Appeals court rules against parents who sued Ludlow school system for concealing child's gender identity

Boston Globe

24-02-2025

Lawyers for the parents said they would issue a statement later Monday. Ludlow school officials didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Advertisement
According to the 46-page ruling, a Baird Middle School librarian early in the 2020-2021 academic year had assigned sixth graders, including B.F., a project to create biographical videos of themselves and encouraged them to use their pronouns in the clips.
While court papers don't say how the student responded to that assignment, in the months that followed the child, who had been born female, began questioning 'whether they 'might be attracted to girls' and whether they 'ha[d]' gender identity' issues,' the ruling stated.
The student also began receiving unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions on their Google school account, the ruling stated.
By December 2020, the student had sought out a teacher to disclose some mental health challenges around depression and self-image, and the teacher informed the child's parents, who thanked school officials via email and asked them not to have any private conversations with B.F. about the matter in school.
'Please allow us to address this as a family and with the proper professionals,' Silvestri wrote in one email, according to the ruling.
Unbeknownst to B.F.'s parents, however, the child sent an email to school staff in late February 2021 to announce 'I am genderqueer.' The student added that they would refrain from using 'any pronouns (other than it/its)',' and that they wanted to go by the first name R---, as opposed to B---, the ruling said.
Advertisement
Staff learned the student was 'still in the process of explaining these identity developments' to
their parents and, consistent with the child's request, employees were directed 'to use the name 'B***' and she/her pronouns when communicating with the student's parents, but during school times, to address the Student as 'R***,'' the ruling stated.
In addition, the ruling said, the librarian provided the student with 'LGBTQ-related resources,' and a counselor told the 11-year-old they could use the girls', boys', or gender-neutral restrooms at school.
The court ruled that the decision to make these accommodations without telling the child's parents was appropriate under protocols first issued by the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in 2012.
The DESE guidelines state that because not all transgender or gender-nonconforming students are openly so at home due to ''safety concerns or lack of acceptance,'' staffers should ''speak with [a] student first before discussing [that] student's gender nonconformity or transgender status with the student's parent or guardian,'' the ruling said.
In early March 2021, the parents learned of the in-school arrangement with their child from a teacher, the ruling said.
They filed suit, alleging that school officials had performed mental health treatment on their child without their consent by 'accepting' the child's transition; that they 'facilitated' the transition via 'curricular and administrative decisions' without the parents' consent; and that they were unlawfully deprived of 'information about the Student's expression of gender,' the ruling said.
The appellate court did not agree.
'Although the Parents described the decisions made by Ludlow educators as 'mental health treatment,' their labeling, without more, cannot transform the alleged conduct into a medical intervention,' the court ruled.
Advertisement
The parents said that Ludlow educators spoke privately with B.F. about 'exploring and experimenting with alternative or discordant gender identities,' which served to 'facilitate their child's gender-affirming social transitioning,' and amounted to mental health treatment, according to the decision.
'But on this appellate record, we are unconvinced that merely alleging Ludlow's use of gender-affirming pronouns or a gender affirming name suffices to state a claim that the school provided medical treatment to the Student,' the ruling said.
The court ruled that providing 'educational resources about LGBTQ-related issues to a child who has shown interest imposes no more compulsion to identify as genderqueer than providing a book about brick laying could coerce a student into becoming a mason.'
The parents also alleged that allowing B.F. to use the bathroom of their choice and calling them by their preferred name, as well as the librarian's request that children use their pronouns in the videos, violated their right to direct 'the upbringing' of their child, since they did not consent to the measures.
But Supreme Court precedent has never held that parents have the right to 'control' a school's curriculum once they decide to send their child to a public school, the ruling stated.
The appellate court ruling comes during the Trump administration's recent moves to roll back protections for the transgender community, including
The appellate ruling said the justices 'acknowledge the fundamental importance of the rights asserted by the Parents to be informed of, and to direct, significant aspects of their child's life — including their socialization, education, and health.'
Advertisement
But those rights, the ruling said, 'are not unlimited.'
'Parents may not invoke the Due Process Clause to create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school,' the ruling stated.
Material from prior Globe stories was used in this report.
Travis Andersen can be reached at