Parental Rights are Fundamental Rights

Shocked. Betrayed.

These are the feelings that numerous parents across the country have felt when they find out that their children’s school has been keeping them in the dark.

Take, for example, Konstantin Averkiev. At the start of the 2025-2026 school year, Konstantin met with his son’s fourth-grade teacher to explain his religious beliefs and request notice of any LGBTQ+ instruction so that he could opt his son out. The teacher agreed.

The Washington father later learned—from his son, rather than the school—that his child had been exposed to a Pride Month lesson discussing “gender change” surgery, without notice and no opportunity to opt out. Despite the teacher’s assurance, Konstantin’s son was subjected to exactly the sort of curriculum for which Konstantin wanted advance notice and opt out.

When Konstantin reached out to the principal and school district before the start of the next school year to ensure he would receive notice and opt-out from all LGBTQ+ instruction and requirements (like assemblies, one-on-one counseling, compelled pronoun use, and shared overnight accommodations or intimate facilities with the opposite sex), he was met with resistance. The school district granted only narrow opt-outs for sex-ed curriculum and surveys already required by state law, indicating the other requests were “not feasible” and “practically impossible.” That’s why ADF filed a federal lawsuit on Konstantin’s behalf to protect his religious freedom and parental rights.

Sadly, stories like Konstantin’s aren’t just happening in Washington. School districts nationwide are undermining parents’ religious freedom and fundamental right to raise and educate their children by excluding parents from important decisions about their children’s lives.

But the law is clear that parents—not the government—are the primary decision-makers for their children, and parental rights don’t end at the classroom door. Still, parental rights are vulnerable because schools and governments are not respecting parents’ constitutional right and solemn responsibility to nurture and raise their own children. That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom is taking on precedent-setting legal cases to safeguard parents’ rights and ensure they are recognized as fundamental rights in every state.

But you may be asking, “What are parental rights? What’s the history behind them? And why should they matter to every American?”

What are parental rights?

Parental rights are fundamental rights given by God to parents to care for and direct the upbringing, education, and healthcare of their children. Parental rights include the right not to be shut out of consequential decisions about whether their child adopts a new “gender identity,” when their children learn about sensitive issues like gender and sexuality, and what the best healthcare options are for their physical and mental health. And parents have the right to make those decisions consistent with their family’s faith, beliefs, and values.

Parental rights are inextricably connected with parental responsibilities. Every parent has not only the right—but also the duty—to care for and nurture their children. Parents must provide for their children’s physical and emotional needs and also promote their children’s well-being, ensuring they receive the education—including the moral and religious education—that they need to prepare them for adulthood.

Parental rights are “pre-political,” meaning that they existed prior to the formation of the government. They are fundamental and universal, and they cannot be given or taken away by any government. Because government exists to protect parental rights, not grant them. Parental rights are God-granted, not government-created. But like all fundamental rights, parental rights must be exercised and defended with vigilance.

Why are parental rights important?

The connection between parent and child is one of the most important human relationships. Parents love their children the most and know them the best. Parents care for their children before they can care for themselves, teaching them to walk, talk, love, and understand and relate to the world around them.

While other relationships—like those with coaches, teachers, and counselors—can all play meaningful roles in a child’s life, no one can replace a child’s parents. No influence is as profound and enduring as that of a child’s parents and, in most cases, parents are best positioned to care for their children’s welfare and understand their unique needs. Safeguarding parental rights protects the well-being of the children in whom parents invest their love, time, and resources.

Parents are also the leaders of their families, and the family is the foundational unit of society. Parents prepare and raise children to enter society, live as upstanding citizens, and become leaders in their communities. For these reasons, when the government respects and preserves the fundamental role of parents in a child’s life, it is helping secure the future well-being of society as a whole.

Conversely, when the government undermines parental rights and responsibilities or seeks to replace the important role that parents play in their children’s lives, it drives a wedge between kids and their parents and weakens the family structure.

What has the Supreme Court said about parental rights?

For over 100 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the fundamental nature of parental rights.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

In Meyer v. Nebraska, a teacher challenged a law that criminalized teaching young children modern foreign languages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the teacher, recognizing that parents have a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that their liberty includes the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children.” The Court recognized that it’s parents who decide what their children are taught, parents who direct their children’s education, and parents who raise their children within the family.

Interpreting the Due Process Clause, the Court wrote, “Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to … establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, two private schools challenged an Oregon law that effectively outlawed private education by requiring that children ages 8-16 attend public school. The Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional because it “unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children.”

The Court famously declared, “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Together with Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court in Pierce recognized parents’ fundamental right to raise and educate their children free from unreasonable government interference.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Wisconsin v. Yoder extended and reinforced the constitutional rights of religious parents by holding that they have a constitutional right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to educate their children in accordance with their faith. The law at issue in Yoder required children to attend school through age 16. Wisconsin prosecuted Amish parents who withdrew their children after eighth grade to educate them at home in the Amish way of life.

In Yoder, the Court declared, “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”

Parham v. J.R. (1979)

In Parham v. J.R., the Supreme Court recognized parents’ authority to make medical decisions for their children. The Court stated that American jurisprudence “historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children [because] the law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.”

