parenting

ADF Calls on Colorado School District to Drop Explicit Sex Ed Curriculum

Parents shouldn’t have to go digging to learn what their children are being taught in school about sex, gender and their bodies. But according to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), that’s exactly what’s happening in Colorado.

On August 11, ADF sent a demand letter to Roaring Fork School District in Carbondale, Colorado on behalf of local parents. The letter challenged the district’s choice of sex ed curriculum and the process by which it informs parents of their options to learn more about the material and opt their child out.

The district uses a sex ed curriculum called 3Rs (Rights, Respect, Responsibility). It was adopted in May 2023, despite protests from many parents, whose concerns were dismissed as “sensational.”

At the time, the district told parents there would be a clear opt-out process.

3Rs is a free curriculum authored by Advocates for Youth, an LGBT activist organization with ties to Planned Parenthood, to promote an “honest, inclusive sex education for all students.”

StopCSE.org, an online resource that collates information about comprehensive sex education curricula, gives this curriculum a very high harm score for children due to its “explicit and disturbing” content.

ADF’s demand letter alleges:

The 3Rs curriculum includes graphic visuals and ideologically driven content aimed at children as young as five years old — an offense compounded by Roaring Fork’s failure to provide adequate notice and opt-out rights to parents, violating their fundamental constitutional rights.

According to ADF, the 3Rs curriculum shows kindergarteners illustrations of naked male and female bodies and teaches them to identify certain body parts, including “vulva,” “nipples,” “anus” and “penis.”

Shockingly, ADF says the curriculum even asks kindergarteners how they like to be touched.

The ADF demand letter calls on the district to cut the reprehensible 3Rs curriculum completely from all classes.

At the very least, they urge the school district to change the opt-out procedure into an opt-in process to ensure parents receive meaningful notice of the sexually explicit material appearing in class and can exercise their constitutional rights to direct their children’s upbringing and education.

ADF maintains that doing nothing in response to the letter will constitute ongoing violations of parents’ rights by the school district.

In a press release, ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, director of the ADF Center for Parental Rights, alleges that the district’s current notification process intentionally makes it difficult for parents to know what is being taught and how to opt out:

Roaring Fork Schools is not only introducing kindergarteners to explicit content but also burying the information from parents and denying them a meaningful choice to opt their children out — by design.
It’s understandable why parents are so concerned. Roaring Fork Schools must immediately abandon this controversial sex ed curriculum, or at the very least, allow parents sufficient notice to choose what is best for their family.

The letter details the stories of three different families in the school district who lacked sufficient notice, information and details to be able to opt their children out of the explicitly sexual materials.

ADF leaves no room for misinterpretation; if the school district fails to remedy the situation, they may soon face legal action.

No lawsuit has been filed, but ADF is putting the district on notice.

Parents, not school districts, have the God-given, constitutionally protected, primary responsibility to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The Roaring Fork School District controversy strikes at the heart of this right. The violation must be addressed.

The Daily Citizen will continue to follow this developing story.

Texas Conservative Activist Sues School District After Removal From Board Meeting

A conservative activist from Texas is suing the Houston Independent School District (HISD) after removing her from a board meeting for reading sexually explicit passages from a book available to students in the districts’ school libraries. 

Bonnie Wallace, a member of Protecting Texas Children and a resident of Texas Hill County, has repeatedly attempted to raise awareness about the abundance of inappropriate material readily available to minors in Texas public school libraries. 

Footage from a March HISD board meeting shows Wallace during public comment, announcing she would be reading from one of the “500 filthy books” on HISD library shelves. 

“If there’s children in the audience, they need to leave,” said Wallace. 

Board Vice President Angela Lemond Flowers promptly interrupted Wallace, saying, “You will not be allowed to read things that are not appropriate.”

“Oh, not appropriate?” said Wallace. “Then why are they in your schools?” 

Wallace began reading a direct passage from A Court of Silver Flames by Sarah J. Maas, the fifth installment in the A Court of Thorns and Roses series – adult fantasy books widely known for their graphic sexual content. Focus on the Family’s “Plugged In” writes of another book in the ACOTAR series: 

The sex depicted is graphic and explicit and the conversations about sex are crude. … The acts are described in detail. … The banter between [characters] is sexually graphic.

