A mother’s tears of worry and despair were shed as her 17-year-old daughter secretly transitioned genders at school, revealing the plight faced by many parents in California.
“I cry every day, not just for my daughter but for the parents who contact me worried about their children,” said Lena, a Los Angeles County mother who chose to use a pseudonym to protect her daughter. She told Epoch Times that her daughter, Hannah, suffers from gender dysphoria and underwent a “social gender transition” at school without her knowledge.
Lena is one of several parents representing nine families who have joined a lawsuit against the State of California over a newly passed law that prohibits “parental notification”; the law prohibits schools from informing parents when their children show signs of transgender or gender-fluid tendencies. California is the only state in the U.S. to enact such a law.
Hannah started high school in ninth grade and is now a senior. In 2020, at just 13 years old, she began identifying as transgender without her parents’ knowledge after spending extended periods on social media platforms.
In 2021, Lena was shocked to find a sketchbook in Hannah’s room depicting self-harm, suicide, and bloody scenes post gender transition surgery.
Reading through her daughter’s sketchbook, Lena was deeply disturbed. “I saw graphic depictions of her body being mutilated, very unsettling. Inside, it said, ‘I need to come out, I need to choose a new name, I need to tell my parents I’m transgender, I want to take testosterone, I want gender reassignment surgery.'”
Realizing the seriousness of the situation, Lena took weeks to find the right words to broach the sensitive topic with her daughter.
“I told my daughter what I found, but also assured her that we love her, we don’t care about her sexual orientation as she grows up, but she’s not transgender,” Lena told her daughter. She also reminded her daughter that her DNA chromosomes at birth identify her as female, and that her parents will only refer to her by the name given at birth.
Following their conversation, Hannah agreed not to use a male name at school, only her birth name. However, at the end of the school year, when students’ assignments were displayed online for parents to see, Lena noticed a male name used in a biology assignment.
Lena later discovered that this was because at the start of the school year, school staff had asked Hannah for her preferred name and pronouns, guiding her to use a male name and identity.
According to court documents, the principal even had a private meeting with Hannah, telling her that school staff were not allowed to inform parents of her gender transition.
In 2022, when Hannah moved up to tenth grade, teachers and school staff continued to use a male name for her. Lena made several attempts to discuss the situation with the principal, but was repeatedly rebuffed, prompting her to speak publicly at school district board meetings. It wasn’t until the end of the school year that the district agreed to notify parents if Hannah used a male name again.
The following year, the school continued to use Hannah’s male name, and only after legal intervention and Hannah’s consent did the school agree to stop using male names and pronouns for her.
However, with California’s AB1955 bill set to take effect on January 1, 2025, Lena stated in the lawsuit that this would undermine the hard-won agreements, her parental rights, and her ability to protect her daughter.
Lena mentioned that Hannah no longer identifies as transgender.
In the lawsuit filed by parents in Huntington Beach against Governor Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, Lena is referred to as “1A” and Hannah as “1C.”
“If I knew school staff were guiding children through social gender transitions behind parents’ backs, I would never have sent my daughter to public school,” Lena said. “I will never give up on Hannah or any child… Hannah is my child, not the school’s, state, or country’s.”
When Governor Newsom signed AB1955 into law in mid-July, billionaire Elon Musk called it the “final straw” and immediately announced moving Tesla and SpaceX headquarters to Texas. The controversy surrounding AB1955 made national headlines.
Gracey Van Der Mark, the Mayor of Huntington Beach, stated that in September, the city declared itself a “Parental Rights” city and decided to sue the state government to assist parents seeking to overturn the new law.
“We (the city) may not have jurisdiction over schools, but we represent everyone in Huntington Beach, including parents,” Van Der Mark said. “This concerns the rights of our parents, and the state government is attempting to strip away parental rights, even seeking to replace us in raising our children.”
Van Der Mark, who was elected as a city council member in 2022, stated that defending parental rights was the reason she entered politics. She shared that some parents told her their children were exposed to materials forcing discussions about sexual knowledge and gender ideology from a young age.
“Whether it’s gender issues, depression, anxiety, as parents, we have the right to address these issues, but these rights are being taken away,” Van Der Mark believes the state government doesn’t need to approve of parenting styles, but the law mandates respect for parental rights. “For us, everything we’re doing now is to protect our children before it’s too late, to prevent children from harming themselves.”
In her view, assigning the significant responsibility of handling such a serious issue as gender dysphoria in students to teachers lacking counseling or mental health qualifications is not only unfair but puts school staff in a precarious position.
Supporters of the AB1955 bill argue that notifying parents without a child’s consent constitutes a breach of privacy and puts gender-questioning children at risk of abuse and suicide.
Van Der Mark questions this argument. She pointed out that if a boy wants to be a girl, changes his name, and goes to school wearing a skirt, other children in school would know, and those children would tell their parents, who would then inform neighbors, leaving only the boy’s parents in the dark.
Therefore, the new law does not truly protect student privacy, she says. “Because everyone except parents would know.”
The lawsuit alleges that, according to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, gender dysphoria is a mental health disorder, and parents should be notified.
The new law does not set an age limit for not informing parents about a child’s gender transition. This means that “even for pre-school children undergoing social gender transition, schools cannot inform parents.”
The law even prevents schools from disciplining staff who guide or assist children in gender transitions.
“Children with gender dysphoria usually have other mental health issues. Parents need to know what is happening to help children,” the lawsuit states. “Just imagine if a child has a seizure at school, and the parents are unaware, not even knowing what treatment the school staff is providing for the child. Parents would be outraged.”
Newsom, Bonta, and Thurmond did not respond to requests for specific comments on the Huntington Beach lawsuit and other related court cases.
