Posts

The Biggest Parental Rights Fights Of 2025 — And What Parents Face Next

/0 Comments/in , /by

Parents faced dozens of challenges in 2025, from school policies hiding details about their own kids from them to technology taking over the classroom. Here are some of the biggest parental rights fights of the year, and a look at what parents can expect next in 2026.

American Parents Coalition (APC) is releasing a new guide for parents as they prepare to once more take on the bad policies still pervading schools as we head into 2026. In the organization’s latest Lookout, first shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation, the parental advocacy group outlines 2025’s biggest wins for parents — and what they should keep an eye on next year.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has signed several executive orders protecting children, including Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports and Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation. These orders have helped safeguard against radical school policies to some extent, though many administrators and state officials have continued to defy federal directives, instead finding new ways to continue their radical policies or just maintaining them openly.

Notably, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Maine after Democrat Gov. Janet Mills refused several requests to comply with the president’s ban on men competing in women’s sports. The DCNF has also exclusively reported on several universities and school districts facing federal complaints after secretly admitting they will not follow the directives.

In response to such offenses, APC launched an interactive map logging these incidents for parents to stay up-to-date as battles over implementation, and refusals to comply, continue in 2026.

Parents won a major victory at the Supreme Court in June. Mahmoud v. Taylor secured the right to opt children out of lessons with content that is inappropriate or conflicts with a family’s religious beliefs.

Despite the win, parents still face a powerful opponent: teachers unions. While these groups claim to have kids’ best interests at heart, in reality, they more often try to shield classroom activities from parents. Some of these unions have sued the Trump administration in order to keep left-wing ideology embedded in schools and prevent the dismantling of the education department. Others have confidently claimed that “all children” in the country “belong” to them. (Read more from “The Biggest Parental Rights Fights Of 2025 — And What Parents Face Next” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

The Tragic Case of Charlie Gard Highlights the Importance of Parental Rights

/0 Comments/in , /by

The tragic case of Charlie Gard, the British infant who will soon be taken off life support, has exposed the scale of the malfunction in the British family court system.

This is a court system driven by ideological professionals and overseen by compliant judges who have lost their moorings in Judeo-Christian values.

Charlie is a 10-month-old infant who suffers from an extremely rare and debilitating genetic disease and has already suffered significant brain damage. He cannot move his arms or legs and cannot breathe without the assistance of a ventilator.

On June 8, the United Kingdom Supreme Court permitted the hospital to withdraw such support to enable Charlie to die with “dignity,” in its own words.

However, Charlie has the benefit of two loving and devoted parents who were prepared to do all in their power to preserve the life of their son. They found a leading medical practitioner known as Dr. I, who is a professor of neurology at a mainstream medical center in the United States, and who was willing to facilitate and oversee the provision of nucleoside therapy for Charlie.

Dr. I accepted that there was only a remote possibility of any success.

Due to the generosity of the public, to whom an appeal was made, the parents have sufficient funds to pay for Charlie to go to the U.S. for treatment, and it would be possible to transport him under medical supervision across the Atlantic for such treatment.

Nucleoside is a new therapy with uncertain results, but it was, at least, a hope for Charlie. However, Judge Justice Francis held:

Accordingly, the entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents in these proceedings share a common view that further treatment would be futile. For the avoidance of any doubt, the word “futile” in this context means pointless or of no effective benefit.

The judge refused to permit the parents to seek further treatment in the U.S. and his decision thus ensured that Charlie would die in the U.K.

This case is not about the merits or demerits of nucleoside therapy for Charlie, but the power of a judge to overrule the decision of custodial fit parents on what they deem best for their own child.

Common sense would indicate that any chance of success—no matter how remote—is better that no chance of life.

Judges in the Family Division of the High Court and professional social workers daily make incomprehensible decisions of removing children from loving families, deciding on what is best for a child, or causing more damage than needed by acting under Section 1 of the Children’s Act 1989, which gives the Court jurisdiction to do as it will under the fig leaf of stating that the “welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration.”

Thus, it was in Charlie’s interest to die, and be denied a “no-cost” experimental treatment that arguably could have improved his condition.

Behind many decisions of the Courts are the acts of (poorly educated) social workers, educational psychologists, and local government officers dancing to the tune of political correctness, or at the political direction of their masters.

In recent years, there have been cases of Christian parents being denied the ability to foster a five-year-old child because of their religious views (the child could potentially be homosexual).

In another case, a family was initially disqualified by reason of their support for British independence from the European Union, which the Court later reversed. There is also the scandal of inaction by the same professionals in cases of the rape of numerous girls because many of the perpetrators had Asian (Muslim) identity.

In a recent U.K. case, the social workers backed the right of a four-year-old boy to transition to a girl. Fortunately, the British judge had some common sense and recognized that this was harming the child.

