Advocates for faith & freedom logo
Advocates for faith & freedom logo

CALIFORNIA COURT RESTORES PARENTAL RIGHTS IN CHINO VALLEY, LIMITING STATE SECRECY POLICIES

Advocates for Faith & Freedom

Case Active

ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOMFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 CONTACT: NICOLE VELASCO ATMEDIA@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM Murrieta, California — In an important victory for parental rights, a California court today granted in part and denied in part Chino Valley Unified School District’s motion to dissolve the permanent injunction restricting its parental notification policy. The court affirmed that […]

Share this story:

ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026

CONTACT: NICOLE VELASCO AT
MEDIA@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM

Murrieta, California — In an important victory for parental rights, a California court today granted in part and denied in part Chino Valley Unified School District’s motion to dissolve the permanent injunction restricting its parental notification policy.

The court affirmed that parents who want to receive information concerning their own children that would otherwise be withheld under their school district’s policies have the right to receive that information.

Advocates for Faith & Freedom, alongside co-counsel California Justice Center, represents Chino Valley Unified School District in its defense of parental notification and parents’ constitutional right to direct the care and upbringing of their children.

“This is an important step forward for parents,” said Erin Mersino, Vice President and Chief of Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation with Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “Parents should not have to wonder whether a public school is withholding significant information about their own child. Today’s ruling recognizes that parents who want this information have a right to receive it. The State cannot simply shut parents out of decisions involving the welfare and mental health of their children.”

The case began after California Attorney General Rob Bonta challenged Chino Valley Unified School District’s parental notification policy, which required school personnel to notify parents when a student requested to be treated as a gender different from his or her biological sex, including requests involving names, pronouns, or access to sex-segregated facilities and programs. A permanent injunction entered in October 2024 prohibited enforcement of the gender identity-specific portions of that policy.

The legal landscape changed significantly following the United States Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta. The Supreme Court recognized that policies excluding parents from information concerning a child’s gender transition at school likely violate parents’ constitutional rights, including their right to participate in decisions concerning their children’s upbringing, education, and mental health.

Following Mirabelli, the Ninth Circuit also prohibited enforcement of key provisions of AB 1955 against parents who affirmatively sought information concerning their own children.

In response to those developments, Chino Valley Unified School District asked the court to dissolve the permanent injunction, arguing that the injunction could no longer be reconciled with controlling federal constitutional law.

Today, the court granted that motion in part.

Under the ruling, a parent who affirmatively wants to be informed of information concerning his or her child that might otherwise be withheld has the right to receive it.

The District is now evaluating how best to implement the ruling.

“This case has always been about a basic principle: parents are the primary caretakers of their children, not the government,” Mersino added. “Today’s ruling moves California closer to respecting that constitutional reality. We will continue working to ensure that parents are not forced to surrender their rights simply because their children enter the public-school classroom.”

Additional developments are expected as the District considers its next steps and the precise implementation of the court’s ruling.

###