This landmark decision made clear that parents are presumed fit because our laws have long recognized that “natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.”

Troxel v. Granville (2000)

At the turn of the 21st century, the Court issued a plurality decision affirming parents’ fundamental rights in a grandparent-visitation case called Troxel v. Granville. The Court came to the correct result in finding that parents’ rights include the right to determine their child’s visitation schedule with grandparents. But the fractured opinions did not clearly define the judicial standard of review for protecting the fundamental nature of parental rights under the Constitution.

For the next two decades, Troxel led to widespread confusion in lower courts and to decisions that failed to recognize and respect parental rights, especially in the public-school context.

Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)

But in 2025, the tide began to turn again in favor of parents’ rights with a pivotal Supreme Court ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The case was brought by a diverse group of religious parents after the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education refused to provide notice or allow them to opt their elementary-age children out of books that promoted radical gender ideology to children as young as three and four years old.

At first, the school board said it would notify parents when the books would be taught and allow them to opt their children out. But the board abruptly reversed course. It announced it would no longer inform parents when the books were taught, let alone allow parents to opt out.

Mahmoud revived Yoder and affirmed that schools must provide parents notice and a meaningful chance to opt out of instruction that “substantially interferes” with their children’s religious upbringing. According to the high court, “A classroom environment that is welcoming to all students is something to be commended, but such an environment cannot be achieved through hostility toward the religious beliefs of students and their parents.”

The decision was a monumental religious liberty victory benefiting public school parents. It rightly recognized that parental rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate and even extend into the public-school classroom.

Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026)

Mahmoud was only the beginning of the revitalization of sound parental rights doctrine in the law. In March 2026, the Supreme Court issued another key decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta. There, parents challenged a California policy that requires school staff to hide students’ social transition from their parents, unless the student consents.

Citing Parham v. J.R., the Mirabelli Court held that parents’ fundamental rights include “the right not to be shut out of participating in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.” The Court applied Mahmoud and held that the state’s secret social transition policy was an “intrusion” on parents’ free-exercise rights. Schools are now on notice that policies requiring or allowing staff to socially transition students without parental knowledge or consent likely violate parents’ religious freedom and fundamental rights.

Once again, the Supreme Court was clear that parents—not the state—have primary decision-making authority over the upbringing and education of their children. Schools should honor and respect that authority.

What is the state of parental rights today?

The fractured legal landscape of parental rights prior to Mahmoud and Mirabelli, combined with the attacks on those rights in education and healthcare, has sparked a growing movement of parents committed to advocating for their fundamental right to decide what’s best for their children.

As we consider the state of parents’ rights today, let’s consider the main threats facing them.

Politicized public education

School boards across the nation are adopting harmful policies that undermine parents’ decision-making authority and interfere with parents’ right to direct their children’s upbringing and education.

In Colorado, Jefferson County Public Schools’ transgender students policy directs that students are assigned to overnight accommodations and hotel rooms based on self-asserted “gender identity” rather than biological sex. As a result, an 11-year-old girl was assigned to share a hotel room with a boy on an overnight school-sponsored trip. Her parents, Joe and Serena Wailes, were kept in the dark about the district policy until their daughter called from the hotel bathroom on the first night, caught off guard and uncomfortable about what to do when she realized she was supposed to share a bed with a boy. ADF filed a lawsuit against the district on behalf of the Waileses and several other parents, challenging this harmful policy. After a federal district court initially dismissed the case, ADF appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In Oregon, homeschool mom Tessa Bulzan was denied reimbursement from her local school district’s  Homeschool Partnership program because of her faith-based curriculum’s “Christian and biblical worldview.” Tessa is a veteran and mother of five who left her corporate career to homeschool her children because she believes God has called her to do so. She was glad for the support when the school district offered to reimburse curriculum and supplies. Although Tessa’s chosen curriculum exceeded Oregon’s academic standards, her reimbursement request was ultimately denied because of its “Christian beliefs and themes.” Schools cannot penalize parents for choosing to raise and educate their children in accordance with their faith. ADF filed a lawsuit against the school district on Tessa’s behalf to protect her religious freedom and parental rights.

Parents have a constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing and education. That right includes the right to make informed decisions about their children’s privacy and whether they share overnight accommodations or intimate facilities with the opposite sex. It also includes the right to guide their children’s religious development with curriculum that aligns with their family’s faith and values.

Gender identity politics, hidden ‘healthcare,’ and secret social transitions

Parents also have the fundamental right and responsibility to make medical decisions for their children. This makes practical sense because parents are in the best position to know their children’s medical history and understand their unique needs.

Schools, therefore, have a corresponding responsibility to keep parents fully informed about their child’s physical and mental health and well-being. They should never hide critical information about a child from their parents.

Unfortunately, though, some public schools are socially transitioning students at school without telling parents, maintaining secret files about gender-confused students and compelling school employees to treat students inconsistent with their sex and then conceal their actions from parents. Practices and policies like these not only violate the religious freedom and free speech rights of teachers; they also harm vulnerable students and clearly violate parents’ fundamental rights.