A Court of Silver Flames also includes descriptions of violence, gore, past abuse, depression and self-loathing. 

As Wallace read the sexually explicit passage aloud, Flowers warned twice that she would be removed from the meeting if she continued reading the material. 

“If you don’t like it, remove it so that children don’t have access to it,” said Wallace before taking her seat. She was immediately escorted from the meeting by police. 

Wallace has since sued HISD for violating her First Amendment rights. The suit reads:

This was textbook viewpoint discrimination: HISD silenced Ms. Wallace precisely because she demonstrated the hypocrisy of its own policies, proving that if the content was too explicit for adults, it was too explicit for children. Such conduct is “an egregious form” of content regulation that the First Amendment almost never tolerates.

HISD filed a motion in July to dismiss Wallace’s case, claiming the lawsuit “identifies no authority requiring the presiding officer to permit the live oral recitation of sexually graphic passages in such a forum under those circumstances.” 

The HISD motion also cited 2 U.S. Supreme Court Decisions which asserted “the State’s substantial interest in protecting minors from exposure to sexually explicit material.”

Wallace responded in a statement saying: 

HISD claiming they had authority to remove me because I was reciting sexually explicit passages is such hypocrisy. They evidently thought the book was wildly inappropriate. I agree that this book, and thousands of others, are wildly inappropriate for minors. But HISD should explain why they squandered taxpayer dollars on this sexually explicit content and are now retaining it so minors continue to have access to it.
Their request to have the lawsuit dismissed by stating they want to protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit material is HILARIOUS! I guess they only want to protect minors from sexually explicit content during HISD school board meetings but not in HISD libraries!

Wallace and her attorneys have repeatedly referenced her warning that any children present needed to leave the meeting before she began reading from A Court of Silver Flames.

Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow for the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, commented:

Houston ISD removed a parent from a public meeting for reading aloud from a sexually explicit book that the district itself has placed in school libraries including those accessible to elementary, middle, and high school students.
The school board doesn’t want the public to hear the material they’re giving kids. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.

In 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 900 – the READER Act. The legislation outlined standards for school library materials across Texas, including specific requirements regarding sexually explicit literature.

Abbott’s press secretary, Andrew Mahaleris, stated:

Sexually explicit material has no place in Texas public school libraries.
The Governor expects every school district to follow state law.

However, Wallace claims she has found over 2,100 inappropriate books across Texas public school libraries, and that HISD carries almost all of those books. 

She has repeatedly attempted to raise awareness about this problem by voicing concerns in school board meetings and to individual parents. The Protecting Texas Children’s social media pages feature videos of Wallace showing parents shocking samples of inappropriate literature available in public school libraries. 

Wallace’s case is scheduled for trial on September 13, 2027 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. 

Please join Daily Citizen in prayer for Bonnie Wallace and the important work she is doing to protect America’s children from inappropriate, explicit material. 

Related articles and resources:

Is it ‘Book Banning’ to Keep Sexually Explicit Books out of Schools?

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

Legal Aid Groups Demand Virginia Schools Comply With Title IX, Supreme Court Decisions

America First Legal (AFL) and the Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC) sent a joint letter to all 132 Virginia school districts “to educate them about recent legal changes on matters affecting sex and ‘gender identity’ within public schools.” 

AFL, a nonprofit law firm defending Americans’ constitutional rights, explained in a press release that schools have obligations to comply with Title IX and two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Mirabelli v. Bonta. Otherwise, “they could face significant legal and financial liability” for violating Title IX and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

The letter to the school districts, a seven-page legal memo, warned that not following B.P.J. and Mirabelli “could subject a school district to the loss of its federal Title IX funds, formal investigations by the federal Department of Education, and lawsuits by aggrieved students and parents, as well as the Department of Justice.”

B.P.J. was a landmark decision, handed down in June 2026, where the Court ruled that states are allowed to protect girls and women’s sports with laws separating sports based on biology.

AFL stated that Virginia schools are violating Title IX if they privilege boys who claim to be girls over female students: 

In five Northern Virginia school districts, for example, girls who are uncomfortable sharing locker rooms and bathrooms with biological males are expected to find separate facilities. AFL’s letter explains that this is sex discrimination under Title IX and that in B.P.J., the Court made clear that under Title IX, “sex” refers to biological sex, not “gender identity.”

