Divorce/Family Law and Schools: No Fundamental Right for Father to Villa Park School District from Helping Child Change Genders
In April of 2023, ruled in favor of a Villa Park, Illinois School District 45 and co-defendant Susan Hardek-Veserly, brought by Bryan Veserly, of Florida. A Florida man claimed that the school district conspired against him with his ex-wife, to encourage their child to change genders. The parents shared custody and decision making.
According to the complaint, Vesely believes, A.V. the minor, âexpressed to his parents and School District 45 staff that he wanted to adopt a new female name and use female pronouns at schoolâ and dress as a female and wear make-up and lipstick at school. The minorâs father objected to this transition and expressed his objections to the school district in writing, but these concerns were ignored.
The complaint alleges that A.V.âs mother and school district staff conspired to speed along his childâs gender transition at school without the fatherâs approval. The complaint alleges that the school districtâs actions violated his fundamental rights as a parent, to direct the upbringing and education, of his child., as expressed in prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the interpretation of the U. S. Constitutionâs Fourteenth Amendment. Veserly sought a court order supporting his rights, and forbidding District 45 staff from referring to students â using a name or pronouns at odds with their biological sex, while at school and without parental consent.
In response, District 45 and A.V.âs mother asked the court to dismiss his lawsuit, arguing that Veserly had no such rights over the child while at school.
The school district argued that under Illinois law, Veserly all but loses his rights as a parent, if he opposes, his childâs gender transition. The school district asserts that Illinois state goes beyond federal constitutional guarantees by recognizing a zone of personal privacy.
In her ruling, Judge Jenkins makes no reference to state law or the districts contention that Veserly had forfeited his rights as a parent by not recognizing his childâs alleged gender preference.
The Judge acknowledged prior United States Supreme Court decisions grant Verserly a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of his child. However, the Judge said other court decisions have indicated that this right does not necessarily extend over schools in which the student may be enrolled. She ruled that courts have found that parents do not have a fundamental right to control the education their students receive.
Citing from the decision known as Leebaert v. Harrington, from the U.S. Second Circuit, Judge Jenkins noted that prior court decisions â do not begin to suggest the existence of a fundamental right of every parent to tell a public school what his or her child will or will not be taught.
The Judge further stated that, the only absolute right afforded to parents under the Constitution related to education is to decide whether their child will attend public school or be educated privately. Jenkins said that the limitation on parental rights should also extend to the manner in which a public school may choose to treat a child who may wish to identify as a different gender. The District cannot accommodate both parents demands.
The districtâs policy easily clears the hurdle, which requires only â a reasonable relation to a legitimate state interest to justify the action. The district asserts that its policy relates to its legitimate interest in privacy, mental well-being and physical safety.
All of Veserlyâs claims were dismissed.
