#

Call it the “Don’t Let the Door Hit You” Defense.

During oral arguments in a lawsuit over its policy of keeping parents in the dark about their children’s behavior, the Manchester School District’s attorney told the state Supreme Court that parents shouldn’t be able to challenge the district’s policy. Instead, they should pull their kids out of public school and go somewhere else.

“If the parents want to make a different choice, they can homeschool, or they can send their child to a private school; those are options available to them,” said attorney Meghan Glynn.

The district is being sued over its policy of keeping students’ behavior related to sex and gender secret from their parents.

Richard Lehmann, the attorney for the Manchester mother going by Jane Doe, who filed the lawsuit, said parents have the right to know if their children are being socially transitioned in schools with the aid of school staff.

Manchester School District lawyer Meghan Glynn told Supreme Court justices that parents who don’t like the district’s policies can send their kids to private school.

“The real issue is not a school reporting on what a student is doing in school, but for the school to report what the school itself is doing in school,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann rejected the argument that Doe’s lawsuit was an attempt to force the district to out LGBT students to their parents. He argued that it is about a government entity usurping parental powers and making decisions in place of a parent.

“This is the government substituting its own judgment over a parent’s judgment when it comes to gender identity,” Lehmann said. 

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 that 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 school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. According to the lawsuit, 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.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother received an email from the school principal stating that the mother’s instructions were being overridden due to the district’s policy. According to the lawsuit, the principal stated that the district’s policy requires school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses. 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.

Last September, Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled in favor of the school district, declaring 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.

Because Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has recused herself from the case without giving a reason, the court may issue a 2-2 tie decision. If they do, Messer’s original ruling will stand.

On Friday, Glynn maintained the Manchester school staff, and officials did not lie to Doe about her child’s gender identity. They simply followed policy.

“If the issue, in this case, is truly that the district has a constitutional duty to report what the school is doing, the school has met that burden,” Glynn said.

Glynn said that parents have the right to have their voice heard when the district crafts policies, and they have the right to vote out school board representatives who pursue policies they do not support. A comment from Justice James Bassett seemingly rebuked this line of reasoning.

“Constitutional rights are not up for a vote,” Bassett said.  

In fact, parents’ rights are coming up for a vote in the New Hampshire House. Last week, the House Education Committee cast a 10-10 party-line vote on SB272, the Parents Bill of Rights. The full Hous is expected to vote on the legislation, which is supported by Gov. Chris Sununu, later this month.

Glynn cautioned the justices that if they decide in favor of Doe and parents’ rights in this case, more lawsuits will likely come.

“The next case up is going to be the case of a student,” she said.

Hanover school board chairman Ben Keeney confirms that his district is using the curriculum that involves teachers encouraging five-year-olds to draw their own naked bodies. But, he assured NHJournal, no parents are complaining.

“I’ve not heard from any parents about the situation directly,” Keeney said.

Care for Kids is taught at the Bernice Ray Elementary School through a partnership with WISE and has been part of Hanover’s curriculum for over a dozen years, Keeney said. Keeney said the goal of the program is to prevent abuse.

“It’s a sexual violence prevention tool,” he said.

WISE, a Lebanon-based non-profit to support victims of domestic and sexual abuse, has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

The Care for Kids program presented as an anti-abuse teaching tool, sparked an uproar when an Upper Valley parent, Chris Rivet, read from the graphic teaching aid during testimony at the State House. Rivet said he and his wife were never told about the content before it was offered. State law dictates parents be given notice before any sex education being offered in schools.

Care for Kids has teachers instruct children to draw themselves naked and encourages teachers to push children who are uncomfortable to draw penises, nipples, and other body parts.

Rivet, a parent and a teacher, said the program is totally inappropriate for the age group. He read from the curriculum on the floor of the New Hampshire House during a hearing on the GOP-backed Parents Bill of Rights.

The bill’s prime sponsor in the Senate, Republican Sharon Carson, said the bill is in response to parents who learned for the first time what their children were being taught in schools while overseeing classwork during the COVID school closures. Those parents were shocked, Carson said.

