#

With the state riveted by the tragic and gruesome details coming out in the Harmony Montgomery murder trial, a child who was failed by the Division of Children, Youth & Families (DCYF), a new legislative special committee is getting started.

But the House Special Committee on the Division for Children, Youth and Families, announced Wednesday by Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry), isn’t looking at how to better protect children like Harmony who’ve fallen through the cracks. Instead, according to an announcement from the speaker’s office, the bipartisan committee “is charged with considering all matters on due process and practices concerning DCYF.”

The news creates a jarring juxtaposition with the news from the Manchester courtroom where Adam Montgomery is on trial for allegedly murdering his 5-year-old daughter, Harmony, and then hiding her body for months before he threw out her remains. It’s a terrible story that might have played out differently, critics say, if DCYF child protective policies had been more assertive.

Adam Montgomery’s uncle, Kevin Montgomery, called DCYF in July 2019 to report Harmony had been assaulted. According to testimony at the trial, Adam Montgomery gave his child a back eye so severe it changed the profile of her face.

“I beat the dog sh*t out of her,” Adam Montgomery allegedly told his uncle.

Former Child Protection staffer Demetrios Tsaros was assigned to investigate the abuse report, and he testified this week he went out to the Manchester home to make contact on July 29. As he was getting to the home, Tsaros said he saw Adam Montgomery and Harmony get into a car and drive away.

Tsaros guessed he was 30 to 40 feet away from Adam Montgomery and Harmony when he saw them for a matter of seconds.

Tsaros was able to get Adam Montgomery on the phone three days later and set up an appointment to see the girl a week out, Tsaros testified. Adam Montgomery claimed the children in the home were sick and could not be seen on Aug. 1.

By the time Tsaros was finally in the same room as Harmony, it was Aug. 7, and she had no black eye. Tsaros testified the girl had a red mark on her face and some redness in one of her eyes. Adam Montgomery claims the eye injury was from a play-related accident with her step-brothers.

Adam Montgomery is accused of beating Harmony to death months later, on Dec. 7, 2019. Tsaros ended up leaving DCYF in 2021 and is now a postal worker.

The new committee chair, Rep. Leah Cushman (R-Weare), has long championed parents who claim their constitutional rights were violated by DCYF. Last year, she solicited stories to help foster that case for the committee.

“Have you or someone you know had your constitutional rights of due process violated by the Department of Children and Family Services?” Cushman wrote on Facebook. “I have received many such anecdotes from the people and would like to help. In order to help, I need your stories.”

Cushman did not respond to calls and a text seeking comment, nor did other members named to the committee, like Rep. Lucy Weber (D-Walpole), Rep. Pat Long (D-Manchester), or Rep. Alicia Gregg (D-Nashua). 

Cushman did provide a written statement in Packard’s press release, in which she does not make any specific allegations that any parents are having their due process rights, or any other rights, violated by DCYF. 

“As representatives, we are here to listen to the issues our constituents face and, when possible, find solutions to mitigate their concerns. In this case, our committee is tasked with the important, non-partisan job of identifying – if any – deficiencies within the DCYF system as it relates to due process,” Cushman stated. “We will make recommendations to correct any deficiencies found, and if there are none, we will clarify that and see what needs to be done to alleviate the concerns raised.”

Packard’s announcement states the committee will hold hearings, gather testimony, and make recommendations for possible legislation.  

Exeter High School Athletic District Bill Ball said the school respects all students.

But the attorney for an Exeter student who was punished for expressing his opinions about gender said the school needs to respect the rule of law.

During the bench trial in Rockingham Superior Court, Ball and Assistant Exeter High School Principal Marcy Dovholuk explained why they punished a Catholic student for what was a private text sent outside of school.

The football coach benched the freshman student for one game in 2021 over a discussion he had with a classmate. He is seeking $1 in damages. He also wants Ball to admit wrongdoing. The student insists he was punished for defending his view that there are only two genders, male and female.

His attorney, Richard Lehmann, told NHJournal Exeter is another example of New Hampshire school districts running roughshod over anyone who disagrees with the new, extreme gender mores.

“It’s bad enough that children are made to feel uncomfortable expressing traditional views on matters related to gender in school,” Lehmann said. “Or when schools announce they will lie to parents about their children’s in-school gender expression, as Manchester, Exeter, and other schools do. But it’s made even worse when schools reach beyond their gates and into children’s private lives and seek to control their behavior at home or in private communications with other kids that happen entirely outside of any context related to the school,” Lehmann said.

