?

Elementary and middle school students B.F. and G.F. attended Ludlow Public Schools during the 2020?21 school year. After her parents learned that B.F. had spoken with a teacher about depression, low self-esteem, and possible same-sex attraction, one of them emailed teachers requesting that no one have private conversations with B.F. regarding this matter, as they were going to seek professional help.??

?

Ignoring that directive, a school counselor later met privately with B.F. after the student emailed her teachers saying that she identified as ?genderqueer.? The counselor went a step further by directly instructing school staff to conceal B.F.?s new name and pronouns from her parents. Adding to the deception was the fact that the parents? other child, G.F., had also expressed an alternative gender identity, and both children were meeting secretly with a school librarian who was promoting gender experimentation. After the parents learned of this, the administration defended its actions and even maligned the parents? assertion of parental rights as ?thinly-veiled intolerance.???

?

The amicus brief was filed in defense of the parents and their right to raise their children without having their choices regarding upbringing, mental health treatment, and other private matters hijacked by radicalized, deceptive school officials.?

?

The amicus brief states: ?Ludlow?s policy violates parents? fundamental right ?to direct the upbringing of their children???perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the Supreme] Court.? The school?s actions violated Appellants? substantive due process rights by withholding information about whether their child has taken any action concerning his or her gender identity, leaving parents completely in the dark about their child?s mental and emotional well-being. And this is no isolated occurrence: school districts across the country have adopted similar policies under the mistaken belief that to do otherwise would be unlawful.??

?