Groomer School in Massachusetts Sued for Hiding Gender Identity From Parents


Two sets of parents filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts alleging violations of parental rights, privacy, religious freedom, and parental rights against officials at public schools who tried to create a divide between their children and them using extreme gender ideology. The Massachusetts Family Institute issued a press release regarding the lawsuit.

The Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) and the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Ludlow, MA public school officials. These families are suing the district for violating their parental rights due to a policy that prohibits school staff from sharing information about students’ discordant gender identities with parents and attempts to promote this identity in schools. One of the families in the suit alleged that school officials were actively transferring their 12-year-old son and daughter without their consent.

First parents claim that they requested school officials to not speak to their children regarding gender identity or mental health issues. The school refused.

However, school officials ignored the parents’ requests and began having these conversations with their daughter. They also started addressing her in school using an alternative name and pronouns. The school staff made it a point to only use the girl’s given names in communication with her parents. This was to conceal their affirmation that she had experienced gender transition at school. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education provided guidance that school officials used to justify their deception.

( ), which does not authorize their actions.

The same family found out that school officials were counseling their daughter in gender theology against their wishes. They also gave their son a male name and pronouns, without consulting their parents.

Vernadette Broyles, CEO, and General Counsel at CPRC stated that there is a concerted effort from school officials all over the country. School officials are making decisions on the lives of children they aren’t qualified or authorized to make, often without telling parents and sometimes deceiving them. This is a clear violation of parents’ rights to control their children’s education, health, and upbringing.

Another family is suing the school for violating their right to free religion. This includes infringing upon their deeply held religious beliefs. These include honesty and respect for parental authority.

Andrew Beckwith, President, and counsel for parents stated that the lawsuit was about protecting parents’ rights to raise their children free from government interference. “Activists at Ludlow schools have deliberately evaded parents’ authority over their children’s mental health and religious beliefs. This is a violation of time-honored rights under the U.S. Constitution as well as the Massachusetts Constitution. This behavior by school officials sends the message that parents don’t have the best interests of their children in view. This assumes that children should be protected FROM their parents rather than BY their parents.

Two families have asked the school to remove the controversial district policy so parents are notified if their child has concerns about their mental health. They want school officials to stop counseling students about gender discordance issues without parental consent or knowledge. Additionally, they ask that parents are not deceived by school officials using alternate names and pronouns in school communication but not with their parents. They also seek an injunction, damages, and attorney’s fees.

My argument has been long that teaching gender theology in schools violates students of faith’s First Amendment rights to freely practice their religion. The suit outlines causes of action that include the fundamental right to have children, the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, and the First Amendment right for people to practice their religion. Although I do not know the defense for these civil rights that are enshrined within the Constitution, this court case should be quite epic.