A Florida man has no claim against a Villa Park school district, who he claims conspired against him with his ex-wife, to encourage their child to change genders, a federal judge has ruled, because the father’s constitutional right to direct the upbringing of his child all but ends at the public school door - and especially if the other parent disagrees.
On April 18, a Chicago federal judge ruled in favor of Villa Park Illinois School District 45 and co-defendant Susan Hardek-Vesely, dismissing the lawsuit brought by Bryan Vesely, of Florida.
The decision was authored by U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who was recently confirmed to the federal bench in the Northern District of Illinois, by appointment of President Joe Biden.
U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins
| Ballotpedia
“This case aptly illustrates the impossibility of the (school) District fulfilling its educational mission while simultaneously accommodating the concerns of every parent,” Judge Jenkins wrote. “Bryan and Susan’s preferences clash on the District’s treatment of A.V.’s gender expression and affirmation of A.V.’s gender identity.
“… The District cannot accommodate both parents’ demands.”
In this case, the judge said, that conflict diminishes the father’s otherwise-fundamental right to parent his child, because the mother’s wishes align with the school district’s policy goal of “maintaining a non-discriminatory environment for students and protecting students’ privacy, mental well-being and physical safety” – and especially if that student identifies as transgender.
The case landed in Chicago federal court in April 2022.
In that lawsuit, Vesely alleged the Villa Park elementary school district, located in DuPage County in Chicago’s western suburbs, had trampled his rights as a parent.
According to the complaint, Vesely shares custody of then-12-year-old child, identified in the complaint as A.V.
The complaint identified A.V. as Vesely’s son, and then a sixth grade student at Jackson Middle School in Villa Park.
According to the complaint, A.V. “expressed to his parents and School District 45’s staff that he wanted to adopt a new female name and use female pronouns at school,” as well as “dress as a female and wear make-up, including nail polish and lipstick.”
According to the complaint, Vesely believes that “immediately transitioning would not be in his minor son’s best interest,” and asked “A.V. to take time to explore the cause of his feelings before allowing such a significant change to his identity.”
However, the complaint asserts A.V.’s mother, Hardek-Vesely, and staff at District 45 ignored the father’s objections, and allegedly conspired to speed along A.V.’s gender transition at school without the father’s approval.
Bryan Vesely said he expressed these objections to the school district in writing, but was all but ignored.
The complaint asserts the school district’s 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’s decisions concerning the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.
Vesely sought a court order supporting his rights, and forbidding District 45 staff from referring to students “using a name or pronouns at odds with their biological sex, while at school, without parental consent.”
In response, District 45 and Hardek-Vesely asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying Vesely has no such rights over the child while at school.
In court filings in support of that motion, the school district specifically argued that, under Illinois law, Vesely all but loses his rights as a parent, if he opposes his child’s gender transition.
A state law, known as the Youth Mental Health Protection Act, “clearly demonstrates that when parents are unsupportive of their children’s mental health and gender identity, they are not the best person to make decisions regarding the same by limiting the mental health treatment parents can impose on their gay and transgender children,” the district wrote.
In her ruling, Judge Jenkins does not reference that state law or the school district’s contentions that Vesely had forfeited his parental rights by not recognizing his child’s alleged gender assertions.
Jenkins agreed prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions grant Vesely a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of his child.
But the judge said other court decisions have indicated that right does not necessarily extend over public schools in which the child may be enrolled.
Jenkins noted the courts have ruled 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 Court of Appeals, Judge Jenkins noted prior court decisions “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.”
Rather, the judge said, the only absolute right afforded to parents under the Constitution related to education is to decide if their child will attend public school or be educated privately.
Jenkins said that limitation on parental rights also should 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 judge, citing a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, said a public school “cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent.”
Further, the judge said, Bryan Vesely’s assertions are further watered down by the disagreement of the child’s mother, Vesely’s ex-wife.
She likened the matter to having the school district be drawn into a messy child custody dispute, having to navigate conflicting desires of both parents.
The judge said this reduces Vesely’s claims from one based on fundamental rights, to a more qualified right. So, the court must balance Vesely’s rights against the interests of the school district and those of his ex-wife, the child’s mother.
In this instance, the judge said the school district holds the upper hand, because some medical professionals believe it is in the interest of children to encourage them to transition their gender when they express an interest in doing so, even if it may overrun the rights of a parent.
District 45 has been represented in the case by attorney Nikoleta Lamprinakos, of the firm of Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor, of Chicago.
Vesely has been represented by attorneys Dean J. Tatooles and Mason S. Coles, of the firm of Cole Sadkin, of Chicago.