ROCKFORD, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The Rockford Public School District is facing a federal lawsuit by parents of an autistic biological female girl after district employees at the East Rockford Middle School allegedly changed her gender at the school without the parent’s knowledge or consent. In addition, it took steps to conceal these actions from them.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the lawsuit on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, on behalf of Dan and Jennifer Mead. They are the clients represented in Mead v. Rockford Public School District.
What does the lawsuit claim?
MORE NEWS: Whitmer’s ‘Free’ Preschool Through College Plan Means Taxpayers Foot the Bill
The Meads say a gender change wasn’t in their family’s lesson plan for their autistic daughter, identified as G.M. in court papers, but referred to by a male name beginning with the letter “F” at the school. That name is referred to as “F.M.” in court documents.
The lawsuit says that the school district deliberately changed school records to conceal they were treating the Mead’s daughter as a boy without their knowledge or consent. These and other actions detailed in the complaint are said to have violated their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint says, “The Meads’ free-exercise rights include the right to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs and the right to direct their children’s education and upbringing consistent with their religious beliefs, including on fundamental questions of existence like how their children should identify themselves.”
The three causes of action specified in the complaint include the free exercise of religion; the fundamental right to direct a child’s upbringing, education and healthcare (Fourteenth Amendment) and the deprivation of liberty without due process.
What does the school district say?
The District employees contends they were complying with Rockford Public School District policy by using the child’s chosen name and pronouns.
In the 44-page complaint, the school district says that their policies are following the guidance of the Michigan Department of Education regarding LGBTQ matters. Such guidance, Mead’s attorneys claim, is voluntary. The guidance itself states that “disclosure to parent(s) [on transgender status] should be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis” when the student hasn’t yet “come out” to their parents – and that the school should consider the “responsibility to keep parents informed.” The guidance also allows school districts to craft their own policies.
The Meads sued Rockford Public School District for using a male name and male pronouns for their child for at least two months without their knowledge or consent after G.M. asked the school counselor in May of 2022 to tell teachers to use the he/him pronouns and a masculine name when referring to the student. G.M. was 13-years-old at the time and entering the 8th grade. The complaint says that the student had emailed the school counselor, Erin Cole, saying, “Hi Could you email my teachers and tell them to call me (FM).” The teachers, as well as other District staff, complied with the request but the school didn’t notify the student’s parents about it or get consent to comply with the student’s wishes.
How long has this gone on?
The lawsuit says that G.M. had started sixth grade at the East Rockford Middle School in August 2020 as an 11-year-old (who would turn 12 later that autumn). As the fall semester progressed, G.M. fell behind in her studies. To help her catch up, in December of 2020, her mother, Mrs. Mead, began to communicate regularly with G.M.’s teachers and other District employees about her progress. Those communications started out with discussions about school assignments but progressed to discussing more general information about G.M.’s mental and emotional health and wellbeing, especially with the school’s counselor, Erin Cole.
The complaint outlines how Ms. Cole was in regular contact with the parents about the child, discussing issues such as school work, mental health and a recent autism diagnosis, with the counselor becoming actively involved in G.M.’s education after Christmas break in 2021. Discussions between Ms. Cole and G.M. are said to have started out with talk of schoolwork but turned to conversations about G.M.’s grandparent’s illnesses and other issues. Because of Ms. Cole’s open correspondence with Mrs. Mead about the child, the family came to trust her and sought her advice about helping G.M. – so much so that the parents told her, “Thanks for talking with her. She feels safe talking with you.” Mrs. Mead and G.M. even met with Ms. Cole and her own daughter in Rockford to have ice cream together.
However, the lawsuit argues that communication between the parents and Ms. Cole and the school district was not totally transparent. It points out that although the school had sought the Meads’ consent for all kinds of decisions in the past including whether G.M. could join the track team or a “social skills” student group, they weren’t in contact with the parents about the gender transition and the fact that the school district had begun to treat G.M. as a boy by calling her a masculine name and using male pronouns.
When did the family find out?
It was in October of 2022 when the Meads say they found out what was going on after a school employee gave them an evaluation report on G.M. and unintentionally included a teacher’s note that used the child’s masculine name and pronouns. The parents say that other parts of the correspondence had been changed to the child’s biological name and pronouns, an alteration of the student’s official records that was done in order to allegedly keep the parents in the dark.
Vincent Wagner, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom Center for Parental Rights, said about the school not allowing the parents to know what was going on with their own child, “They (parents) weren’t able to help her in a difficult time in her life. So it prevented them from helping her and that denied them their constitutional rights. Schools shouldn’t keep information like that from parents.”
The parents originally thought that the wrong name and pronouns used in the note was a mistake but they soon learned out the truth and asked the school to stop using the masculine name and male pronouns when addressing their child. They say the school district refused based on their school policy.
Parents and the government
ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, director of ADF’s Center for Parental Rights, says, “Parents, not the government, have the right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children. Schools should never deliberately hide vital information from parents, yet that’s exactly what the Rockford Public School District did. District employees didn’t even notify Dan and Jennifer – let alone seek their consent – before beginning to call their young daughter by a masculine name and male pronouns.”
Anderson went on to say, “Worse, district policy required employees to alter official records to CONCEAL the district’s actions. By intentionally concealing this information from the Meads, the school district violated their constitutionally protected right to make decisions regarding their daughter’s education and wellbeing and destroyed the trust the Mead family had placed in the district and its employees.”