Lehamann’s client, John Doe, is using a pseudonym to protect his identity. He has since left Exeter and is enrolled at a Catholic high school. Doe testified he was talking with friends on a bus after school about another student who claimed to be “non-binary” during Spanish class. Doe testified he thought that odd since the Spanish language relies on feminine and masculine genders.

The non-binary student was not involved or aware, of the conversation at the time.

Instead, a female classmate who was not part of the conversation later confronted Doe, insisting that humans come in more than two genders. Doe and this female student then got into a heated conversation, with Doe arguing the mainstream stance that there are two sexes. Doe based this view on both science and his religious beliefs.

The girl texted him later that evening to continue the argument. At one point, Doe told the girl to “STFU,” which he testified was an attempt to be funny.

The next day, Doe was called in by Dovholuk and informed he would be punished for the conversation he had the night before over text. Dovholuk claimed the punishment was for bullying and bad language and not Doe’s beliefs regarding gender.

“At Exeter, we respect people, and we respect how they identify,” Dovholuk reportedly said.

Ball testified he told Doe, “We respect all.”

Lehmann said the United States Supreme Court already ruled that schools cannot punish students for things they say off campus. In June 2021, the High Court ruled against a Pennsylvania high school that suspended cheerleader Brandi Levy for using the f-word in a social media video about the cheer team.

“Three months before the facts of this case arose, the United States Supreme Court dismissed an athletic sanction imposed by a coach because the authority of the athletic department to penalize students for engaging in free speech could only extend to off-campus, non-school activities in rare circumstances,” Lehmann said.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts cannot police students’ speech when they are not in school.

“From the student speaker’s perspective, regulations of off-campus speech, when coupled with regulations of on-campus speech, include all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour day. That means courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all,” the justices wrote.

The Doe case is now being considered by Judge Andrew Schulman, who is expected to render a verdict in the coming weeks. Doe is doing well at his new school, Lehmann said.

“He is a great kid from a terrific family, and Exeter High School is a lesser place because of his absence.”

New Hampshire families can now choose a new financial literacy course from PragerU through the state’s Learn Everywhere program, and New Hampshire Democrats have a new hobby horse to ride into campaign season.

That was the result after three hours of a contentious State Board of Education meeting on Thursday, where Democrats, progressives, and union activists packed the room to denounce PragerU and its “right-wing” politics.

“This approval disregards the potential harm PragerU’s extreme content will inflict on our schools and the education of our children,” said Democratic Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington, who is seeking her party’s nomination for governor next year.

At issue is a video course on personal finances and financial literacy called “Cash Course,” and produced by PragerU, a conservative content business. The state Board of Education has been considering making the course, which contains no political or controversial content, part of the content eligible to complete course requirements for students in the Learn Everywhere program.

Learn Everywhere, an innovative education program unique to New Hampshire, allows students to earn credit for learning outside the classroom. The program, which has been under development since 2018, was first approved in August 2020 in a 4-3 vote.

The State Board of Education voted unanimously Thursday, with Chair Drew Cline’s abstention, to approve the PragerU content as a half-credit course. The class is offered for free for any student who chooses to take it.

The approval comes despite heavy, organized opposition from progressives and teachers unions against PragerU.

Their opposition is not based on the content itself but rather on the provider. Many of the people who spoke in opposition Thursday did not appear to have seen the Cash Course content under consideration.

“I am appalled by today’s Board of Education decision to allow PragerU to operate in New Hampshire. I will fight for every child in our state to receive a quality education, and I will never allow an extreme right-wing organization to influence their learning,” Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig said.

Craig is also running for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Warmington has been using the PragerU issue to campaign and fundraise for weeks, attacking “their extremist views.” Warmington declined to respond when asked to identify what “extremist views” were in the personal finance content under consideration by the Board of Education.

Warmington suffered a political faceplant early this week with an unfounded complaint that PragerU was falsely presenting itself as an actual university and potentially violating New Hampshire state law. Attorney General John F0rmella dismissed Warmington’s complaint, noting the website explicitly announces PragerU is not a university and that the law Warmington cited only applies to entities incorporated in New Hampshire. It was embarrassing for a career attorney who spent two decades at the Sheehan & Gordon law firm.

