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 at Bellaire High School, 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.
Virginia School District Accused Of Religious Discrimination In Transgender Locker Room Case
"The Osborns only discovered HISD's actions because they found schoolwork that referred to their daughter by a masculine name," the complaint stated.
Read On The Fox News App
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.
States Support Parents In Legal Case Over School's Secret Gender Transition Of Child
"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."Original article source: Texas parents sue Houston school district for secretly transitioning their child against their instructions
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms. Valerie Gonzalez, The Associated Press
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Proposed congressional maps in California could help Democrats flip 5 seats
Proposed new congressional maps in California that are expected to be put to voters in a special election this fall indicate the redrawn district lines could help Democrats flip five Republican seats and bolster around five Democratic incumbents in toss-up districts. The new maps, posted on the California State Assembly website on Friday evening, are draft proposals and are subject to be changed or reworked by the state legislature, which is set to start working next week. The legislative action follows California Gov. Gavin Newsom's call on Thursday for a special election on new maps, in an attempt to counter mid-decade redistricting being pushed by Republicans in Texas. MORE: California will move forward with redistricting vote to counter Texas, Newsom says The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the campaign arm of House Democrats, took credit Friday for submitting the maps to the California legislature, saying in a statement they believe they will have widespread support among California legislators and voters. "We anticipate this proposal will have widespread support both among California office holders and various stakeholders across the state," DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz said in a statement. "We will not stand by as Republicans attempt to rig the election in their favor and choose their voters. It's increasingly clear that Republicans will do anything to protect their narrow majority because they know they can't win on their disastrous legislative record which has raised costs and rips away health care for millions, all to give the ultra-wealthy a tax break." Paul Mitchell, a redistricting and data expert who drew the maps, told ABC News San Francisco station KGO-TV in an interview on Friday afternoon before the draft maps were posted online that eight of the proposed redrawn districts are unchanged; another 20 are changed very little, and that overall the goal was "pushing back on Texas without doing something that would radically disrupt the congressional district lines." MORE: Texas Democrats to return after governor ends special session that included redistricting, sources say Mitchell added that beyond making five Republican-held seats favor Democrats -- as a counter to the proposed congressional maps in Texas that could flip five seats to favor Republicans -- the proposal also strengthens the districts of around five Democratic "frontline candidates" who face more difficult challenges from Republicans. "[The legislature has] got some time next week to put it together, along with all the other language for a statewide ballot measure. And I think the point for voters is, this is a way to push back on what Texas Republicans are doing, on what Trump is doing," Mitchell told KGO-TV. Republicans continue to cry foul, saying that Newsom's gambit for new maps is politically motivated. NRCC chair Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) wrote in a statement before the proposed maps were posted: "Gavin Newsom failed to solve the homelessness, crime, drug, and cost epidemics plaguing the Golden State. Now he is shredding California's Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions. "Californians oppose Newsom's stunt because they won't let a self-serving politician rig the system to further his career. The NRCC is prepared to fight this illegal power grab in the courts and at the ballot box to stop Newsom in his tracks."
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he and Putin made 'headway' but there is 'no deal until there's a deal'
US President Donald Trump said 'some great progress' was made during high-stakes talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the war in Ukraine, but neither leader offered specific details on the trajectory of the war. Mr Trump said 'many points were agreed to,' with just a 'very few' remaining, and he told reporters he will speak with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky soon. Mr Putin said the two leaders had reached an 'understanding,' but neither offered further details on Ukraine's future.