Another reason for the bill is found in the lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who was told by school employees they could not tell her the truth about her child’s gender identity.

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

The Care for Kids program, which comes from the organization Prevent Child Abuse VT, is taught throughout Vermont and in some Upper Valley communities in New Hampshire along the Connecticut River under a Healthy Relationships course.

Healthy Relationships is also taught in New Hampshire schools throughout the Monadnock region through the Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention in Keene without mention of the kindergarten naked drawing course. Representatives with MCVP Healthy Relationships program were unavailable for comment.

However, Keeney said the program is getting a review from the school board. That review is part of the regular curriculum review the board conducts and is not in response to any complaints.

“The curriculum as a whole is being looked at by the board as an ongoing, constant improvement project,” Keeney said.

Parents do not have the right to know their middle school children have access to graphic novels that depict children engaged in sex acts and include links to gay dating apps, nor are they allowed to know teachers are urging kindergartners to draw themselves naked.

That was the case New Hampshire Democrats made as they opposed GOP legislation expanding parents’ rights over their kids’ public school experience.

The battle over the Parents’ Bill of Rights took center stage Tuesday with a packed Representatives Hall for the House Education Committee hearing on SB 272. The Senate passed the bill along party lines last month.

A similar House bill sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard, HB 10, died in the closely split legislature this year. Packard said the Senate version needs to pass to give parents the final say over their children’s education.

“Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their own children. We support the parents’ right to know what is happening to their child in school. These are our children, not the state’s or the school district’s,” Packard said.

Emotions ran high during several hours of testimony, as Democrats and left-leaning media outlets have characterized the bill as targeting LGBT students.

The bill is designed to address situations like the one in the Manchester school system in which a mother requested information after hearing rumors her child was identifying as a different gender at school. The Manchester district’s policy is to keep that information secret from parents. The mother was forced to sue, and Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer upheld the district’s policy directing teachers and staff not to fully and accurately inform parents about their children’s behavior.

Democrats have responded by arguing parents are simply too dangerous to be given the same information about their children that teachers, students, and school staff have.

“What parents are we helping with a bill like this? Not parents who have good relationships with their kids,” Rep. Alicia Gregg (D-Nashua) said Tuesday.

Progressive Rep. Maria Perez (D-Milford) told the bill’s supporters they should be ashamed of themselves. Perez shared her personal tragedy of having grown up in an abusive home and argued that was proof the bill would hurt children.

“I can tell you parents are not always right,” Perez said.

Perez claimed the bill is part of a national movement to harm LGBTQ children and that parents’ rights supporters are enabling hate and white supremacy.

“This language has given white supremacy groups and the Proud Boys the right to come to our communities to be hateful and tries to scare us,” Perez said.

The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), pushed back on the claim the bill is designed to harm gay youth. The bill is a response to what parents learned during the COVID-19 school closures, she said, when many discovered their children were being exposed to sexually inappropriate material as part of public education.

“Many parents became the teachers for their children, and parents were beginning to see what was happening and started raising questions. Unfortunately, parents were shut out and ignored,” Carson said.

Carson said many parents in the state have since learned their school districts have enacted policies that require teachers and staff to lie about a child’s gender identity, as happened in Manchester.

“Those are the types of policies that parents are upset about and that they want changed,” Carson said. “Parents love their children, they care about their children, and they want the best for their children. Schools can’t provide that.”

Former state Senate president and potential 2024 gubernatorial candidate Chuck Morse (R-Salem) testified on behalf of the bill.

“This may seem simple, but it is often overlooked in our education system. Parents should have access to information about their child’s curriculum, as well as any materials or resources that are being used in the classroom. This knowledge is essential to ensure that parents can make informed decisions about their child’s education and can provide the necessary support at home,” Morse said.

Rep. Peter Petrino (D-Milford) claimed the bill would put LGBTQ children in harm’s way, either from abusive parents or self-harm. He said that parents already have legal rights under New Hampshire law, and SB 272 is unnecessary.