It’s not just girls who want to keep sex-segregated facilities. Boys want their privacy, too. Title IX and the decision in B.P.J. protect them from unwanted invasion of their private spaces by girls who claim to be boys. 

Districts had been relying on a 2020 court case, Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, to allow students access to facilities based on their self-proclaimed “gender identity,” rather than on their sex. Gavin Grimm was a female student who “identified” as male and was denied access to boys-only facilities. The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said this violated Grimm’s equal protection and Title IX rights.  

However, as the legal memo explained, Grimm has been overruled by the Supreme Court’s sensible decision in B.P.J.: 

Now, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in B.P.J., Grimm is no longer viable authority.

FFLC is the legal arm of The Family Foundation, a Focus on the Family ally that works on behalf of life, marriage, parental rights, free speech and religious freedom. The organization noted that the Court’s rulings “fundamentally altered the legal landscape” for school districts. 

Mirabelli v. Bonta was an important victory for parents, with the Court ruling against California policies requiring schools to hide information about a child’s sexual identity confusion. The Court said parents were likely to succeed in their challenge to state policies which “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” 

As a result, as FFLC President Victoria Cobb stated in a press release announcing the letter, “Virginia school boards no longer have any legal excuse for policies that put politics ahead of the law and ignore students’ and parents’ rights.” 

AFL and FFLC’s memorandum explained that schools will face consequences for ignoring Mirabelli: 

School districts that maintain policies allowing staff to facilitate a student’s social transition without notification to and consent of his or her parents can face liability pursuant to the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The letter “summarizes the governing law, explains why many existing policies should be reevaluated, and identifies steps your school division should take now to reduce legal exposure.”  

Among other demands, the memorandum called on school boards to: 

• Review all policies governing athletics, locker rooms, restrooms and overnight accommodations to ensure eligibility is based on biological sex.

• Rescind any policy allowing staff to facilitate a student’s social transition without parental notice or consent. 

• Remove references to Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board as authority supporting “gender-identity”-based access to sex-separated facilities. 

• Consult legal counsel regarding potential conflicts with recent case law.

• Assess pending litigation risk and revise policies before they become the subject of administrative complaints or federal lawsuits.

Both AFL and FFLC concluded their letter with a warning: 

Founding Freedoms Law Center and America First Legal will continue to monitor Virginia school divisions’ compliance and are prepared to represent parents and students whose rights have been violated by unlawful policies or practices.

Related articles and resources: 

Barrett v. Kagan: Key Takeaways From Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Transgender’ School Policies

Blockbuster Supreme Court Ruling: Girls Sports Are for Girls

Clarence Thomas: There are Only Two, Unchangeable Sexes

Education Department Finds Northern Virginia School Districts Violated Title IX

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

Federal Judge Rules Against Bathroom Privacy

Feds Open Yet Another Title IX Investigation Into Loudoun County Schools

Loudoun County Schools Defy Education Department Over Multiple Title IX Violations

Poetic Justice: Virginia school district loses federal funding day after bogus suspension.

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

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

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

Going ‘No Contact’ Is On The Rise — Here Are 3 Reasons Why

The “no contact” phenomenon is rapidly gaining traction, as secular media encourages young adults to “cut off” parents and family members at any sign of conflict. 

According to a 2025 YouGov Study, 38% of American adults say they are currently estranged from a relative – an incredibly depressing statistic. Yet, in a time where families need each other more than ever, going “no contact” is constantly being proposed as a solution to minor familial disagreements. 

What exactly does going “no contact” mean? An article entitled “6 Signs It’s Time to Go ‘No Contact’” explains:

It’s fairly taboo in most cultures to just cut ties with your family. (Blood is thicker than water, yadda, yadda, yadda.) But, sometimes, ending a relationship is necessary to protect your peace.
“[No contact] is ultimately a person saying, ‘This relationship has become so unmanageable for me, and staying in contact is no longer an option.’”
It’s something someone does when a relationship cannot continue in its current form (or exist at all) because of how it’s affecting your mental health and well-being.

