of isolation, and enjoy higher relational satisfaction with a spouse or romantic partner. You can see how consistently this finding demonstrated itself in this chart from the published study. Individuals with high family connectedness are shown in dark green.

This research was conducted over two decades with a nationally representative, racially diverse sample of more than 7,000 adults who joined the study as adolescents. The authors explain that their data is corroborated by additional U.S. and international research.

It is interesting when reading research articles like this to see how academics couch and contort their language for their colleagues. These Columbia University researchers did not disappoint, as their final line demonstrates,

However, efforts to increase the exposure of adolescents to safe, stable, and nurturing relationships at home are unlikely to cause harm and may contribute to their capacity as adults to create and maintain social connection, thereby addressing the increasing prevalence of loneliness and social isolation.

A very curious way to phrase their findings indeed. Even The New York Times, in reporting on this study, observed, “Researchers have long known that a strong parent-child relationship correlates with well-being in adulthood, but most studies have focused on internal measures like self-acceptance or a sense of purpose, rather than external dimensions such as satisfaction with relationships.”

Common sense does tell us, and scholars often stumble upon this truth, that close family relationships with one’s own married mother and father translate into strong, positive outcomes for children as they move into adulthood.

Related Articles and Resources

New Family Study Shows Importance of Married Parenting

Important New Research on How Married Parents Improve Child Well-Being

New Research Shows Married Families Matter More Than Ever

Why You Should Care About the Growing Positive Power of Marriage

Research Shows Marriage Boosts Well Being

New Research Shows Marriage and Fatherhood Regulate Male Sexual Energy

New Research: Marriage Still Provides Major Happiness Premium

Cohabitation Still Harmful – Even as Stigma Disappears

Don’t Believe the Modern Myth. Marriage Remains Good for Women

Don’t Believe the Modern Myth. Marriage Remains Good for Men.

Yes, Married Mothers Really Are Happier Than Unmarried and Childless Women

Marriage and the Public Good: A New Manifesto of Policy Proposals

Feb 02 2026

Ed. Dept. to California: Hiding Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ From Parents is Illegal

The California Department of Education (CDE) is violating federal law by hiding information about students’ “gender identity” from parents, the U.S. Department of Education found last week.

The department’s Student Privacy Policy Office concluded CDE “is in continued violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) — a federal law granting parents the right to access their child’s education records.”

In a press release announcing the findings, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon explained:

Our investigation found that the California Department of Education egregiously abused its authority by pressuring school officials to withhold information about students’ so-called “gender transitions” from their parents. … School personnel have even bragged about facilitating “gender transitions,” and shared strategies to target minors and conceal information about children from their own families.

McMahon added that this deprived parents of their rights, pointedly stating:

Children do not belong to the State — they belong to families. We will use every available mechanism to hold California accountable for these practices and restore parental rights.

In July 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1955, euphemistically labeled the “SAFETY Act” — “Support Academic Futures and Equality for Today’s Youth.”

That bill states:

All pupils deserve to feel safe, supported, and affirmed for who they are at school. Choosing when to “come out” by disclosing an LGBTQ+ identity, and to whom, are deeply personal decisions, impacting health and safety as well as critical relationships, that every LGBTQ+ person has the right to make for themselves.

According to the CDE website, AB 1955 banned “forced outing,” stating that employees “shall not be required to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless otherwise required by state or federal law.”

The SAFETY Act also invalidated any policies requiring school employees to disclose information about a student’s “sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” to their parents.

The U.S. Education Department found that AB 1955 “directly violates parents’ rights under FERPA to inspect all education records related to their minor children.”

The department cited a report from The Daily Caller that “at least 300 students in California were put on ‘Gender Support Plans,’ many without parental consent or knowledge.”

California Family Council President Jonathan Keller noted the importance of the Education Department’s actions for parents, saying, “Today’s finding by the Department of Education confirms what California parents have known all along: the state has been abusing its power to cut moms and dads out of the most important decisions in their children’s lives.”

Keller added, “Parents have the legal and moral right to know what schools are doing with their children.”

The Student Privacy Policy Office is asking the CDE to “voluntarily resolve its FERPA violations” by, among other actions:

• “Issuing a notice to all superintendents and administrators informing them that “gender support plans” or other related documentation directly related to a student are considered education records under FERPA and are subject to parental inspection upon request.

• “Publicizing that there is no ‘unofficial records’ exception to FERPA and further notifying superintendents and administrators that AB 1955, as well as any other California laws, regulations, or policies, should not be interpreted to undermine or contradict federal law.

• “Adding FERPA training content to state-mandated “LGBTQ cultural competency training”for teachers and other certificated employees.”

The U.S. Department of Education also told the state that future violations of FERPA could lead to loss of federal funds. That money totaled about $8 billion in 2024-2025, EdSource reported, about 6% of California’s K-12 funding.

Related articles and resources:

Department of Education Launches Multiple Investigations Into Title IX Violations

Department of Education: Schools Embracing DEI Will Lose Funding

DoEd Finds Northern Virginia School Districts Violated Title IX

Education Department Warns Colorado: Children ‘Do Not Belong to Government’

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

New Education Secretary Linda McMahon: ‘Send Education to the States’

Trump Ends Radical Indoctrination, Promotes Education Freedom

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

Virginia School District Ignore Parents Opposition, Implements ‘Gender Identity’ Lessons

What’s Your School District’s ‘Transgender’ Policy?