In New York, Jennifer Vitsaxaki’s 12-year-old daughter was socially transitioned in secret by Skaneateles Center School District employees. For months, they treated Jennifer’s daughter as a boy, calling her by a masculine name and “they/them” pronouns—without Jennifer’s knowledge or consent. School officials created a “Gender Support Plan” for the daughter, instructing staff to deceive Jennifer by using the wrong name and inaccurate pronouns at school, but to use her given name and correct pronouns when speaking to Jennifer. A school social worker even gave her daughter resources about pursuing medical transition, which included information on cross-sex hormone providers and chest binders. ADF filed a federal lawsuit on Jennifer’s behalf to protect Jennifer’s fundamental parental rights. The case was initially dismissed and was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which revived her free-exercise and parental-rights claims.

And one family in the Kettle Moraine School District in Wisconsin also had to take a stand to protect their daughter from harm.

Tammy and her husband knew their daughter was struggling and were getting her help. They met with school officials and instructed them to only use their daughter’s given name and biologically accurate pronouns at school. But the parents were told by officials that school staff would call their daughter by whatever name and pronouns she chose—even over their express objections. The parents had to withdraw their daughter from the school to protect her mental health and preserve their parental decision-making authority. Thankfully, the Waukesha County Circuit Court found that the school policy violated parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing, education, and healthcare. Now, with time to work through her struggles—and the love and support of her family—Tammy’s daughter is thriving.

The government cannot replace the vital role mothers and fathers play in raising their children. It’s parents—not bureaucrats—who know and love their children best. The Constitution protects every parents’ right—and duty—to make informed decisions about what’s best for their children, especially when it comes to healthcare decisions that could affect the rest of their lives. Policies that ignore biological reality and exclude parents from critical decisions in their children’s lives harm kids and violate parents’ rights.

Religious upbringing and discrimination

The way Konstantin Averkiev’s request for notice and religious opt-out was disregarded and then mostly denied—despite the strong ruling in Mahmoud—illustrates how schools often usurp or disrespect parents’ decision-making authority in their children’s lives. Konstantin simply wanted to exercise his fundamental right to guide his son’s religious development in accordance with his faith, and he was proactive in trying to ensure that right was honored by the school.

Another important legal issue to highlight is the religious discrimination occurring against parents in adoption and foster care. In the United States, approximately 329,000 children are in foster care in the United States. Of those, over 70,000 are waiting to be adopted. In other words, more families are needed to find children loving homes, not fewer.

Yet, states across the country are imposing ideological litmus tests on foster parents, keeping people of faith from adopting and fostering children because of their beliefs about gender and sexuality.

Take Vermont, for instance. The Green Mountain State saw fit to revoke the licenses of the Wuotis and Gantts, two quality foster families, all because they wouldn’t conform to the state’s views on gender ideology, such as being willing to take any child they would foster to an LGBT-pride parade or using pronouns inconsistent with their biological sex. Thankfully, Vermont changed that discriminatory policy after it was challenged by ADF.

Other families have faced similar situations—and won.

• In Washington, state officials agreed to a permanent injunction and to pay $250,000 after ADF sued on behalf of Shane and Jennifer DeGross.
• In Oregon, the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of Jessica Bates, and the state has since agreed to a court order freeing her to apply to adopt without violating her beliefs.
• And in Massachusetts, officials rescinded a policy that would have stripped the foster-care licenses from Nick and Audrey Jones.

People of faith should not be forced to compromise their moral or religious beliefs just to become foster or adoptive parents. Children deserve loving homes. Excluding loving parents of faith from adoption and foster care because of their religious beliefs is wrong.

If the state can disqualify otherwise qualified foster parents from being able to adopt and foster children, how much further would it be to say that natural parents are unfit to parent their own children because of their religious beliefs?

How you can protect parental rights

The protection of parental rights and the health and well-being of children across the country depend on the everyday choices of concerned citizens.

Now is the time for parents, educators, and school board members to support laws and policies that provide accountability, choice, and transparency (ACT).

• Accountability: Teachers and school administrators should not betray parents’ trust by hiding information about their children or indoctrinating them with ideas directly contrary to their family’s sincere beliefs.
• Choice: Parents should know what their children are being taught and have the freedom to opt out of controversial curricula. Parents should also be able to choose the schooling solution that best fits their family.
• Transparency: Public schools should recognize that parents are ultimately responsible for their children. Public schools have a responsibility to be transparent about what they are teaching children and to respect parents’ wishes when it comes to divisive and potentially harmful issues.

We must protect parents’ fundamental right and duty to direct the upbringing, education, and healthcare of their children. Parental rights are God-given, not government-created. Government does not exist to grant or deny parental rights. It exists to safeguard parents’ right to raise, educate, and nurture their children so that kids can thrive and families can flourish. And these constitutionally protected rights deserve the highest level of protection under the law.

Learn more about how ADF is advocating to protect and preserve parents’ fundamental rights and how you can get involved.

Resources