Texas parents sue Houston school district for secretly transitioning their child against their instructions
The lawsuit, filed by Sarah and Terry Osborn, alleges that school officials in the Houston Independent School District (HISD) referred to their daughter by a masculine name and with male pronouns for at least two years after the parents instructed them not to.
According to the filing, during their daughter's freshman year, the student's theater teacher asked the Osborns what pronouns to use for their daughter. After instructing the teacher to only use female pronouns, the parents thought that was the end of it.
But over the next two years, the parents discovered that school staff continued to address their daughter as a boy during the school day, without their knowledge or consent.
"The Osborns only discovered HISD's actions because they found schoolwork that referred to their daughter by a masculine name," the complaint stated.
Despite several meetings with staff and the school principal, the lawsuit alleges that school officials continued to ignore the parents' requests.
"For at least two school years, pursuant to the policy, over half a dozen HISD employees referred to the Osborns' daughter as a boy without their notice or consent—in fact, notwithstanding their express objection," the complaint said.
The lawsuit alleges that the school principal, district superintendent and its counsel did not respond to the parents' request to provide documents explaining its gender policy and whether it included a parental notification requirement.
"HISD has a widespread practice and official policy of treating students, including the Osborns' daughter, as the opposite sex without parental notice or consent; against their express instructions; and while actively concealing that treatment from parents. That practice or policy violates the Osborns' fundamental parental rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, because it burdens their sincerely held religious beliefs and is not neutral or generally applicable, it also violates their First Amendment, free-exercise rights," the complaint stated.
"The Osborns want to help their daughter in the way they think best. But the actions of HISD and its employees are preventing them from doing that," it added.
The parents say the school's actions violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They are asking for a preliminary and permanent injunction to demand the district honor their wishes to not refer to their daughter as male.
Faith-based legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing the parents in the federal court case. The Bellaire High School counselor and principal are also named as defendants in the suit.
ADF senior counsel Kate Anderson said in a statement, "Parents have the right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children without fear of government interference. Schools should never hide vital information from parents, let alone go against their express instructions related to the well-being of their children. School officials should support parents, not replace them, and we are urging the court to make sure HISD updates its policy to respect these parents' constitutional rights."
The HISD told Fox News Digital, "Given there is pending litigation, at this time, the District is unable to discuss any aspect of this incident."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Iowa US Senate candidate ends bid to run against Republican incumbent Joni Ernst
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa Democratic state lawmaker bowed out of the 2026 U.S. Senate primary race on Monday and endorsed a fellow legislator as the 'best hope' to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, who has yet to formally announce her bid for a third term. Rep. J.D. Scholten said in a statement he was suspending his campaign and endorsing Democratic Rep. Josh Turek, who launched his campaign last week. Both represent districts in counties that overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump in 2024. Turek joined a crowded primary field that includes state Sen. Zach Wahls, who on Monday announced the endorsement of a northeast Iowa iron workers union; Nathan Sage, a former chamber of commerce president; and Des Moines School Board Chair Jackie Norris. Eyes remain on Ernst as Republicans encountered early headaches in some of the 2026 races that will be pivotal to maintaining the party's Senate majority, including a contentious GOP primary in Texas and a surprise retirement announcement by two-term Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. After flipping pork chops last week at the Iowa State Fair, Ernst told reporters that she'd make an announcement on her own 2026 intentions in the next several weeks, adding, 'I've got a lot more work to do.' In a reelection bid, Ernst would face GOP primary challengers who include former state Sen. Jim Carlin and Navy veteran Joshua Smith. Of her Democratic competitors, Ernst said 'good for them.' 'When we see those Democrats getting in, what they're trying to do is get their name out there, but they cannot deny the fabulous agenda that President Trump has," Ernst said. 'Glad they're engaging but, you know what, they're not going to stand a chance.' Ernst announced a campaign manager in June, an October date for her annual fundraiser and has raised just shy of $1.8 million in the first half of the year. A former Army National Guard member and a retired lieutenant colonel, she was first elected to an open Senate seat in 2014. She served for several years in the No. 3 spot in the Senate GOP leadership and was considered a vice presidential contender for Trump's first White House run. She's since faced some backlash from Trump supporters, including earlier this year after signaling a hesitance to support Trump's pick for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. Democrats meanwhile are capitalizing on a retort Ernst made about Medicaid cuts at a town hall in May. As Ernst explained that the legislation protects Medicaid for those who need it most, someone in the crowd yelled that people will die without coverage. Ernst responded: 'People are not ... well, we all are going to die.'
