Lawsuit Can Proceed Against School District that Socially Transitioned Child and Hid It From Parents

Back in December of 2023, Dan and Jennifer Mead announced they were suing the Rockford Public School District in Michigan. The school their daughter attended had been socially transitioning her without informing them.

The Meads’ biologically female child had attended Rockford Public Schools, a district operating 20 schools in Rockford just north of Grand Rapids, since kindergarten, but after beginning sixth grade at East Rockford Middle School in fall of 2020, the child began meeting with the school counselor regarding a dip in their academic performance.

Over the next two years, the child continued regularly meeting with the school counselor, branching into other topics stressing the child’s mental health. Throughout their meetings, the school counselor maintained open communication with the Meads concerning their child’s mental state, leading the Meads to develop significant trust in the counselor and the school.

In May 2022, toward the end of their child’s seventh-grade year, the Meads’ then 13-year-old messaged the school counselor, asking to notify teachers of their switch to he/him pronouns and a masculine name. When the child started eighth grade in the fall, the school employees began calling the child by their preferred name and pronouns — without the Meads’ consent or knowledge.

The school had been lying to them and the Meads only discovered it by accident. Her mother described how this happened at a hearing held earlier this month. Mrs. Mead said it was like her daughter was emerging from a cult.

“She was led to believe that she was broken, and she is NOT.”

At this week’s Religious Liberty Commission hearing, @ADFLegal client Jennifer Mead described her daughter’s secret “transition” at school.

Nothing motivates me more than standing with parents to protect their kids. pic.twitter.com/rEso7tdfnP

— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) September 12, 2025

So the Meads sued the district and the district responded by asking that the case be dismissed. Yesterday a court issued a mixed decision, dismissing one part of the lawsuit but upholding the claim that the district had interfered with their parental rights, not only by not informing them but by carrying out a social transition without them.

Plaintiffs also allege that the District’s actions amount to medical health treatment.  They plead that the District engaged G.M. in a “psychosocial intervention for gender dysphoria.” Viewing the complaint in a light most favorable to the Meads, Rockford’s “psychosocial intervention for [G.M.’s] gender dysphoria” can be seen when Ms. Slater engaged in a confidential evaluation on G.M.: “Ms. Slater’s file on G.M. closed on November 14, 2022, with a handwritten note labeled ‘Confidential File’ at the top memorializing that ‘[e]vaul. Was not completed due to parent withdrew student to be homeschooled.’”…Plaintiffs plead this “intervention” began when school officials referred to G.M. by a masculine name and male pronouns for G.M.’s social and gender transition. Gender dysphoria, they assert “is complex” and proper “diagnosis very commonly suffer[s] from other clinical mental health conditions, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder,” three disorders G.M. allegedly suffers from.  The District’s policy and practice allowed school officials to deceive the child’s parents, which undermined their ability to choose appropriate medical treatment for their child (a third-party therapist or psychologist).  The District’s policy and practice “undermines a meaningful role for parents if the child decides his or her biological gender is not preferential.”

The court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the District’s conduct infringed upon a fundamental right. Consequently, the court conducts a strict scrutiny analysis.  When the level of scrutiny is strict, the government carries the burden of proving that its action was justified. Specifically, the government must show that “its course was justified by a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored in pursuit of that interest.”

Defendants contend they have a compelling interest in “ensuring the safety of its students.” That interest, however, does not give school districts carte blanche to tell a child’s parents nothing about their child’s gender transition.  Defendants do not suggest that G.M. faced harm from her parents if the District were to have informed the parents about G.M.’s request.  Defendants have not met their burden to show how concealing a child’s gender transition from its parents promotes that child’s safety.

Of course there’s no telling what will happen next with this case, but the argument outlined here, that social transitioning while not informing parents violates parental rights under the 14th Amendment, certainly sounds like something a majority of the current Supreme Court would agree with. And if it ultimately does, that’s going to put an end to policies like this one in Michigan and the statewide police in California.

In the meantime, I hope this decision encourages parents in other jurisdictions to sue school districts who do this on the basis of some policy or law. Ultimately, I think these districts are going to lose these fights in the courts and wind up paying these parents a substantial amount of money.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Hot Air VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!