In an email to Epoch Times, Bonta’s office stated: “While we cannot comment on ongoing litigation, Attorney General Bonta is committed to providing unwavering support to ensure every student has the right to learn and grow in a safe, private, and inclusive school environment.”
Bonta praised the LGBTQ Task Force for prioritizing the AB1955 bill to ensure schools do not notify parents against a student’s will, “especially when such notification could lead to serious harm.”
In July, Thurmond also celebrated the Governor signing AB1955 into law: “I am honored to work with our legislators who bravely fought for the privacy rights of our most vulnerable students.”
When asked for a response, a senior official from Newsom’s administration told the Epoch Times that parents still have the right to access student educational records, and the new law does not “infringe on parental rights”. The law simply ensures children’s safety by not disclosing students’ names or gender identities, ensuring school staff do not force conversations between parents and children on identity issues that could damage their parent-child relationship.
Emily Rae, senior legal counsel at the Liberty Justice Center representing the Chino Valley Unified School District and another group of parents suing Newsom, Bonta, and Thurmond, disputes the state officials’ claim that the AB1955 bill does not harm parental rights.
“They (officials) cannot say this with a straight face because it is evidently not true, which is why we are pushing back against it,” Emily told the Epoch Times. “The AB1955 bill is clearly unconstitutional.”
On July 16 last year, the day after Newsom signed the AB1955 bill, the Chino Valley Unified School District and parents filed a lawsuit. As early as July 2023, the district made its position clear by voting for a “parental notification” policy, supporting parents’ involvement in their children’s education and health-related decisions but was legally blocked by the Attorney General and state government.
In a statement on July 17, Emily said, “School officials have no rights to keep secrets from parents, and parents have a constitutional right to know what their underage children are up to at school.”
She stated that parents have always had the right to enter classrooms, request to view student educational records, and the “parental notification” policy simply provides parents with a more convenient choice.
“Most parents have to take time off to sit in their child’s classroom or go through lengthy administrative procedures to access their child’s educational records. Many parents do so, but not all parents can. This is why the ‘parental notification policy’ is crucial, granting parents rights without burdening them,” Emily said.
In April 2023, two teachers from the Escondido Unified School District, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, filed a lawsuit for refusing to conceal students’ gender transitions from parents and were consequently suspended by the district.
After the case was filed, Federal Judge Roger Benitez issued an order to halt the district’s discipline, leading to the reinstatement of the two teachers. The case is still pending in court, and it may soon evolve into a collective lawsuit involving multiple parents.
These two teachers also accused the school district and the California Department of Education of a “double-sided policy.” They revealed that the district and education department required teachers to use “pronouns or specific gender names requested by students” at school but to use the student’s birth gender and legal name when speaking with parents to conceal students’ gender transitions.
In Judge Benitez’s ruling in September last year, he stated that concealing gender transitions from parents violated parental constitutional rights. The judge described this policy as causing “triple harm”: harming students who need parental guidance and potential mental health interventions, infringing on parents’ right to make decisions for their children, and forcing teachers to hide crucial information they believe is vital for student welfare.
The judge thus approved the teachers’ motion for a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the district from implementing the policy of concealing students’ real situations from parents.
Paul Jonna, the lawyer representing the two teachers and the Chino Valley Unified School District in their lawsuit against Newsom, Bonta, and Thurmond, denounced the state officials’ claim that “the AB1955 bill will not harm parental rights.”
“They (the officials) cannot say such things without changing color on their faces because this is clearly not the truth, and this is the reason we are contesting. The AB1955 bill is undeniably unconstitutional.”
Erin Friday, a lawyer and co-leader of the parent organization “Our Duty,” rejects transgender ideology, opposing medical interventions and surgeries related to gender for minors and young adults. She has been vocal against California’s promotion of “gender-affirming care” bills.
“Children might become homosexual, but their gender cannot be wrong,” Friday said, emphasizing that the state government’s use of terms like “coming out” and “forcing to come out” lumps lesbian, gay, bisexual youths together with those self-identifying as transgender.
She pointed out that none of the “parental notification” policies involve sexual orientation; it’s merely to get parents involved to assist children struggling with their gender identity and help them navigate the pain of that confusion.
Friday’s daughter, who was previously identified as transgender, had caused her significant distress. “This is what parents want to know beforehand because this kind of pain leads to a higher risk of suicide.”
She believes that claims about “parental notification” policies discriminating against transgender students are “very ridiculous” because every time a child wants to take aspirin, skips school, performs poorly, or gets into fights at school, parents are usually notified. Why should parents not be informed when their child is experiencing gender identity struggles?
In all the lawsuit cases, Friday believes the issue that judges must address is whether parents have a fundamental right to know if their child is experiencing gender dysphoria.
In her opinion, involving parents in helping children adapt to their assigned gender is the least harmful way to address children’s gender issues. It encourages children to embrace their biological gender, allowing them to “grow up without harming their bodies… instead of removing healthy body parts or undergoing sterilization surgery.”
“The entire premise of the AB1955 bill is that parents, when informed about their child’s gender struggles, would abuse their child, which is a lie. Where is the evidence? It just hasn’t happened,” she said, “This is a presumption that has never occurred.”
What is even more shocking is that Child Protective Services investigates parents who are unsure about their child’s transgender identity, resist using pronouns for their child, and even accuse parents of mental abuse.
“This pushes us into a new frontier, and this has happened to me,” Friday said, “This isn’t only happening in California, but in other places as well.”
She revealed that in some instances, schools allegedly establish “shadow files” with different identities for children to deceive parents. In her daughter’s case, she was denied access to these “shadow files.”
“Schools get tips from district board lawyers to build shadow files, fake files, so when parents ask for student information in accordance with federal and state laws, the schools can cleverly avoid providing it,” Friday said, “It’s all orchestrated.”