*news embed full width*
Family
July 17, 2025

Lawyers Fighting Child ‘Gender Secrecy Policies’ Submit Final Briefing for Summary Judgment, With Major Hearing Set for August

Lawyers Fighting Child ‘Gender Secrecy Policies’ Submit Final Briefing for Summary Judgment, With Major Hearing Set for August

July 17, 2025
By
Katie Clancy
Press Release
July 17, 2025

Lawyers Fighting Child ‘Gender Secrecy Policies’ Submit Final Briefing for Summary Judgment, With Major Hearing Set for August

New filings by TMS attorneys ask court to put final nail in the coffin of California gender secrecy rules

San Diego, CA - Thomas More Society attorneys, representing a class of all affected teachers and parents in California, filed pivotal motions in Mirabelli v. Olson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, as the effort to end Parental Exclusion Policies in California comes to a head in federal court.  

The filed motions seeking summary judgment and a class-wide permanent injunction against the Escondido Union School District (EUSD), the California Department of Education (CDE), and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Parental Exclusion Policies, which stem from directives issued by the CDE, mandate that schools facilitate a minor child’s social transition to a gender identity at odds with his or her biological sex—using preferred names and pronouns—based solely on the child’s request. Moreover, these policies mandate that teachers and administrators hide a child’s gender transition from parents, using biological pronouns and legal names when communicating with parents, if the child requests secrecy.

With a hearing on the filed motions set for August 18, 2025, these filings could lead to a federal court decision ending gender secrecy policies across California.  

“Judge Benitez explained it well when he granted our Motion for Preliminary Injunction in September 2023 and referred to gender secrecy policies as a ‘trifecta of harm,’” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “Forcing teachers to hide a child’s gender identity from their own parents and compelling them to act against their faith is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous. Parents, not bureaucrats, are responsible for raising and caring for their children, and are the best equipped to protect their child’s well-being.” Alongside Jonna, the class of teachers and parents is represented by Jeffrey M. Trissell of LiMandri & Jonna LLP.

In his September 2023 decision, Judge Benitez wrote that EUSD’s Parental Exclusion Policy:  

“...harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children. And finally, it harms plaintiffs who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students—violating plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”

This lawsuit began in April 2023 when two courageous and faithful EUSD teachers sued their school district and the CDE, after it refused to grant them a religious accommodation. Pointing to the CDE’s statewide directives requiring them to implement and enforce Parental Exclusion Policies, EUSD contended that it had to require employees to respect children’s ‘privacy’ rights against their parents.  

Class representatives include Escondido teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli, Lori West, Jane Roe, and Jane Boe, along with parents Jane and John Doe and Jane and John Poe. Plaintiffs Elizabeth and Lori have faced brutal harassment, from feeling unsafe in their own homes, to retaliation in the workplace, health struggles, and more.  

Their steadfast faith in pursuing this lawsuit has inspired other teachers to join the lawsuit, as well as parents from across California who have been harmed by these policies. This includes the parent-plaintiffs of ‘Child Poe.’ ‘Poe’ attempted to take her own life after a prolonged struggle with her gender identity. Child Poe had been identifying as a boy at school, but the State’s gender secrecy policies required the school to keep this hidden from Child Poe’s parents. They first learned that their daughter was identifying as a boy at school when doctors informed them after Child Poe attempted suicide.  

“Child Poe’s story is a parent’s worst nightmare,” said Jonna. “Parents trust schools with their children's education—yet they don’t realize that California schools, at the direction of the CDE and the Attorney General, actively hide some of the most important, foundational information about their children, like their gender identity. These policies, driven by political ideology masquerading as law, endanger vulnerable students and strip parents of their fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing. In the case of Child Poe and countless other young people, it has also tragically opened the door to disaster. With this case heading to summary judgment, we are optimistic that the days are numbered for California’s gender secrecy regime.”

The July 16 filings also include a request to certify the class of affected California parents and teachers, as well as a motion to exclude the defendants’ experts, Darlene Tando and Christine Brady. Thomas More Society attorneys argue that Tando’s and Brady’s testimony lacks scientific rigor, relying on unproven claims about gender identity and social transition benefits to militate against parents’ rights.

“After hours of depositions, it became clear that the State of California’s taxpayer-compensated ‘expert witnesses’ were agenda-driven ideologues presenting their personal beliefs as fact, unsupported by science,” added Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “The junk science used to justify deceiving parents while ‘transitioning’ their kids must be firmly rejected by the Court.”

“Our fight is not political—it’s about upholding the Constitution, defending religious liberty, and protecting families from policies that endanger children like Child Poe. Parental Exclusion Policies are illegal, morally abhorrent, and belong in the dustbin of history.”

Filings and Additional Information in Mirabelli v. Olson:

Motion for Summary Judgment (July 16, 2025)

Motion for Class Certification (July 16, 2025)

Motion to Exclude Experts (July 16, 2025)

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Class Claims (January 7, 2025)

Order Granting Motion Preliminary Injunction (September 14, 2023)