And he added that parents should be satisfied with their current ability to file school board complaints, or lawsuits if necessary. Parents should not feel entitled to be told the truth by their children’s teachers.

“No one has the right to compel someone to do something against their will,” Petrino said.

The bill would also give parents the right to see all of the content being taught to their kids, another policy Democrats oppose. Some parents have expressed horror at learning their school library has books available for children that contain graphic sexual content, such as “Gender Queer” and “This Book is Gay.”

When he testified before the committee, Chris Rivet identified himself as a parent and public school teacher. He said he and his wife have been through the system of filing complaints after learning about the social-emotional curriculum offered for five-year-olds. He read from the curriculum, citing a section where teachers urge students to draw themselves naked, including genitalia.

“‘Now that we have talked about our bodies and our public and private parts, we are going to do an activity. We are going to trace our bodies, and then you can draw your body just as it looks when you come out of the bathtub or shower,’” Rivet read.

“Our school is asking our five-year-old children to draw themselves naked, that’s this curriculum. It then goes on, on the second page, to say, ‘If a child is hesitant about drawing, you can gently suggest adding more parts. Can you add your elbows? How about your fingernails? A penis? Another useful approach is to offer to draw for them. Where would you like me to put the nipples?’”

“Would you consider an adult asking a minor to draw themselves naked abuse?” Rivet asked.

Rivet and his wife complained about the curriculum to both local and state education officials, but nothing was done.

“There was no accountability,” Rivet 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.

Milford High School students may not have urinals in their bathrooms much longer as board members look for a compromise in the fight over a proposed policy regarding bathroom and locker room use by transgender and non-binary students. 

“We talk about our responsibility as school board members on a divided issue, which is to compromise. This is the compromise,” said board member Noah Boudreault.

Dozens of students, teachers, parents, and community members spoke out Monday night, most opposed to the policy which would bar transgender students from most bathrooms and locker rooms. Nate Wheeler, board vice chair, proposed the new policy which would, for example, prohibit biological males who identify as female from using bathrooms and locker rooms for female students. Those students would instead be required to use separate facilities.

Wheeler did not address the controversy during the meeting, though Chair Judi Zaino expressed dismay about the proposal and indicated she would vote against it.

“I would be acting with malice to put a population in danger, and that is why I feel the way I do,” Zaino said. “I do feel there is a degree of malice here, and that concerns me greatly.”

Boudreault’s counterproposal is to limit bathroom use for everyone. Students would only be allowed to use stalls in the bathrooms and changing stalls in locker rooms, with no changing in common areas.

The overwhelming majority of people who spoke out Monday night were opposed to Wheeler’s proposal, telling board members it was born of hate. They predicted it would directly lead to an untold number of trans students committing suicide. One resident said it was anti-science, claiming there are now more than two recognized genders. 

State Rep. Maria Perez, D-Milford, said school board members who support the policy ought to be ashamed of themselves.

“What this school board is trying to pass, it doesn’t adhere to human rights. Let them be. They are not doing anything wrong to you,” Perez said.

But there is a problem with female students being harassed in the locker rooms by transgender students, according to Samaia DeMarco, who recently testified in Concord about the bullying and harassment female students are experiencing in Milford. Marco told the Monday night meeting the policy is meant to keep the girls safe. The opponents were engaged in a bullying attempt to silence girls and women, she said.

“They’re claiming discrimination while ignoring children’s voices,” Demarco said.

Demarco also accused Perez of laughing as a female student who also testified in Concord about being harassed by transgender students.

“Do you feel shame for laughing at the little girl who shared her testimony,” Demarco asked.

The issue of public safety when addressing transitioning students has emerged as a significant topic in the wake of a high-profile case in northern Virginia, where a transgender teenager was found guilty of sexually assaulting a female student in a bathroom. Parents were outraged when they learned the biological male was transferred to another school, where he allegedly forced a second victim into a classroom, nearly suffocated her, and sexually assaulted her.

The result for the school district has been a lawsuit, the firing of the superintendent, and criminal charges against school officials.