What’s the timeline of events?
The timeline of events outlined in the lawsuit are as follows: In addition to multiple other visits, G.M. had visited with her school counselor Ms. Cole four times from January 14 to February 3, 2022. After the visits, Ms. Cole had had contacted Mrs. Mead to say that the child was “having a hard time” and needed to be picked up from school. Ms. Cole also mentioned that G.M.’s mental health wasn’t as stable as she would like. On January 26, 2022, the Meads had G.M. evaluated by a psychologist at Pine Rest Christian Mental Health Services and it was there that G.M. was tested and diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (without intellectual or language impairment) – in addition to having Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. The evaluation included no information on any difficulties stemming from gender incongruence or gender dysphoria. Mrs. Mead, still trusting of Ms. Cole, agreed to share the Pine Rest report with her and other District employees.
On May 4, 2022, G.M. emailed Ms. Cole to request that she ask her teachers to start calling her F.M. From that point until the end of the school year (a few weeks later) Ms. Cole corresponded multiple times with Mrs. Mead about different subjects but didn’t notify her of G.M.’s request to use a masculine name. Around that time, Ms. Cole requested Mrs. Mead’s permission to speak with outside therapists to “coordinate” care and work as a “team.”
G.M. started eighth grade on August 22, 2022 and, by that time, was already being regularly referred to by the masculine name of F.M. The child visited with Ms. Cole on August 23rd for a half-hour. On August 24th, Ms. Cole emailed G.M.’s teachers: “When you each have a second, could you please call me or stop down[?] You have a student listed on your roster as G[ ] M[ ] that I want to give you a little insight on.”
Around that time, Heather Slater, a school neuropsychologist with the district, began a “Case Activity Log” where, on August 31st, she documented G.M.’s transition to F.M. and wrote down the child’s transgender status in her notes. By early September, the District employees were regularly using the masculine name for the child as well as using male pronouns – but referring to the child with the biological name and pronouns when communicating with the parents.
The lawsuit goes on to say that although the parents were still in communication with the District employees about schoolwork, the autism diagnosis and other issues, the gender transition was never discussed with the parents and the schools’ evaluations never included it – until the one slip up when the school used the child’s masculine name and pronouns in the note from Ms. Trotter, after the school allegedly forgot to replace the child’s chosen name and pronouns with the biological ones for the parents to see. The note started out: “I am really enjoying getting to know F[ ]! He is pleasant to talk to, funny and a hard worker. He is quiet in class, but willing to chat one on one with me. He usually is in a good mood and agreeable. He loves to read, but is willing to work on missing assignments before he is allowed to read in class…”
Will the child leave the school district?
After that incident, the Meads began discussing withdrawing their child from the school district but realized that because of the cost, private school wasn’t a viable option. The only alternative appeared to be homeschooling. Earlier in the year, Mr. Mead had left his job to take primary responsibility for coordinating with the District to address the Meads’ concerns with G.M.’s education, but he had expected to reenter the workforce within a few months. However, that was not to be as the parents pulled G.M. out of the school and started homeschooling her.
According to court documents, on October 20th, while the Meads were still weighing the costs and benefits of withdrawing G.M. from the District, G.M. came home from school with a book from school counselor, Ms. Cole, which she did not have parental permission to give to G.M.
The book was Heartstopper: Volume 1 by Alice Oseman, which the complaint describes as “a graphic novel about two teenage boys who become romantically involved with one another. It contains many instances of profanity and crude anatomical references, along with visual depictions of one teenage boy physically assaulting and later forcibly kissing another teenage boy without his consent.”
The next day, the Meads kept G.M. home from school to give them time to decide how to respond to this and the District’s other actions. On October 23rd, the Meads emailed Mr. Burkholder, East Rockford’s principal, and Mr. Avink, the assistant principal, to inform them they were withdrawing G.M. from East Rockford and any other District school. Even after the Meads’ withdrawal of G.M. from the District’s schools, the parents say that the school employees continued to refer to their child as a boy named F.M.
According to the lawsuit, during a meeting with Mr. Burkholder and the parents, the principal made clear to the Meads that District policy and the District’s understanding of voluntary guidance from the Michigan Department of Education required employees to treat G.M. as a boy – and to conceal their actions from the Meads. Mr. Burkholder had asked the Meads whether he could do anything to convince them to keep G.M. in the District’s schools. Mr. Mead said that he told Mr. Burkholder he would, at the very least, need to guarantee that the District would not hide information from the Meads again about G.M. The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Burkholder refused to guarantee that. After their meeting with Mr. Burkholder, the Meads had no further communication with the District about G.M. until filing their state-law FOIA request in the spring of 2023.
What is the question posed to the court?
The lawsuit asks the court to enter judgment against the defendants and provide relief including that the Rockford Public School District’s policy violated the Meads’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion and parental rights under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. It also asks for attorney fees and compensatory damages. Costs to the Meads include a virtual homeschool curriculum that charges a monthly fee. Additionally, Mr. Mead’s delayed plans to reenter the workforce due to taking charge of his daughter’s homeschooling has resulted in a loss of income.
Steven Matthews, Ed.D, Rockford Public School District Superintendent, has told the media that the school district hasn’t received the legal documents yet and hasn’t read through them completely. He said in a statement, “We respect the privacy of this family and as such have no comment at this time. Our staff continue to support all students and their families as we work together to help our students learn and grow.”
Leave a Comment
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.