In New Jersey, the state vs. parents

“Children are not casual guests in our home. They have been loaned to us temporarily for the purpose of loving them and instilling a foundation of values on which their future lives will be built.”

This quote by James Dobson suggests, quite apart from love,  parents have the responsibility for their children.

New Jersey wants to meddle with that responsibility.

In a current controversy, the state is suing school districts over policies involving  trans youth.

Three districts have policies requiring schools to notify parents if children request to change their gender identity, or their names, or their pronouns, or their freedom to use bathrooms or join teams other than those matching their sexual plumbing.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin alleges in his complaint that the policies “discriminate” against LGBT students and the state “will not tolerate any actions by schools that threatens the health and safety of our young people.”

He is saying, in effect, that notifying parents would be threatening to the health and safety of children.

That is monumental hubris — it says that the State of New Jersey is a better protector of children than are their parents.

One district, Marlboro, actually has language including an exception for health and safety of the child, plus consultation with the student before parents are notified. 

Marlboro lawyer Marc H. Zitomer said, “Keeping parents in the dark about important issues involving their children is counterintuitive and contrary to well-established Supreme Court case law that says that parents have a Constitutional right to direct and control the upbringing of their children.”

Those are the facts. Here are my questions.

How can teachers be forced to notify parents about their children’s feelings about gender, if they don’t want to?

What does it say about parents who are not aware of their child’s gender confusion or turmoil? Is this a sign of bad parenting?

How about a child who would sooner confide in a teacher than in a parent?

Or possibly a child running a prank, hoping to game the system? Or a bid for attention?

I don’t see how notifying parents is discrimination. The overbearing Platkin argues the policies single out trans kids for different treatment by requiring notification not required for their straight peers. It’s hard to think of a corollary situation for straight kids, but let’s say the kid was caught drinking alcohol. Would the school have a responsibility to notify the parents?

The children’s so-called “rights” seem to rest on a Constitutional right of privacy.

What about the rights of parents?

Children in schools have a limited right of privacy. That’s why their school lockers can be searched without warning. From the ACLU: “Your locker and desk might feel like yours, but they belong to the school.”

Would the state object to schools notifying parents about excessive absenteeism?

Would that be attacking the child’s privacy rights?

Let’s admit there are bad parents, including some who would reject or react badly to a trans child. It happens.

Surely that is a minority, but the state is acting as if dangerous parents are the norm.

Where does the state get such ideas?

In the absence of actual harm to children, who authorized the state to “protect” children from their own parents?

James Dobson would be shocked.