“There’s been a lot of misinformation about Learn Everywhere and this course,” Cline said during Thursday’s board meeting.

PragerU is not partnering with the state, getting a state contract, or being paid any taxpayer money, Cline said. Further, the PragerU class is not required for any New Hampshire student. Additionally, PragerU plans to offer its class on a website independent of the wider PragerU offerings.

The association with the conservative media personality Dennis Prager is the major red flag for the Cash Course opponents. Dozens of people who were against PragerU’s application spoke Thursday, accusing the conservative non-profit of pushing an extremist agenda and even likening it to the Ku Klux Klan.

Supporters say that while PragerU is unapologetically conservative in its philosophy, it is far from being an extremist organization. And they note that many of the union members and progressives who say its politics are “too extreme” have supported far-left “critical race theory” content from racists like Ibram X. Kendi in New Hampshire’s K-12 classrooms.

Board Member Richard Sala said the board had approved several Learn Everywhere options and charter schools with decidedly left-wing ideologies. He said the board is not trying to push an agenda other than giving all parents the most choices for their children.

“I trust parents to make good calls for their kids more than I trust the government to,” Sala said.

Sala noted that while PragerU is a conservative, so are at least half the families in New Hampshire.

“A lot of PragerU material is mainstream political thought in this country,” Sala said. “You can’t censor half the ideas in this country.”

It wasn’t all about fears children were being indoctrinated into the Republican Party. Deb Howes, head of the New Hampshire American Federal of Teachers, the state’s second biggest teachers union, claimed that allowing students to take the Cash Course class for a half credit would lower the state’s education standards.

“Watching a video and doing a worksheet doesn’t help you remember it when it counts,” Howe said.

Cline said PragerU’s Cash Course class covers a little more material than another financial literacy program already approved for Learn Everywhere. That program did not receive any public opposition when it was approved.

Board Member Ryan Terrell said the opposition to PragerU is ruled by a bias against all conservatives, which assumes any Republican is a homophobic racist.

“You say you want open dialogue and then attack a whole swath of people’s ideals,” Tyrell said.

The opponents revealed they are ultimately against New Hampshire families having real choices when it comes to educating their children, Tyrell said.

“The overall message was anti-choice. It’s simply that black and white,” Terrell said.

New Hampshire Democrats say they will keep fighting the Parents Bill of Rights after SB 272 passed the state Senate on a party-line vote. And at least one Senate Democrat says the state should pass a law requiring parents to “support and love their children” instead.

The bill, which passed the Senate Thursday on a 14-10 partisan vote, expands the rights of parents to be informed about the education of their children in areas ranging from the curriculum to their kids’ behavior on the school campus. While the bill would cover a wide range of areas, Democrats focused entirely on its impact on schools that currently refuse to disclose to parents their children’s actions regarding sex and gender.

The law does not mandate that schools proactively inform parents, but it does require them to answer parents’ questions when asked.

“No school should withhold information from parents about a child because the school thinks it knows that child’s interests better than the parents,” said Senate President Jed Bradley (R-Wolfeboro).

Democrats adamantly disagreed, arguing teachers — not parents — should be the “trusted advisors” to children questioning their sexuality or gender.

“It’s just devastating to think that the safety and ability to determine who you are is taken away from our students when our teachers are no longer our trusted advisors,” said Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D-Portsmouth).

“Unnecessarily outing students [to their parents] at the direction of our government through state law opens these children up to a litany of dangers, including hostility, rejection, isolation, and even violence from their parents or other family members,” Kwoka added.

And New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley claimed informing parents will result in “some kids being beaten to death.”

Polls show Granite State voters, including Democrats, overwhelmingly believe parents, not school employees, should have the final say regarding the education of their children.

Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) said the Democrats’ talking points are simply wrong. The bill merely consolidates the rights parents have under the law, requires school district employees to tell parents the truth about their child’s behavior regarding sex and gender when asked, and tightens up requirements for teachers to report suspected abuse or neglect.

“It says that schools and school employees cannot lie to parents,” Lang said.

That was a step too far for Sen. Debra Altschiller (D-Stratham), who said the legislation is 180 degrees off in its approach. In questions for the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), Altschiller said that rather than empowering parents, “Should we not enumerate [in the law] that it is a parent’s responsibility to love them and support them  for who they are?”

