Written by
The Washington statutory scheme challenged in this case is inconsistent with the constitutional recognition of parents’ responsibility to direct the upbringing of their children. It interferes with the parent-child relationship of children who are particularly vulnerable and in need of parental direction. It deprives some parents of the custody of their children and undermines the ability of those parents to fulfill their responsibility to protect their children’s health. It specifically extinguishes a prerequisite for parental responsibility, notice of critical information about their child. It does all of this without any finding of parental unfitness, but merely because the parents differ from the State’s preferred position on matters of gender and sexuality.
Read the full PDF version of the report by clicking the button below.
Read More
Massachusetts case raises concerns about government cutting parents out of children’s decisions
When parents pose a threat to children’s safety, the state should act. But ideological disagreements are not a reason to cut parents out of a child’s life.
How Utah Fits All is helping students with special needs and other learning challenges
Education choice programs can change the course of a child’s life, expanding their knowledge and increasing their confidence, especially after a season of struggle with profound challenges. Utah should expand its education choice programs and offerings so more families have these experiences and more children can thrive.
Rethinking Head Start | Assistant Secretary Alex J. Adams
On this episode of Defending Ideas, Nic Dunn speaks with Alex Adams, Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), about his efforts to reduce ineffective federal regulations and give states more room to innovate.
Connect with Sutherland Institute
Join Our Donor Network
Follow Us
The post Brown v. Labresh appeared first on Sutherland Institute.
