A federal lawsuit filed by 2 pairs of Massachusetts parents alleges that the school counselor, current and former district superintendents violated parents’ fundamental rights by intentionally concealing from the parents the staff’s efforts to affirm or change the student’s gender identity.
Parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri learned that their son (G.F) was being treated as a girl in accordance with his wishes. Parents Jonathan Feliciano and Sandra Salmeron also joined the lawsuit alleging that the secret transitioning of children violates the free exercise of religion under both the state and federal constitutions.
Bonnie Manchester, a teacher in the district, informed parents, Foote and Silvestri, that their daughter (B.F.) had transitioned to “genderqueer”. Manchester was put on paid leave by the district for informing the parents of their daughter’s transition.
The parents of B.F. had sent a formal request to the school not to have “private discussions” regarding the matter of her “insecurity, low self-esteem, poor self-image” and “perceived lack of popularity” that she was experiencing and for which she was receiving professional help.
With the approval of B.F., Manchester talked with her parents. The parents were also aware that the school may have been urging gender identities onto students because children had to create videos sharing their “gender identity and preferred pronouns” for a sixth-grade assignment.
Following a complaint by the parents, the school allegedly promised to obtain parental consent in the future.
In an email to her teachers, B.F. announced her new gender identity two months after her parents requested parental consent for issues of this matter. According to the suit, the school counselor Marie-Claire Foley instructed teachers to not inform parents Foote and Silvestri.
Manchester forwarded the email to B.F.’s parents despite the warning. Foley doubled down and told teachers again not to inform B.F.’s parents about her new transition. She told B.F. that she could “use any bathroom that she felt comfortable with” and that she is “brave and awesome” for her decision to change her gender identity.
School principal Stacy Monette brushed off the allegations in a virtual meeting with the parents according to the suit. The day following the virtual meeting, Manchester was put on leave for “conduct unbecoming a teacher” because of “inappropriate communications” with B.F.’s parents.
"*" indicates required fields
Manchester’s lawyer, Frank McNamara, told Just the News that she is still considering litigation for wrongful termination.
When the parents went to the then-Superintendent Todd Garza regarding the ignored requests, he informed the parents that the staff had correctly followed the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education guidance on gender identity.
The guidance reads:
“Transgender and gender-nonconforming students may decide to discuss and express their gender identity openly and may decide when, with whom, and how much to share private information. A student who is 14 years of age or older, or who has entered the ninth grade, may consent to the disclosure of information from his or her student record. If a student is under 14 and is not yet in the ninth grade, the student’s parent (alone) has the authority to decide on disclosures and other student record matters”
The school staff continued to ignore the parent’s request and Foley encouraged B.F. to continue to meet with her on a weekly basis to “discuss her gender issues and mental health.”
Foley alleged that B.F. did not feel “safe” talking to her parents and also questioned the counseling arranged by the parents.
Should the allegations of this case hold true, leftists will have little to no platform left to preach on when they attack anti-grooming legislation. The teachers involved who sat idly while a school official took advantage of a student’s mental health situation are complicit in the grooming of children.
The counselor responsible for the grooming could be evidence enough that schools are not safe in the slightest from the immoral ravages of the radical leftist agenda. It is incredibly disturbing that people are willing to stoop so low and target the most vulnerable members of society to spread their morally bankrupt ideologies.