Judge: Shut up, Dad. You can't oppose your son's transition into a girl.
Only your ex-wife and your son's school can counsel the lad about whether it's a good idea.
U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins has ruled that a divorced father has no fundamental right to play a role in his born-a-boy son’s decision to change his gender.
She ruled in a suit filed by Bryan Vesely alleging that Villa Park Illinois School District 45 had trampled his rights as a parent to counsel his son about the transition—something that the father opposed. His ex-wife, Susan Hardek-Vesely, and the school, he said, had conspired to encourage the 12-year-old child, identified in the complaint as A.V., to swap genders.
As the Cook County Record succinctly reported: “…the father’s constitutional right to direct the upbringing of his child all but ends at the public school door - and especially if the other parent disagrees.” (The Record’s comprehensive article is here. Jenkins’ ruling is here).
Jenkins is new to the Northern District of Illinois district court, having been nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate by a 58-41 vote. She recently gained some attention for denying a motion to block Illinois’ gun and magazine ban.
Vesely argued, citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions, that he had a “fundamental right” as a parent under the due process provisions of the 14th Amendment as related to privacy “to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of [his] children.” But, he said, the district and his ex-wife conspired to deny the exercise of that right by encouraging A.V. to, among other things, use personal pronouns that conform to his desire to be regarded as a girl instead of his “assigned” gender at his birth.
However, the judge ruled that Vesely failed “to state a plausible substantive Due Process claim for violation of his parental rights.” She said, quoting caselaw, that a parent’s right “to choose the type of school one’s child attends, or to direct the private instruction of one’s child, does not imply a parent’s right to control every aspect of her child’s education at a public school.”
If she allowed Vesely to involve himself in his son’s decision, she wrote, “…school districts would be forced to act as umpires in domestic disputes and ‘be dragged into fights between divorced parents over their children’.”
It seems to me that a flaw in her reasoning is that Vesely isn’t asking to change the school’s pro-trans policy or to “act as an umpire.” He’s asking for an exception to it. He’s not seeking to “control every aspect of her child’s education at a public school.” Basically, he is asking to be involved in counseling his son about the realities and consequences of a transition.
He argues that the science on those consequences is varied, with some experts agreeing with his decision. The judge turns that around, arguing that other scientists are on the school’s side. In effect she ruled that she had to pick a side and the side she picked supported a child’s decision to transition.
If you read the links, you’ll understand that the issue is legally complex. But it’s clear that the decision provides a precedent for narrowing the rights of a parent who wants to explain to a child one side of the transitioning argument. Others will come and the prospect of a father or mother being “stopped at the school house door” is increasingly real.