Parental rights just won a quiet victory in New Jersey. The School District of the Chathams agreed not to revive a policy that let staff keep a child’s gender transition from parents. The deal ends a federal lawsuit from Moms for Liberty, and it was announced on Oct. 20.
Yet the same week, a school board outside Philadelphia went the other way. So the fight over who gets to know what about your child is far from over. Here is what happened, what the Supreme Court has already said, and why parents should not need a lawyer to stay informed.
Key Takeaways
- The Chathams school board in New Jersey voted 7-0 to settle a parental rights lawsuit and not reinstate its secrecy policy.
- The settlement requires the district to follow Supreme Court precedent, including Mirabelli v. Bonta.
- Haverford Township in Pennsylvania voted 8-0 for a policy that tells staff not to disclose a student’s gender identity to parents, with narrow exceptions.
- Ann Arbor, Michigan, is in a 90-day standstill with the Justice Department over a similar policy.
- In March, the Supreme Court said parents challenging California’s secrecy policies are likely to win.
What the Chathams Settlement Means for Parental Rights
First, the facts. The Chathams board voted 7-0 on Oct. 12 to approve the settlement, according to the New Jersey Globe. The agreement was filed in federal court on Oct. 15. Under it, the district cannot reinstate the old policy or adopt a substantially similar one.
The disputed rule dated to 2024. It let school counselors decide whether parents should be told when a student asked to be recognized by a different gender identity. In other words, a counselor, not a mother or father, made the call.
The board had already dropped the policy in September, when it replaced its policy manual. Still, the settlement puts that promise in writing. Every current and future employee must receive a copy. Notably, the district must also follow Supreme Court precedent on parental rights, including a March decision called Mirabelli v. Bonta.
That last point matters. Back in June, Board President Ann Ciccarelli said Mirabelli did not bind New Jersey school districts, the Globe reported. Now her district has signed an agreement that names the case.
What the Deal Does Not Do
To be fair, this is not everything parents wanted. According to NJ.com, the deal does not require the advance notice and consent the lawsuit sought. It also includes no admission of wrongdoing. Each side pays its own legal costs, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Even so, the principle is clear. Christopher Ferrara, senior counsel for the Thomas More Society, put it this way: “No school has the authority to transition a child behind his or her parents’ backs.” He is right.
Haverford Took the Opposite Path on Parental Rights
Meanwhile, the Haverford Township School Board in Pennsylvania voted 8-0 on Oct. 15 to adopt Policy 259, the Radnor-Haverford Herald reported. The district serves roughly 6,530 students.
Under the policy’s regulation, students can use a chosen name and pronouns without parental permission. Staff are told not to disclose a student’s gender identity to others, including parents. The exceptions are narrow. Staff may tell parents only when the law requires it, when it is needed to accommodate or protect the student, or when the student says yes.
Also, according to the Herald, no members of the public spoke on the policy during the meeting’s comment period on that agenda item. That should bother anyone who cares about parental rights. A rule this important passed without a word of public debate.
Ann Arbor Is Next in Line
Then there is Michigan. Ann Arbor Public Schools has a rule, Policy 5011, that bars staff from disclosing a student’s transgender status without the student’s permission. The Justice Department says that violates two federal student privacy laws, FERPA and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.
In a Sept. 14 letter, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon called it “a formal demand and a final opportunity to cure before litigation is initiated.” As a result, the board voted Oct. 7 to enter a 90-day standstill with the department while it reviews the policy, The Michigan Daily reported.
What the Supreme Court Already Said About Parental Rights
None of this should be confusing. On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Mirabelli v. Bonta that parents challenging California’s secrecy policies are likely to win. As a result, a lower-court injunction is back in force for those parents while the state appeals.
The reasoning was plain. Under long-standing precedent, the Court wrote, “parents—not the State—have primary authority” over the upbringing and education of children. That right, the justices added, includes not being shut out of decisions about a child’s mental health. In fact, California’s policies “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence described one family that learned of their child’s transition at school only after the child attempted suicide. Even then, she wrote, school administrators kept withholding information. That is not privacy. Instead, it is a school standing between a struggling child and the people who love that child most.
To be clear, the ruling was preliminary, and Barrett herself stressed the word “likely.” Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She noted that almost 40 similar cases are moving through the courts. So this question will come back.
Why Parental Rights Should Not Depend on a Lawsuit
Here is the problem. Parents in the Chathams had to go to federal court to get a written promise. Parents in Ann Arbor are waiting on a standoff with Washington. And parents in Haverford just got a policy that keeps them out of the loop by default.
Conservatives are not asking schools to be cruel. In fact, the Supreme Court’s own opinion noted the state can still shield children from unfit parents through child-abuse laws. That is the right tool for the rare dangerous home. However, it is no reason to treat every mom and dad as a suspect.
Instead, the default should be simple. Schools serve families; they do not replace them. When a child is struggling with something this serious, parents deserve to know, and they deserve to help. Moreover, local school boards answer to voters. So show up at meetings, read the policy manual and ask direct questions.
After all, this is the same principle behind federal school choice, our look at Colorado shutting out Catholic preschools and our case for handing parents the keys on social media. Families, not bureaucracies, come first.
FAQ
What did the Chathams school district agree to?
The board voted 7-0 on Oct. 12 to settle a federal lawsuit from Moms for Liberty. As a result, it will not reinstate its 2024 policy or adopt a substantially similar one. It must also follow Supreme Court precedent on parental rights, and every employee gets a copy.
What did the Supreme Court say about parental rights in Mirabelli v. Bonta?
On March 2, 2026, the Court said parents challenging California’s policies are likely to succeed. It wrote that parents, not the state, have primary authority over raising their children. That includes a say in decisions about a child’s mental health. The ruling was preliminary, so the case continues.
Can schools in other states still keep this from parents?
Some still try. Haverford Township’s new policy tells staff not to disclose a student’s gender identity to parents, with narrow exceptions. Meanwhile, almost 40 similar cases are in the courts, according to Justice Kagan’s dissent. So check your own district’s policy.
Want more straight talk on your family, your schools and the decisions coming out of Washington? Read more at World of Payne, and follow the World of Payne show on X, Facebook and Instagram for new episodes and daily commentary.