Asked to repeat the question, Altschiller said that just as parents are required by law to feed and clothe their kids, “Should we not require parents to support and love and bring up their children to have these close relationships?”

“I think it would be difficult to put that into legislation,” Carson replied.

Sen. Suzanne Prentiss (D-Lebanon) claimed there was no actual need for a bill to give parents the right to be told the truth about their children.

“What is the real need, how did we get here?” she asked.

Carson reminded the Senate the bill was inspired in part by a lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who was told by school employees they could not tell her the truth about her child’s behavior regarding gender.

“Parents shouldn’t have to file lawsuits to find out about their children,” Carson said.

Sen. Dan Innis (R-Bradford) an openly gay man, said the bill does right by parents and children. It will help teachers guide children and families in sometimes emotionally difficult situations.

“This bill is not anti-anything,” Innis said. “This bill is pro-child, pro-parent, pro-family, and, in many ways, pro-teacher,” Innis said.

The House will now take up its own version of the bill next week, and another hotly contested debate is expected.

New Hampshire moms and dads lose the right to parent their children once that child enters a public school, according to the New Hampshire ACLU.

The state’s largest civil liberties organization is standing with the Manchester public schools and against a local mom suing the district over a policy that directs staff to lie to parents about the sexual and gender behavior of their own children while at school.

“Schools and parents are natural partners in advancing the education and well-being of their students. At the same time, schools must control the learning environment for the benefit of all students,” the ACLU’s brief stated.

The mother, known as Jane Doe in her lawsuit, is appealing her case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court after Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

Republicans have responded by filing a Parents Bill of Rights in the legislature, a measure that polls show has overwhelming support among Granite State voters.

Jane Doe’s attorney, Richard Lehmann, said Wednesday the ACLU is backing a policy that flies in the face of the constitutional rights of parents.

“Manchester has taken the position that parental rights should not pass the schoolhouse door,” Lehmann said.

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The school’s name was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity. 

The mother spoke with the school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. The mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school, according to the lawsuit.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother soon received an email from the school principal stating that, due to district policy, the mother’s instructions were being overridden. The principal stated the policy required school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses, according to the lawsuit. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated not to tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

While the ACLU traditionally supports individual citizens in the face of government action, in this case, it is siding with education officials at the government-run school. Their brief claimed school staff often knows things about children their parents do not, and that staffers should not be required to tell parents anything unless the student agrees.

“To force a disclosure by the school that in all likelihood would otherwise come directly from the student voluntarily once the young person is ready, or when parents raise questions about their own observations with the young person, would be the very insertion into family relationships to which the plaintiff-appellant objects,” the ACLU wrote.

That schools-over-parents stance is also held by the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Chairman Ray Buckley claims if parents are informed about the behavior of their children “some kids will be beaten to death.” (There are no known incidents in New Hampshire of a child being beaten to death by a parent over their sexual or gender behavior.)

Lehmann agrees with the ACLU that schools do need a certain amount of autonomy, but said the ACLU and the Manchester School District are ignoring the fact that parents are the primary educators for their children, a role enshrined in the New Hampshire Constitution.

“(The schools) have to control the learning environment while adhering to all the other constitutional norms that permeate our society, including parental rights,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann said a law affirming the rights of parents could clarify the matter. New Hampshire Republicans tried and failed to pass a parental bill of rights during the last legislative session. The proposal died after Gov. Chris Sununu signaled he would veto the bill over concerns raised by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella about the privacy and safety of students.

A new Parents Bill of Rights, sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) and Senate Majority Leader Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) is currently before the legislature.

Math class is hard. Just ask Deb Howes.

The head of New Hampshire’s American Federation Teachers chapter, Howes garnered attention last month when she filed a lawsuit against Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut claiming he was breaking the law by using lottery revenue to fund the Education Freedom Accounts.

But the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office Howes’ arithmetic is all wrong. According to the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Howes didn’t come close to proving any actual violation of the law or the New Hampshire Constitution, largely because her numbers don’t add up.

“The Court should dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety because the plaintiff fails to state a claim for either a constitutional or statutory violation,” the state says in its motion to dismiss.

The state is funding the Education Freedom Accounts with the Education Trust Fund. Howes based her lawsuit on the fact the fund takes in lottery revenue, and uses lottery money for anything other than public schools violates the law.