In another article from the same website, the author encourages people to cut off relationships with their family members: “Life with my parents felt impossible, but once I chose to distance myself from them, the world became much easier to navigate.”

Laura Wellington, a mom who took to TikTok after being randomly cut off and uninvited to her daughter’s wedding, warns that estrangement is becoming a more normalized way to address family tension, even in cases without abuse or neglect. 

“I was literally just completely blindsided by this,” said Wellington. “The pain of being cut off – it’s a pain you can’t describe unless you feel it.”

In an episode of Oprah Winfrey’s podcast, psychologist Dr. Joshua Coleman said: 

The old days of “honor thy mother and thy father,” “respect thy elders,” and “family is forever” has given way to much more of an emphasis on personal happiness, personal growth, my identity, my political beliefs, my mental health. So much so that today, “protecting my mental health” is the single most common thing that I see in every single letter from every estranged adult child.

However, recent research suggests that “family estrangement is significantly associated with lower life satisfaction and higher levels of depressiveness.”

Additionally, the Cornell Family Estrangement and Reconciliation Project writes: 

The biggest regret for many older adults was an estrangement with a family member. Their advice to others was to do whatever possible to reconcile with estranged relatives rather than waste years – if not decades – in anguish and despair as they had done.

If family estrangement is so deeply regretted, what is contributing to the current “no contact” epidemic?

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Dr. Richard L. Blake suggests 3 reasons American adults are cutting off their parents. 

The first involves differing beliefs. From political views to disagreements regarding romantic partners, any conflict of opinion has seemingly become a reason to separate from one’s family members. 

“There were people more likely to cut off someone for having a differing opinion than for people who have done serious violent crimes,” said Blake. 

Additionally, psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert told Fox News Digital: 

I regularly work with families where estrangement isn’t driven by abuse or neglect as much as it is by political identity and voting behavior. … Parents are cut off because of who they voted for, what news they watch or the views they express. … What would once have been handled as disagreement is now framed as moral injury.

Social media or external influences may also encourage an adult to cut off their parents. A recent influx of “no contact” testimonials have reportedly inflamed the problem of familial estrangement in recent years. 

“Someone might see a video on TikTok – ‘I cut off my parents, and I’m much happier now. They were toxic narcissistic boundary crossers. And now I’m great,’” said Blake. “And people mimic that. Or they think, ‘Oh, this person’s getting a lot of attention.’”

“It’s this lie they’re getting sold on social media,” he continued. “‘Cut off your parents and your mental health will be better.’”  

Yet according to Blake, “Families are one of the most evidence-based buffers against mental illness.” 

Third and finally, poor communication – specifically the use of buzzwords like “abuse,” “toxic,” “boundaries,” “narcissist,” and “gaslighting” – can contribute to familial estrangement.

In reference to this language, Geremy Keeton, senior director of counseling services at Focus on the Family and a licensed marriage and family therapist, said:

Terms like “abuse” and “toxic” are necessary, informative and useful when used objectively and accurately – and in the rightly defined ways. Yet the terms and concepts are too powerful to be misapplied. They can be useful or detrimental.

When these words arise, Dr. Blake advises:

I tell parents to pause before they really react … and then say back, “Okay, you’ve used the word toxic. Can you describe the behavior or behaviors that you consider to be toxic?” Then you’re dealing with facts and events, rather than who’s a better person or who’s the worst person.

Regarding the heartbreaking, rapidly growing problem of family estrangement, Keeton also commented:

Our culture on the whole seems to be swinging a certain way right now. Families who need help and reconciliation are frozen in stalemates or simply shut down at times. Family is being treated as disposable by some. I say this while fully acknowledging the need for distance, boundaries and greater safety in many instances too.
Discernment, not reaction, is needed. Wisdom, seeking true wisdom, is key.

If you’re struggling with family estrangement and need a listening ear, Focus on the Family offers a free, one-time counseling consultation with a licensed or pastoral counselor. To request a counseling consultation, call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) or fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form. 