In the case of the Christian foster carers denied registration because of their beliefs, the government-backed Equality and Human Rights Commission argued it was their responsibility to protect vulnerable children from becoming “infected” with Judeo-Christian ethics on sexual conduct.

The reader should be aware that they are not mistaken in what they have just read, the Commission did in fact use the term “infected.”

It is time that courts in the civilized world recognized the fundamental rights of parents to rear their children, and that the state is a neutral actor that should not pursue social agendas under the guise of the “best interests of the child.” The state should only interfere where there is clear exposure of harm to a child (violence, abuse, or neglect).

There must be a clear jurisdictional limitation to the actions of a court—namely that the parent is always a better decision maker than anyone else, be it a social worker, hospital, or court.

The views of a custodial fit parent must be respected in substance, not merely in the form of platitudes. The parents of Charlie have suffered a great wrong and the consequences will affect many other decent parents.

This arrogance of the elites, who presume to know what is the best for a child over those parents who are deemed too emotive, too uneducated, or who have the wrong religious views, is not a peculiar British problem. This problem that alive and well in the U.S. as well, and must be countered wherever it is found. (For more from the author of “The Tragic Case of Charlie Gard Highlights the Importance of Parental Rights” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska Parental Rights in Education Bill Set for Public Hearing

/1 Comment/in , /by

Parental-rights-1160x480A bill ensuring a parent’s rights to direct the education of their child in regards to any instruction relating to “human reproduction, health, or sex education,” is scheduled for a public hearing in the Alaska Legislature on April 9 at 9 a.m.

Introduced by Sen. Mike Dunleavy, Senate Bill 89 requires local school boards to adopt policies that “promote the involvement of parents in the school district’s education program.”

According to the bill, the policies must include procedures allowing parents to object to and withdraw children from an activity, class, performance standard, test or program the parent believes is “harmful to the child.”

Accordingly, parents would be able to review the content of objectionable instruction or tests and to withdraw their child.

Schools would need to notify parents of any instruction or activities pertaining to sex education at least two weeks before the instruction is scheduled to begin. In order for the student to participate they would need written permission from the child’s parent. The bill would also ensure that when a child is absent from an objectionable activity or class they would not be penalized.

Additionally, the bill prohibits schools from administering questionnaires or surveys that inquire into “personal or private family affairs of the student” when such information is not a matter of public record unless there is written permission from the parent.

In administering any questionnaires, schools would first need to give parents an opportunity to review the questionnaire and provide them with a written notice regarding how the questionnaire will be administered and used, as well as who will have access to the results. (See “Alaska Parental Rights in Education Bill Set for Public Hearing”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Common Core: The ‘State-led’ Myth

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: wickendenSince its introduction in 2008, the Common Core State Standards Initiative, or “Common Core” (CCSSI) has been touted as a “voluntary, state led” initiative to adopt a common set of academic standards for all states in the country. As it turns out, the development of Common Core was not state-led, and participation, while technically voluntary, was very strongly coerced.

Our research into the standards themselves is ongoing, but frankly that is a secondary concern. ParentalRights.org stands opposed to the process by which Common Core has come to be. Its creation and administration have violated constitutional principles and rob parents of the right to oversee the education of their children.

Private Roots

In 2007, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Eli Broad Foundation pledged $60 million dollars into a campaign to infuse education into the 2008 political racei. In May, 2008, the Gates Foundation awarded a $2.2 million grant to the Hunt Institute for Educational Leadership and Policyii which, one month later, hosted a symposium alongside the National Governors Association (NGA) on education strategies.

Later the same year, NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) began accepting federal grants with which to launch Common Core. In December, 2008, NGA, CCSSO and Achieve – their contractor in Washington, D.C. – laid out a vision for Common Core standards in a document called Benchmarking for Success. This report, like so much of the process leading to it, was funded by the Gates Foundationiii, and it was given to the Obama administration as part of his transition to the White House.

According to a 2012 white paper from the Pioneer Institute and the American Principles Project (upon which this article is based), “Through 2008, the Common Core Initiative was a plan of private groups being implemented through trade associations, albeit trade associations that have ‘official’-sounding names. Since 2007, NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve accepted more than $27 million from the Gates Foundation alone to advance the Standards and the connected data-collection and assessments.”

To this day, “the Standards are owned and copyrighted by nongovernmental entities unaccountable to parents and students in the individual states.”

Federal Coercion

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or “Stimulus Bill”) was enacted on February 17, 2009, and provided the next key component in the drive toward Common Core. Through this bill Congress earmarked $4.35 billion for states that make “significant progress” toward four education-reform objectives.

One week after the bill was passed, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan rolled out the federal “Race to the Top” program through the Department of Education (DOE). In a C-SPAN interview, Secretary Duncan explained, “We want to get into this game…. There are great outside partners – Achieve, the Gates Foundation, others – who are providing great leadership…. I want to be the one to help it come to fruition.”