The problem is Howes never cited any evidence showing that money going to the EFA program is lottery money. The reality of the funding makes it unlikely she could, according to the state.

“The burden is not on the state to prove that lottery money is not used for EFAs; rather, the burden is on the plaintiff to allege and prove that lottery funds are used for EFAs,” the state’s motion says.

In 2022, the state sent $125 million in lottery revenue to the Education Trust Fund. That same year, the EFA program used $9 million of trust fund grants for parents who want to send their children to a private school or homeschool program.

The problem for Howes is the fact that the Education Trust Fund was budgeted at more than $1.2 billion in 2022 with revenues that come from a variety of sources.

The state’s Education Trust Fund got $128 million from the business profits tax; $265 million from the business enterprise tax $10.3 million from the rooms and meals tax, another $108.9 million from the tobacco tax; $65.3 million from the real estate transfer tax; $38.2 million from the tobacco settlement fund; and $40.6 million from the utility property tax.

The statewide property tax generates another $363 million for education, though that money does not go into the trust fund.

“Lottery money is one source that makes up a small portion of the education trust fund,” the state wrote.

Nearly all the money raised for education through the trust fund goes back to local public schools, according to the state. In 2022, that amount was $1,084,530,891, just shy of the $1.1 billion total fund.

Without a direct link between EFA funding and lottery revenue, Howes was unable to demonstrate Edelblut broke any law, according to the state.

“The plaintiff advances no allegations capable of showing that this $9 million comprised any letter dollars rather than being paid entirely from business profit tax or enterprise tax dollars or another education trust fund revenue source,” the state’s motion said.

Teachers unions and their Democratic allies have been working to kill the popular school choice program since Gov. Chris Sununu first signed it into law. They have repeatedly claimed the program takes money from local schools, a factual error that has been repeatedly pointed out. In fact, the EFA program gives local schools more money per pupil when a student chooses a different education option.

In their latest move, Democrats in the state House used a temporary majority last week to pass a bill mandating EFA recipients who are not entering school for the first time must have spent at least one year in their assigned public school if they want to access EFA funding.

That bill is unlikely to make it through the GOP-controlled Senate.

A Hillsborough Superior Court judge has dismissed the lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who says the school district’s transgender policy is interfering with her rights as a parent, with the judge ruling the mother’s rights as a parent are “not absolute.” 

Judge Amy Messer ruled the Manchester School District’s policy directing teachers and staff not to fully and accurately inform parents about their child’s expressed gender identity is fine. Messer ruled parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

The mother, who filed the lawsuit under the pseudonym Jane Doe, stated in her original complaint that she found out in fall 2021 that her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The name of the school was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity.

The mother spoke with school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. The mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school, according to the lawsuit.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother soon received an email from the school principal stating that, due to the district’s policy, the mother’s instructions were being overridden. The principal stated the district’s policy requires school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses, according to the lawsuit. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated to not tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

Messer ruled the policy, which was originally produced by the National School Boards Association and adopted by the Manchester school district, does not interfere with parental rights because parents can still direct their child’s home life. Parents can still interact with their children, direct their medical care, and supervise their social lives outside of school.

“In short, the policy places no limit on the plaintiff’s ability to parent her child as she sees fit,” Messer wrote.

Messer’s ruling mirrored arguments laid out by school district attorneys, who essentially claimed Doe had no right to direct what happens to her child in the school building.

The district’s motion to dismiss claimed the policy did not interfere with the parent-child relationship, since the mother was free to have the child identify as their birth gender at home. However, according to the motion, the mother has no rights when it comes to the child’s identity at school.

“Whatever the scope of a parent’s rights vis-a-vis their transgender or gender nonconforming children, they do not include the right to force a school district to act as a conduit for the parent exercise of those rights in this fashion,” the motion stated.

Manchester School District did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Doe’s attorney, Richard Lehmann, said he was not done with the case.

“We will appeal the ruling,” Lehmann said.

Issues like Manchester’s transgender policy were behind this year’s push in the State House for a parental bill of rights. The proposal died in the previous session after Gov. Chris Sununu signaled he would veto the bill over concerns about the privacy and safety of the students.