Related Articles & Resources:

The Silent Epidemic of Parent-Child Estrangement

Family Estrangement: 6 Ways to Reconcile with Adult Children

Healing Parent and Adult Child Relationships

Distance In Relationship with Grown Child

The Gut-Wrenching Heartbreak of Parental Estrangement

Just Annoying, or Truly Unsafe? How to Navigate Get-Togethers With Difficult Family

Help For Abusive Relationships

Court Upholds Florida Law Protecting Children From ‘Adult’ Performances — Including Drag

A federal court restored enforcement of a Florida law protecting children from “adult live performances,” shows or presentations that depict nudity, sexual conduct or specific sexual activities. 

Hamburger Mary’s, a drag-themed restaurant chain, challenged the state’s Protection of Children Act, saying it violated its freedom of speech. A district court enjoined the law, keeping the state from enforcing it while the suit was going through the trial process. 

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld that decision, but the full court then reheard the case and overturned the universal, state-wide injunction in an 8-5 decision. 

Florida’s SB 1438 was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2023. The legislation made it a first-degree misdemeanor for hotels or restaurants to admit a child to an adult live performance. Establishments that did so could receive fines or have their licenses revoked or suspended. 

The law defined “adult live performances” as “any show, exhibition, or other presentation in front of a live audience which, in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or specific sexual activities … lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.” 

The Protection of Children Act defined a performance as out of bounds for children when it: 

1. Predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest. 

2. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community of this state as a whole with respect to what is suitable material or conduct for the age of the child present. 

3. Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present.

Hamburger Mary’s complaint said the restaurant “has presented drag performances at its venue since 2008,” explaining that it offered “family friendly” performances on Sundays. The lawsuit said:  

There is no lewd activity, sexually explicit shows, disorderly conduct, public exposure, obscene exhibition, or anything inappropriate for a child to see.

Even though its “family friendly” drag shows were so tame, the chain “advised its customers that children would not be permitted to attend any drag shows,” out of fear they would be prosecuted under the act. Hamburger Mary’s said the statute had “a chilling effect” on their protected speech. 

Why change policies if your performances are suitable for children? 

The restaurant said the act violated its First Amendment rights, arguing that “the statute is not content-neutral” and “is view-point discriminatory because it targets drag queens.” The suit pointed out that Florida’s SB 1438 was passed after the DeSantis administration began investigating and speaking out against children attending drag shows with inappropriate content. 

But the law targeted any venue that allows children to view adult live performances that depict lewd sexual conduct – not just drag shows. The word “drag” does not appear in SB 1438.

In asking for an injunction against the law, the restaurant chain also argued that the law’s use of the term “lewd” and the phrase “the age of the child present” made it “unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.”

The 11th Circuit majority ruled that the district court erred in blocking any enforcement of the law for two reasons:  

First, the district court lacked authority to impose a universal injunction that prevented the enforcement of the Act against everyone in Florida.

The court pointed to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA, where the Court said federal district judges can’t universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive or legislative policy against all people and parties. The 11th Circuit said the case didn’t just apply to nationwide injunctions, adding that “there is no statewide exception to CASA.” 

The opinion then explained: 

Second, Hamburger Mary’s was not entitled to even a more limited preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the Act because its claims do not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
The Supreme Court of Florida’s definition of “lewd” eliminates any overbreadth, and the use of the phrase “age of the child present” does not render the Act unconstitutionally vague.

Hamburger Mary’s v. Florida moves back to the federal district court, though the restaurant can appeal the circuit court’s decision to the Supreme Court. 

Meanwhile, the state can protect children by enforcing the law. 

Related articles and resources: 

Children in Drag

Christopher Rufo Explains the Real, Dark Intentions Behind Drag Queen Story Hour

Commonsense Tennessee Law Protecting Children is Upheld

Drag Queen at Seven Years Old — The Sobering Reality of Children in Drag

Drag Queen Story Hour Admits To Grooming Your Kids

Florida Governor Weighs Ordering Investigation Into Parents Who Take Children to Drag Shows

Judge Blocks Montana Law Protecting Children From Drag Shows

Kentucky Senate Passes Bill Protecting Children From Sexually Explicit Adult Performances – Including Drag Shows

No, You Shouldn’t Take Your Children to an LGBT Pride Parade

Tennessee Passes Bill Banning Drag Shows in Presence of Minors