Disclaimer:  I am not an attorney, nothing I say is legal advice, and be aware that I took writers’ liberty to develop this story (i.e. I have no idea if Judge Reinhardt drinks coffee).  However, text in BOLD-ITALICS is quoted directly from the actual court opinion.

I would encourage you to read the Fields v. Palmdale decision in full

Other "Rant posts" can be found by clicking here.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt sat at his desk thinking about Palmdale School District.  His colleagues, Donald P. Lay and Sidney R. Thomas, had made their thoughts known and it seemed that all three were in complete agreement as to how this case needed to be decided.  Judge Reinhardt’s responsibility now was to put those discussions into writing so they could issue a formal opinion.

Naturally, none of them wanted to be viewed as endorsing the survey the school had administered, and they all agreed that any written decision should be worded specifically to put distance between the court and the survey.  

Justice Reinhardt reached for his keyboard.  “We note at the outset that it is not our role to rule on the wisdom of the School District’s actions. That is a matter that must be decided in other fora. The question before us is simply whether the parents have a constitutional right to exclusive control over the introduction and flow of sexual information to their children.”  He sat back and read what he had typed, and murmured approvingly to himself for the creativity he had used.  Deniability is a good thing, and the creative wording he had come up with certainly gave the court distance from technically endorsing the survey without actually condemning it. 

Certainly Meyers-Pierce was the best point the parents had used to argue that they have the right to introduce their children to matters of sex, but neither Judge Reindhardt nor his colleagues had bought it.  Moments and a few keystrokes later, Judge Reindhardt had pulled up a First Circuit decision Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer Prods.,Inc., found the quote he was looking for and copied/pasted it into his computer. 

[t]he Meyer and Pierce cases, we think, evince the principle that the state cannot prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program...That is, the state does not have the power to “standardize its children[.]”  We do not think, however, that this freedom encompasses a fundamental constitutional right to dictate the curriculum at the public school to which they have chosen to send their children. We think it is fundamentally different for the state to say to a parent, “You can’t teach your child German or send him to a parochial school,” than for the parent to say to the state, “You can’t teach my child subjects that are morally offensive to me.” The first instance involves the state proscribing parents from educating their children, while the second involves parents prescribing what the state shall teach their children....We cannot see that the Constitution imposes such a burden on state educational systems, and accordingly find that the rights of parents as described by Meyer and Pierce do not encompass a broad-based right to restrict the flow of information in the public schools.”

Deciding to elaborate, Judge Reinhardt explains that “Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.”

“Once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished.”

Surely, our education system will implode should every parent be able to dictate what their child is taught at school.  The constitution does not give parents...the authority to interfere with a public school’s decision as to how it will provide information to it’s students or what information it will provide.  It’s like the Sixth Circuit said, even though parents may have the right to decide if their child should attend a public school, parents do not have any rights or control over school hours, discipline, curriculum, content, who is hired to teach, dress code or other issues of public education.  Those decisions are under the control of state and local authorities, not the parents.  Besides, it was only because the parents had selected the school they did that their children were asked the questions to which the parents objected. 

It seemed entirely obvious to Judges Reinhardt, Lay and Thomas that the bottom line was clear:  The Meyer-Pierce right does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door. The parents’ asserted right...the right to limit what public schools or other state actors may tell their children regarding sexual matters, is not encompassed within the Meyer-Pierce right to control their children’s upbringing and education.

The parent’s next argument had been that the school violated their right to privacy.  Sex is a private matter, and Judge Reinhardt could see why the parents felt this way.  But his job was to decide based on law, not based on the parents emotions.  The problem with the parent’s privacy argument was simple.  The right to privacy protects people from being forced to disclose private information, and the children were [not] forced to disclose private information.  Secondly, privacy gives people the right to “independence when making certain kinds of important decisions.”  Certainly, you can’t unbake a cake, and the parents argued that the school had done this very thing by exposing their young children to sexual issues before they were old enough, which effectively eliminated the parent’s right to make important decisions regarding the manner and timing of exposing their children to sexual matters. 

Here, however, the survey simply did not interfere with the right of the parents to make intimate decisions.  There is no place the Constitution prohibits giving information to children, or to adults, (unless it is the Treason Clause). 

Judge Reinhardt stood and went to refill his coffee while thinking over the next two points he needed to address.  First, the parents allegation that there was no legitimate governmental purpose to the survey, and second that the survey was not a part of the school’s curriculum and the school had no business passing along information that was not part of a student’s academic studies.  As Judge Reinhardt stirred his coffee, his mind began forming what he would say next.  “Education is not merely about teaching the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Education serves higher civic and social functions, including the rearing of children into healthy, productive, and responsible adults and the cultivation of talented and qualified leaders of diverse backgrounds.”   As he walked back to his desk, he felt confident no one in their right mind would disagree that schools have a responsibility to produce healthy adults.  Since the psychological survey was prepared...as an “assessment [] to establish a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma” the survey was intended to protect[] the mental health of children. Hence, administering the survey fell  well within the state’s broad interest in education..

Surely, if the school was able to identify children who had been exposed to early trauma they could design[] an intervention program which could improve students’ ability to learn.  And learning certainly is what schools are all about, right?

Parens patriae:  The power of the state to usurp the rights of the natural parent to care for a child who is in need of protection. 

Judge Reinhardt continued:  Regardless of whether the survey was intended to aid the educational process, the school can also be justified on the basis of an alternative state interest...[T]he School District’s interest in the mental health of its students falls well within the state’s authority as parens patriae. As such, the School District may legitimately play a role in the care and nurture of children entrusted to them for schooling.

Taking a quote from Parham, Judge Reinhardt explains his reasoning: [A] state is not without constitutional control over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is jeopardized.” 

Although time consuming to type, the three judges in this case had easily reached their decision.  In fact, their decision had been so easily reached, Judge Reinhardt felt it was worth mentioning that “we reach our conclusions with little difficulty.”

While stating that the court “firmly endorse[s] the School District’s authority to conduct survey for the purposes involved here” he reiterates “that we express no view on the wisdom of posing some of the particular questions asked or of conducting an inquiry into some of the particular areas surveyed by the School District.”

By now, it was late and Judge Reinhardt was ready to go home.  He quickly typed his conclusion:

In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right.

Note from me:  It’s sad the judges in this case had “little difficulty.”  In cases which are as significant as this I think at least some degree of difficulty should exist, even if only to carefully scrutinize the wording in your decision to ensure it accurately reflects the opinion you attempted to reach. Unfortunately, the poor attention to the wording they used in this decision has already caused it to be characterized as deplorable by a vote of 320-91 in the House of Representatives, rejected by the Third Circuit, and amended by the Ninth Circuit.  An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court has been requested by the parents.

It may shock some of you to learn that I believe the court’s ultimate conclusion (the parents lost)...was CORRECT.  I just think the reasons the 9th circuit used to reach that conclusion should make every parent’s stomach churn.

In my “Rant Post: FULL BOIL” I’ll explain why I think it was right for the parents to lose this case and what arguments I think properly support that conclusion.  Stay tuned...