A new New York Times/Siena College poll finds widespread opposition to the approach to sex and gender policies in schools pushed by progressive districts like Manchester. More than two-thirds of registered voters oppose sexual orientation and gender identity being taught in elementary school, Among independent voters, 71 percent oppose it, 57 percent of them strongly.

Shannon McGinley, executive director with the conservative Cornerstone Action organization, declined to comment on the lawsuit’s dismissal. McGinley and Cornerstone vocally supported the parents’ bill of rights.

“Schools are not courts of law and should not have the authority to unilaterally deprive people of recognized legal rights. This is a government entity that is increasingly being given vast and unquestioned power over our lives and the lives of our children,” McGinley said of the bill.

Republican state Rep. Erica Layon said this week she regrets driving under the influence, for which she was arrested at her home in Derry on May 26. 

“I truly regret this lapse in judgment. I am following the court’s orders,” Layon said Tuesday.

Layon pleaded guilty last month to one count of driving under the influence and had her driver’s license revoked for the next nine months as part of the sentence. She is eligible to apply for early reinstatement under the plea for the first-time offense.

Layon was arrested at her home on the night of May 26 after police responded to reports of an erratic driver. The conversation with Derry police was captured on cruiser video which has since been uploaded to the Internet. In the video, Layon is seen still wearing her state representative’s name badge.

Layon appears to slur her words during the conversation with officers, and initially said she had one glass of wine at the end of the workday in Concord. She also mentioned early on that she had purchased a table to the banquet honoring Derry Police Chief Ed Garone.

Layon initially tried to tell officers that she has a borderline case of diabetes and was suffering from the effects of high blood sugar after attending an ice cream social at the State House. She also acknowledged having one glass of wine after the House session had ended for the day.

The Derry Fire Department soon sent an ambulance to check Layon’s blood glucose levels, which were at 120 mg. According to the video, the paramedic who took the reading told Layon that was a good level.

“You’re golden,” he said.

During the video, Layon explained to the officer the pressure she had been under that day. The Legislature voted down the proposed parental bill of rights she championed on May 26, and Layon appeared dejected by the defeat.

“It’s been a hell of a day. We got our asses kicked by people who think the state should be the parents, and not the parents,” Layon said.

Layon told the officer she had been receiving threats over the parental bill of rights. When the officer asked what the threat stated, she said it was “rainbow laser pew pew.”

After her blood sugar was deemed normal by paramedics, Layon was questioned about her slurred speech. At this point, she told the officer she had three glasses of wine that evening. When she refused the officer’s request to undergo field sobriety tests, she was placed under arrest.

When she was initially questioned, Layon suggested to police that the report about her driving her car erratically had been made by a neighbor with whom she had a feud over a tree. When she was told she was being placed under arrest, she revived her suspicions about the arrest.

“How much did Jim Morgan pay you guys?” Layon asked.

“I do not know who Jim Morgan is,” the officer responded.

As Layon was being handcuffed, she again mentioned Chief Garone and his upcoming banquet.

“Can I get my money back for Chief Garone’s table?” she asked.

Aside from the controversial parent’s bill of rights, which opponents claimed would out gay teens to their parents, Layon was a lightning rod for controversy last session. She sponsored a bill to revive a Cold War era anti-Communist loyalty oath for teachers which would ban them from advocating for socialism or communism in the classroom.

The bill would also ban teaching anything negative about the founding of the United States.

“No teacher shall advocate any doctrine or theory promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America in New Hampshire public schools which does not include the worldwide context of now outdated and discouraged practices. Such prohibition includes but is not limited to teaching that the United States was founded on racism,” the now-defeated bill stated.

When asked by WMUR, Layon refused to say that the Three-Fifths Compromise was racist. The Three-Fifths Compromise from the 1787 Constitutional Convention states that every enslaved American would count as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation purposes.

Citizens may have a lot of questions about Manchester School District’s policy of keeping students’ transgender activity secret from their parents. But thus far, officials in the state’s largest school district are not talking. Asked about the policy, school board officials, including Mayor Joyce Craig, all declined to defend it.

The district is currently being sued by a parent who claims it uses the policy to lie to her and other parents about their children and their gender identification. According to a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the district, the district’s defense is its belief Manchester parents have no right to know what is going on in the schools when it comes to gender issues.

“(T)his motion can be easily resolved by answering one discrete question: Do school districts have a legally enforceable duty to inform parents when a student uses a name or gender pronoun different than that assigned at birth? Because the answer to this question is no, the Complaint should be dismissed,” MSD’s filing states.