From there, the timing was telling:

In March, 2009, the DOE announced that “Race to the Top” funding would be rewarded through two rounds of competitive grants.

On June 1, NGA and CCSSO officially launched their Common Core Standards Initiative.

“Race to the Top” required states to commit to a common set of K-12 standards by August 2, 2009 – at which time the newly-launched “Common Core” was the only such effort in existence. States that did not commit to the program stood no chance of winning any of the grant money.

Phase I applications were invited in November, 2009, with a due date of January 19, 2010. “[A]pplicant states were required to demonstrate their commitment to Common Core without having seen even a draft of the standards.”

On February 22, President Obama in a speech revealed his intent to tie all Title I funding to this same Common Core commitment, essentially cutting off nearly all federal education funding to states that opt out. A March, 2010, DOE report stated that this cut off would occur by 2015.

In March of 2010, two months after applications had been received committing states to the standards, the first draft of Common Core was finally released by NGA and CCSSO.

Phase 2 applications were due June 1 of 2010, and the final draft of Common Core was not released until the following day. Applicants of both phases committed to the standards without even knowing what they would be.

What is more, the Race to the Top application stipulates that states must adopt and implement Common Core word for word. They can add to it only provided the additions do not amount to more than 15% of the material taught, but they cannot take away from it by any means.

Conclusion

In short, far from being state-led, Common Core was developed in such a way as to keep the states completely in the dark. It was created and is still owned and copyrighted by private organizations with no accountability to the parents or students of any state. Neither are they accountable to the states themselves. The federal government used tax-payer monies to coerce the states into adopting the standards sight-unseen, contrary to the interests of the tax-payers.

While proponents advertised Common Core as a “voluntary, state-led” initiative, the states have been following blindly from the start. Not one citizen-elected legislative body has had any input into the standards or the system of development by which those standards came to be.

Read more from this story HERE. You can also learn more about ParentalRights.org HERE and donate to help their cause HERE.

UK Foster Couple Lose Children for Being Members of Conservative Party (+video)

/3 Comments/in , , /by

A UK couple had their three foster children taken away after social workers decided that the couple’s support for the supposedly “racist” policies of the UK Independence Party (Ukip) made them “unsuitable” caregivers, The Telegraph reports.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Ukip, it’s the conservative wing of British politics. If you want an understanding of the group’s principles, look no further than Nigel Farage, founding member and party leader:

“It is total and utter failure. This ship, the euro Titanic has now hit the iceberg and sadly there simply aren’t enough life boats,” said Farage, an infamously skeptical critic of the eurozone, to the European Parliament.

The Ukip advocates lower taxes, limited government, freer markets, and immigration reform. However, to certain social workers in the Labour-controlled Rotherham borough, supporting the above makes you an “unsuitable” foster parent.

The parents claim they were made to feel like criminals and that they had a “black mark” on them for supporting the conservative group. And now it has culminated in the loss of their foster children, one boy and two girls.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obamacare: free sterilization for your 15 year old without your consent?

/12 Comments/in , /by

Americans outraged over the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance policies cover contraception and sterilization at no charge are about to get even hotter under the collar. According to CNSNews.com, depending on state law, girls as young as 15 could well be eligible for free surgical sterilizations — even without their parents’ consent.

The ObamaCare regulation, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) earlier this year, states: “Non-grandfathered plans and issuers are required to provide coverage without cost sharing consistent with these guidelines in the first plan year … that begins on or after August 1, 2012.” The guidelines call for insurers to cover “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

While the guidelines do not define “all women with reproductive capacity,” they are based on the recommendations of an Institute of Medicine report that defines it as “from the time of menarche” — the onset of menstruation, which occurs around age 12 — “to the time of menopause.” Thus it would appear that HHS is requiring all new insurance plans to cover legal sterilizations for girls age 12 and older.

Of course, in most states women must be considerably older than 12 to be sterilized, and teenagers desiring to be sterilized must obtain their parents’ consent. In Oregon, however, girls 15 and older need not obtain parental consent to be sterilized. All they must do is sign a form stating that they are making an informed decision to be sterilized — a procedure that “must be considered permanent and not reversible” — voluntarily and with the understanding that “my decision will not affect my right to future care or treatment.” For girls unable to understand English, the state helpfully permits an interpreter to sign the form for them.

Therefore, under ObamaCare a 15-year-old Oregonian girl apparently can get a tubal ligation for free without so much as a by-your-leave from her parents. (This same girl, meanwhile, must wait until she is 16 to drive and 17 to wed and can do neither without parental consent until she is 18.) Parents and other policyholders not wishing to pay for sterilization coverage will be forced to do so since it will now be baked into every policy sold. And taxpayers, whether or not they agree with the practice of sterilizing minors without parental consent, will be forced to subsidize such coverage for those unable to buy insurance on their own — a segment of the population sure to grow as mandates such as this drive up premiums.

Read more from this story HERE.