It is not clear if Boudreault’s compromise plan is workable. His plan would eventually put stalls in all the bathrooms and remove urinals. The costs could be in the tens of thousands of dollars, and there is no current plan in place to fund the bathroom renovations.

Additionally, school board members learned Monday night schools are legally required to provide a certain number of bathroom facilities based on population. Limiting the use to stalls would likely drop the number of bathrooms below the required limit. There are also logistical questions about getting students changed in time for gym class if the space is limited.

The Manchester School District’s transgender student policy violates the state constitution which protects the right of parents to raise their children, according to a new filing in the lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother. 

The woman, who is known as Jane Doe in the lawsuit, is responding to the district’s motion to have the case dismissed on the grounds that the district has no legal obligations when it comes to telling parents about their child’s activities at school regarding sexual and gender identity.

The response, filed in Hillsborough Superior Court-North in Manchester and written by attorney Richard Lehmann, hits back at the district accusing school officials of interfering with Jane Doe’s rights as a mother by forcing staff to keep secrets from parents. 

“Knowledge that the school is actively supporting a child’s decision to transition to a different gender identity when a parent would believe a different response is in the child’s best interests is precisely the kind of information that a parent would be likely to consider in deciding ‘whether’ to send a child to public school or to choose some other option,” Lehmann writes. “However, the policy purposefully and intentionally interferes with the ability of a parent to obtain this information. The defendant argues that it has no duty to advise parents of a student’s transgender expression in schools. This too serves to burden a parent’s right to direct the education and upbringing of children.”

Lehmann also argues that Manchester’s policy, which requires school employees to withhold information from parents and to actively mislead parents at the child’s request, is a violation of New Hampshire’s Constitution’s Part 1, Article 2, which states all people “have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty . . . and . . . seeking and obtaining happiness.”

Lehmann notes the right of parents to raise their children has been recognized by the New Hampshire Supreme Court as a constitutional right.

“Our Supreme Court has recognized that: [t]he family and the rights of parents over it are natural, essential, and inherent rights within the meaning of the New Hampshire Constitution. Because of their fundamental importance, great judicial deference has been accorded parental rights,” Lehmann wrote.

Jane Doe learned in 2021 that her child, known in the filing as M.C., was using a different gender identity at school than M.C.’s biological sex, according to court records.

When Jane Doe confronted the school staff, M.C. ‘s teachers agreed that she had the right to step in as M.C. ‘s mother and direct staff to use M.C.’s natural identity and gender.

“I do think that a parent should be giving permission for their child to be called by any other name,” one of M.C.’s teachers wrote to Jane Doe.

However, soon after the teachers agreed to use M.C.’s biological identity, the school principal wrote to tell Jane Doe that the district’s policy makes that impossible.

“Good Morning [Jane Doe]. While I respect and understand your concern, we are held by the District policy as a staff. I have quoted our district policy below, which outlines the fact that we cannot disclose a student’s choice to parents if asked not to. If [M.C.] insists on being called [M.C.’s desired name] as a staff we have to respect that according to the policy or unfortunately we can be held accountable despite parents’ wishes,” the principal wrote.

No one in Manchester’s School Administrative Unit would talk to NH Journal in support of the policy. Mayor Joyce Craig, chair of the school board, also declined to defend it. No one on the school board’s policy committee agreed to speak about it, either.

The district claims in its motion seeking to have the case dismissed that the policy does not interfere with Jane Doe’s rights as a parent because she can use M.C.’s biological sex and birth name in the home. But in school, Jane Does has no right to say how her child is to be treated, according to the district’s motion.

“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 district’s motion states.

Lehmann argues the district’s position is akin to a Jewish family asking that their child receive kosher food or a Hindu family asking that her child be given vegetarian food, only to have the school staff keep secrets and lie to parents about what they are feeding the children.

“But when a school affirmatively acts in ways that hide these kinds of facts from parents, they violate the parent’s rights to direct the upbringing of their children, to become engaged in the child’s development, and to exercise their right to provide guidance,” Lehmann wrote.