Craig, who chairs the school board, declined requests for comment on the policy. She also would not answer questions about whether she supports the policy. None of the members of the board’s policy committee, Leslie Want, Nicole Leapley, Peter Perich, Sean Parr, or Jason Bonilla, would discuss the matter, either.

Andrew Toland, communications director for the district, declined to discuss the lawsuit. Toland pointed to language in the motion to dismiss to counter the claim that the district requires staff to lie about transgender students to their parents.

“In other words, contrary to plaintiff’s characterizations, the district’s policy does not completely prohibit District staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity and expression to parents, nor does it require District staff to ‘lie,’” the motions to dismiss states. “It does not even contain an express mandate at all. It simply recognizes that the student has a right to privacy and that staff ‘should not’ disclose such information unless the student has authorized it.”

Critics note the policy, as stated, expressly strips authority from parents and gives it to children and teachers.

That is not how school board member Ken Tassey understands the policy. Speaking as a parent, Tassey said in practice, the policy would force school staff to use a student’s preferred pronouns and gender identity in school, but use that same child’s birth pronouns and identity when talking to parents who may not know what is going on.

“The policy requires that school staff lie to parents. It usurps the parent’s right to be informed about their children’s health and to exercise their parental love,” Tassey said. “The policy places the school district and the employees above the child’s parent, which is bizarre and arrogant.”

Tassey said the policy is predicated on the idea that all parents are potentially abusive toward their LGBTQI+ children, and that disclosing a child’s nonconforming identity would put that child in danger. That is simply not the case, he said.

“The vast majority of parents are going to hug their kids and say I love you,” he said.

Tassey is also concerned the policy does not have an age range and would apply to students as young as first or second grade. If a child disclosed gender dysmorphia to a guidance counselor or teacher, who may or may not be trained to deal with such a psychologically complex issue, that child’s parents would be kept in the dark if the child wished it.

Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman Fellow in Education with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Manchester parents are not alone when it comes to school districts keeping secrets about their children.

“The issue of school officials hiding information about a child’s confusion about their sex is a real concern. Districts and even state departments around the country have made such secrecy to be official policy, including in New Jersey, Kansas, and elsewhere,” Butcher said. “Except in very specific cases related to a child’s safety, educators should be required to inform parents about any health-related issues concerning their child. Public school officials should not make it a policy to keep secrets about a minor child from his or her parents.”

A proposed legislative solution, the Parental Bill of Rights, would have required schools to make those disclosures to parents. The bill was shot down this year when Democrats and some Republicans objected, claiming that it would put children in danger from their own parents. U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas, D-Manchester, strongly opposed the Parental Bill of Rights.

“This legislation will do real, lasting harm to kids and should not become law. It’s so important that LGBTQ+ youth in New Hampshire know that we see them, we support them, and that they can be themselves,” Pappas said earlier this year when the bill was pending.

The Parental Bill of Rights was also opposed by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and Gov. Chris Sununu. Assistant Attorney General Sean Locke, with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Unit, testified before lawmakers in May that parts of the bill were legally problematic.

“This language could be construed to require school staff to effectively ‘out’ students–against the student’s wishes–to their parents if and when those students seek to avail themselves of protections pursuant to the school’s gender expression or identity policies,” Locke said in a statement. “This language targets students based upon their gender identity or expression for different treatment from other students, which denies those students the benefits of the particular policies designed to protect them from discrimination in schools.”

Butcher said much of the concern about outing students stems from the actions being undertaken by President Joe Biden’s administration. Biden is proposing changes to the Title IX program to combat bullying against trans students which change the definitions of sex and gender.

“It essentially proposes that schools must treat ‘sex’ to mean ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ [as opposed to biology] and so schools would have to adopt policies to conform or risk an (Office of Civil Rights) investigation,” Butcher said.

Biden recently issued an executive order to increase access to so-called gender-affirming health care.

Butcher said the Biden team is pursuing a radical agenda that rides roughshod over parents when it comes to the care of their own children.

“Such policies could include one that says educators may not tell parents when a child wants to ‘assume’ a different gender at school. Thus, the overall policy does more to advance radical gender ideas instead of affirming parents as a child’s primary caregiver,” Butcher said.