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Well-mannered White House welcome for Ukraine leaves many questions
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Gram Slattery WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump gathered European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for a hastily arranged White House meeting on Monday to discuss a path to ending Russia's war in Ukraine. Here are takeaways from the talks: WARM TONE, LITTLE SUBSTANCE Seven European leaders, the Ukrainian president, their motorcades, dozens of Trump administration staff and more than 100 journalists swarmed the White House campus on Monday in anticipation of the unusual meeting. Would Trump and Zelenskiy agree on a path to peace? Or would their latest Oval Office session devolve into a bitter squabble as in February? Neither scenario occurred. Zelenskiy, chided for his appearance and manner in February, adjusted both. Wearing more formal clothing and repeatedly expressing his gratitude to Trump, he was greeted by a far more complimentary U.S. president than in the past. But, despite Trump's vow to assist in Ukraine's security after a hypothetical peace deal, there was no immediate sign that any party had substantially changed position on land swaps, security guarantees or sanctions. Instead, Trump ended with promises to host a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to address the many remaining issues. HEAPING PRAISE "Have you said 'thank you' once?" U.S. Vice President JD Vance asked Zelenskiy in February, accusing him of failing to show sufficient gratitude for U.S. support. On Monday, Zelenskiy made sure that was not an issue. His opening remarks in the Oval Office included eight thank-yous, mostly for Trump. "Thank you so much, Mr. President ... thank you for your attention. Thank you very much for your efforts, personal efforts to stop killings and stop this war. Thank you," Zelenskiy said. He included the U.S. first lady, who sent a letter to Putin about abducted children in Ukraine. "Using this opportunity, my thanks to your wife," the Ukrainian president said. "And thanks to all our partners and that you supported this format. And after our meeting, we're going to have leaders who are around us, the UK and France, Germany... all partners around Ukraine supporting us. Thanks (to) them. Thank you very much for your invitation." Unlike in February, Vance this time sat largely silent. COMBAT FORMAL The stakes of the meeting could not have been higher. But one of the most-asked questions among diplomats in D.C. could not have been more frivolous: Would the Ukrainian president wear a suit? The answer: kind of. Zelenskiy showed up to the White House in what one European diplomat described as "almost a suit." His black jacket had tiny lapels and jetted chest pockets. He did not wear a tie. His attire, which split the difference between the battlefield and the boardroom, could be described as combat formal. Those sartorial details matter when it comes to dealing with the U.S. president, who was upset that Zelenskiy did not wear a suit for their February meeting. Zelenskiy passed the fashion test this time, however. When one journalist in the Oval Office said Zelenskiy looked "fabulous," Trump chimed in to agree. "I said the same thing," Trump told reporters. DIVIDE OVER CEASEFIRE The assembled European leaders, Zelenskiy included, were careful to paper over policy disagreements with Trump, keeping their comments vague and showering the U.S. president with compliments. But one point of disagreement did bubble to the surface. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told the assembled leaders and media that he wanted to see Putin agree to a ceasefire. Trump had long pushed for a ceasefire in Ukraine. But he largely jettisoned that goal after meeting with Putin last week in Alaska, a shift that was widely seen as a diplomatic defeat for Ukraine. The U.S. president now says he is fine trying to move directly to a peace deal. "To be honest, we all would like to see a ceasefire," Merz said. "I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire, so let's work on that." Trump pushed back, arguing he has solved many conflicts without first reaching a ceasefire. WHOSE BOOTS ON THE GROUND? One of the great mysteries that hung over the summit was what support the U.S. would give to secure any Russia-Ukraine deal long term. Trump hasn't offered U.S. troops' "boots on the ground" to guarantee Ukraine's security from Russia, reflecting American reticence to commit to military entanglements or a head-to-head confrontation with a nuclear power. Instead, he has offered weapons sales and promised that Americans will do business in Ukraine, assurances that Ukrainians see as far less than a security guarantee. Europeans are preparing for a peacekeeping mission backed by their forces. Yet, asked explicitly whether U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine could include U.S. troops in the country, Trump did not rule it out. Instead, he teased an announcement as soon as Monday on the topic. "We'll let you know that, maybe, later today," Trump said. He said Europe was the "first line of defense" but that "we'll be involved." WHAT'S NEXT Trump said he would call Putin and set up a trilateral meeting with Ukraine at a time and place to be determined. Despite some private misgivings, the assembled leaders agreed that such a meeting was a logical next step. Still, the path forward is more complex than Trump and his allies are letting on. For one, Russia has delayed and obstructed high-level meetings with Ukraine in the past, and it was not immediately clear that Putin would actually sit down with Zelenskiy, who he frequently describes as an illegitimate leader. Additionally, it is unclear how much a principal-level meeting would actually advance the cause of peace. The gulf between the Russian and Ukrainian positions is vast. The Kremlin said on Monday the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine is a non-starter, a stance that would be hard for Ukraine to swallow. Russia is also calling for Ukraine to fork over significant chunks of territory that Kyiv controls, another proposal that Ukraine's leaders are not entertaining.
