Imagine a government so big, strong and controlling, that it can transition children from one sex to another—without informing the parents. The bigger question is when will the parents file a criminal complaint against those involved for sexual abuse? When will they sue the perverts that disrespect the children and parents.
“In a victory for parental rights, the United States District Court for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco has reinstated the lawsuit that Chico mother Aurora Regina filed against the Chico Unified School District for transitioning her daughter without her knowledge in accordance with their parental secrecy policy. The District’s policy prohibits staffers from notifying parents about a child’s transition without the child’s consent.
Reversing the district court’s dismissal of the case, the Ninth Circuit said that the Supreme Court has established “the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”
Why do parents allow their children in the classroom of a perverted teacher? Easy to end this—parents remove their children from the clutches of abusive teachers and schools.
Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Parent’s Case Against Chico School District for Gender Transition
Teacher transitioned her daughter without her knowledge
By Evan Gahr, California Globe, 4/21/25 https://californiaglobe.com/fr/ninth-circuit-reverses-dismissal-of-parents-case-against-chico-school-district-for-gender-transition/
In a victory for parental rights, the United States District Court for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco has reinstated the lawsuit that Chico mother Aurora Regina filed against the Chico Unified School District for transitioning her daughter without her knowledge in accordance with their parental secrecy policy. The District’s policy prohibits staffers from notifying parents about a child’s transition without the child’s consent.
Reversing the district court’s dismissal of the case, the Ninth Circuit said that the Supreme Court has established “the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”
The judges ruled earlier this month that the district court judge had applied the wrong standard when dismissing the case on the grounds that Regino had not asserted a fundamental right supported by precedent. The correct standard, they reasoned, is whether the right is grounded in tradition. “Because existing precedent did not expressly address Regino’s articulation of her asserted fundamental rights, the district court held that the rights she asserted were not fundamental. This was error. We have never held that a plaintiff asserting a substantive due process claim [under the Fourteenth Amendment] must show that existing precedent clearly establishes the asserted fundamental right, and we see no reason to import this standard now.”*
Regino said in a statement that the appeals decision “is a major win, not just for me, but for every parent who believes they should have a say in critical decisions affecting their children,” Regino said. “No mother should ever be blindsided by a secret school policy that excludes parents from life-changing interventions.”
Regino was represented by Harmeet Dhillon’s Center for American Liberty. Dhillon is now serving as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Center for American Liberty CEO Mark Trammell told the California Globe, “It is encouraging to see Aurora Regino’s landmark case revived by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court got it wrong in dismissing Aurora’s case when it applied the wrong legal standards. Parents in California and across the nation have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their kids. That right is clearly violated when government-run schools socially transition children absent parental notification and consent. When successful, Aurora’s case will create important legal precedent in defense of parental rights.”
Regino’s lawsuit was filed against Chico Unified School District officials in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 6, 2023.
It tells the story of her daughter as a confused young girl who was cajoled by school employees into using a male name and male pronouns without the knowledge of her mother. The girl is identified as “A.S.” in court papers. During the 2021-2022 school year, she was a fifth grader at Sierra View Elementary School.
A.S. was very vulnerable because of a convergence of many events the lawsuit says. In the Fall of 2021, “A.S. began feeling depressed and anxious.”
Her grandfather had recently passed away and her mother, Regina Aurora, was being treated for breast cancer. Plus, she took on a greater role caring for her younger sister.
Enter Mandi Robertson, a school counselor who seemed fixated on convincing students they were transgender. “She would encourage students to explore their identity and consider whether they felt they were not the gender associated with their biological sex,” the lawsuit says. “She explained that such feelings were normal and that students should embrace them.”
So A.S. took this advice to heart and “began feeling like she might be a boy.”
Robertson then pressured her to change her name. “Ms. Robertson asked A.S. if she had a boy’s name that she would like to be called and whether she would like to be referred to by male pronouns. A.S. was unsure whether she wanted others at school to start calling her by a male name and pronouns, but she felt pressured by Ms. Robertson, so she responded in the affirmative, and told Ms. Robertson her boy’s name was J.S.”
Robertson then told other teachers that A.S. would be using a boy’s name and male pronouns. She also told A.S. not to tell her mother about her new identity. School officials also kept it a secret from her.
This charade continued for months. Then on April 8, 2022 A.S. “told her grandmother about her new identity” and the grandmother told the girl’s mother, Aurora Regino, the same day.
When Regino complained to school officials about their secrecy policy they said it was required by California law. But the lawsuit says it was actually California Department of Education regulations that required the policy.
A.S. soon stopped identifying as a boy and reverted to her real gender.
Regino filed her lawsuit to overturn the secrecy policy. Her complaint says that the parental secrecy policy violated Regino’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because it interferes with her “fundamental right to direct the upbringing of her children.”
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects parents’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. This protection includes parents’ right to be involved in the decision making process when a public school decides to socially transition their children from one gender to another.”
In reinstating the case, the appeals court directed the district court judge to decide whether the parental secrecy policy violated Regino’s fundamental rights.
Liberty Justice Center lawyer Emily Rae, who filed an amicus brief with the appeals court supporting Regino’s lawsuit, told the California Globe that the fight is just beginning. “We are pleased with the ruling,” she said in a telephone interview. “This is still the beginning. The case has not gone on to the merit stage yet. There is a long way to go.”
The Chico Unified School District communications office did not reply to a request for comment.