In legal filings made Wednesday, the Manchester School District (MSD) declared it has no “duty” to inform parents when their children are engaged in transgender behavior or experiencing transgender ideation or dysmorphia. 

The school district made this claim in a court filing responding to a lawsuit brought by a student’s mother over the school system’s transgender policy. MSD insists the mother has no right to know if her child is living a trans identity at school, and it wants her lawsuit dismissed.

“(T)his motion can be easily resolved by answering one discrete question: Do school districts have a legally enforceable duty to inform parents when a student uses a name or gender pronoun different than that assigned at birth? Because the answer to this question is no, the Complaint should be dismissed,” Manchester’s motion states.

The mother, who is going by Jane Doe in the lawsuit, claims her child started expressing a different gender identity at school from the child’s identity at birth, and that fact was kept secret from the child’s family.

According to Jane Doe’s lawsuit, she found out last fall that her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The mother spoke with school staff, including the guidance counselor. The mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns her child was born with while in school, according to the lawsuit.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother soon got an email from the school principal stating that due to the district’s policy, it would not be possible. The principal stated the district’s policy requires school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child wants them kept secret, according to the lawsuit. Even if the staffers agree to use the child’s biological gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated to lie and not tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else, according to the lawsuit.

According to the district’s motion, the mother has no rights when it comes to the child’s identity at school.

“Whatever the scope of a parent’s rights vis-a-vis their transgender or gender-nonconforming children, they do not include the right to force a school district to act as a conduit for the parent’s exercise of those rights in this fashion,” the motion states.

The district’s motion to dismiss claims that this policy does not interfere with the parent-child relationship, since the mother is still free to have the child identify as their birth gender at home.

Shannon McGinley, executive director at the conservative organization Cornerstone, said school districts should not have the power to override parents and their values when it comes to raising their children.

“Schools are not courts of law and should not have the authority to unilaterally deprive people of recognized legal rights. This is a government entity that is increasingly being given vast and unquestioned power over our lives and the lives of our children,” McGinley said.

Two weeks after Jane Doe’s lawsuit was filed, the Manchester Board of Education tweaked the transgender policy — though not by much. The original policy read: “School personnel should not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or gender-nonconforming presentation to others, including parents and other school personnel, unless legally required to do so or unless the student has authorized such disclosure.”

The board took out the phrase “including parents and other school personnel,” and added a line stating, “Nothing herein shall be construed to change the obligation of the school to take action when student safety is concerned.”

The changes did not assure Jane Doe that her rights as a parent would be recognized, and the lawsuit continues in the Hillsborough Superior Court – North in Manchester. McGinley said it was one of the reasons Cornerstone backed the failed Parents’ Bill of Rights in the legislature.

“The strong opposition faced by the Parents’ Bill of Rights this session proved that public schools in New Hampshire have an established practice of withholding information from parents about their minor children’s gender and sexuality,” McGinley said. “The justification for this is that, since some parents are abusive, all parents must be presumed guilty. But that’s not how we operate in any other area of parents’ rights.”

The bill was defeated after Gov. Chris Sununu, Attorney General John Formella, and others expressed concerns about the legality of the proposal.

MSD’s actions put it at the center of the national debate over parental rights. Progressive activists reject the widely-accepted view, going back to British common law, that parents should have the final say in decisions over their children.

“Schools have a long-standing tradition and legal obligation to inform parents of their children’s medical and behavioral issues and to honor their decisions about what’s best for their kids,” wrote Luke Berg for the American Enterprise Institute. “Yet, prompted by a well-organized lobby, many school districts have decided that minor students can change gender identity at school without any parental involvement.”

Berg, a former assistant attorney general at the Wisconsin Department of Justice, says this gets the legal standards all wrong.

“As any parent of school-age kids can attest, schools require parental consent for just about everything, even seemingly insignificant matters: sports, field trips, extracurricular activities, alternate education programs, and taking any kind of medication at school,” Luke wrote. “Yet in the past few years, schools nationwide have carved out an exception to this expectation for one major and controversial issue: social gender identity transitions. Unbeknownst to many parents, schools are adopting policies that allow students to change gender identity at school, adopt a new name and pronouns, and even begin using opposite-sex facilities, without parental notice or consent and sometimes in secret from parents.

“This shift is happening under most parents’ radar— until it affects their children, when it’s often too late to fight.”