Fast Company
2 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Newsmax agrees to pay $67 million in defamation case over false 2020 election claims
The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming a voting equipment company by spreading lies about President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, according to documents filed Monday. The settlement comes after Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a similar lawsuit in 2023 and Newsmax paid what court papers describe as $40 million to settle a libel lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, which also was a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories on the network. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had ruled earlier that Newsmax did indeed defame Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by airing false information about the company and its equipment. But Davis left it to a jury to eventually decide whether that was done with malice, and, if so, how much Dominion deserved from Newsmax in damages. Newsmax and Dominion reached the settlement before the trial could take place. The settlement was disclosed by Newsmax on Monday in a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It said the deal was reached Friday. A spokesperson for Dominion said the company was pleased to have settled the lawsuit. The disclosure came as Trump, who lost his 2020 reelection bid to Democrat Joe Biden, vowed in a social media post Monday to eliminate mail-in ballots and voting machines such as those supplied by Dominion and other companies. It was unclear how the Republican president could achieve that. The same judge also handled the Dominion-Fox News case and made a similar ruling that the network repeated numerous lies by Trump's allies about his 2020 loss despite internal communications showing Fox officials knew the claims were bogus. At the time, Davis found it was 'CRYSTAL clear' that none of the allegations was true. Internal correspondence from Newsmax officials likewise shows they knew the claims were baseless. 'How long are we going to play along with election fraud?' Newsmax host Bob Sellers said two days after the 2020 election was called for Biden, according to internal documents revealed as part of the case. Newsmax took pride that it was not calling the election for Biden and, the internal documents show, saw a business opportunity in catering to viewers who believed Trump won. Private communications that surfaced as part of Dominion's earlier defamation case against Fox News also revealed how the network's business interests intersected with decisions it made related to coverage of Trump's 2020 election claims. At Newsmax, employees repeatedly warned against false allegations from pro-Trump guests such as attorney Sidney Powell, according to documents in the lawsuit. In one text, even Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, a Trump ally, said he found it 'scary' that Trump was meeting with Powell. Dominion was at the heart of many of the wild claims aired by guests on Newsmax and elsewhere, who promoted a conspiracy theory involving deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to rig the machines for Biden. Though Trump has insisted his fraud claims are real, there's no evidence they were, and the lawsuits in the Fox and Newsmax cases show how some of the president's biggest supporters knew they were false at the time. Trump's then-attorney general, William Barr, said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump and his backers lost dozens of lawsuits alleging fraud, some before Trump-appointed judges. Numerous recounts, reviews and audits of the election results, including some run by Republicans, turned up no signs of significant wrongdoing or error and affirmed Biden's win. After returning to office, Trump pardoned those who tried to halt the transfer of power during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and directed his Department of Justice to investigate Chris Krebs, a former Trump cybersecurity appointee who had vouched for the security and accuracy of the 2020 election. As an initial trial date approached in the Dominion case earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order attacking the law firm that litigated it and the Fox case, Susman Godfrey. The order, part of a series targeting law firms Trump has tussled with, cited Susman Godfrey's work on elections and said the government would not do business with any of its clients or permit any of its staff in federal buildings. A federal judge put that action on hold, saying the framers would view it as 'a shocking abuse of power. '
