I wonder if a failing student can sue the school for sending a report card home to the parents and revealing that the child is an idiot...
[Charlene Nguon, 17, may go forward with her suit claiming violation of privacy rights, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna]
The fascist left continues it's assault on justice,morality,and God and will one day reap the wind.
When it suits them, the left tries to impart the full constitutional rights to children. At 17 this young woman is nearly an adult in California, but she isn't.
Sorry, but IMO her parents have every right to this information. This girl needs some parental counseling. It may not accomplish much, but she should hear it anyway.
"Mom, I have an idea. There's this dyke at school and I think she has a crush on me. It's gross, but this may work out. How about if I kiss her -- take it easy! Take it easy! -- right in front of a teacher. I bet the school will call you up."
"So, you act all upset! Then I act all upset that I've been "outed"! Stop giggling, mom! Then we sue the school! We get a bunch of money, and then I can go to college!"
"It's so crazy it might work. But we better make sure if your father is OK with this."
Strange as it seems, she has a legit case [and its not easy for me to spit out those words].
From what I gather, the school had no written policy that speaks to public "displays of affection" and there are no "cases" of strait couples being suspended for similar behaviour.
Had the school had a written policy in hand, with evidense that actions were taken with couples in the past? She'd have no case.
I see a quiet settlement in her future.
Public schools are child abuse. Friends don't let their friends abuse children.
The real issue is if the school can be "slugmouthed" such that it will no longer disclose to the parents "sexual preference" the that can be used as a basis to not tell a parent of a child is pregnant and is considering or has had an abortion.
Ridiculous. If she did not want her mom to know, then she should not have told the school.
How is it that the school knew if this is a matter of privacy?
I didn't know that minor children had any legal or constitutional expectation of privacy FROM THEIR PARENTS!
Mind you, I said legal or constitutional. A child may feel, rightly, that certain personal activities, at home even, DESERVE some "privacy", but I believe that is a personal matter and not a legal matter, and should be breached by respsonsible parents when they think they have good grounds to do so.
It seems to me that the real issue is whether schools should report potentially troublesome behavior of a minor child to her parents. And the answer, clearly, is "Yes."
If a child is doing badly in one of her courses, the parents should be notified before they get the failing grade on a report card, so they can try to straighten it out. If a child vandalizes school property, the parents should be told. If a child misbehaves in any way, the parents should be told. The parents are the proper guardians of a child, and should normally be told about ANY potential problems their child is getting into.
So, why is this different? No, I know, I don't need to ask. Gay relations are a political third rail. Nevertheless, it's quite proper to tell the parents if a child is smooching on school property, with a member of the same or opposite sex. Whether or not it's a legal offense, the parents should know what their children are doing.
The real problem is that liberal judges want to keep parents entirely out of schools, so they cannot enforce their own values on their children. The schools want total control, so they view informing parents about how their children are doing as a violation of privacy. Nonsense. Minor children don't have privacy from parents if they are doing something wrong or questionable. Parents need to know what their children are doing.
This child's name sounds Asian. I would guess that she has strict, traditional parents of the Asian school, but that she is turning into a rebellious American teenager. It's a tough situation, but it isn't the school's job to help her rebel against her parents.
Looks like a slam dunk case FOR the school district to me!
The agenda of the ACLU and the Left is to afford minors, a protected class, with constitutional "rights". Soon, 10 year olds can flip their parents the "bird" and be protected under the 1st. Amendment.
Marx marches on.
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Central District of California Nominated by George W. Bush on January 29, 2003, to a seat vacated by J. Spencer Letts; Confirmed by the Senate on March 27, 2003, and received commission on March 27, 2003.
Stanford University, A.B., 1967
Stanford Law School, J.D., 1970
Captain, U.S. Army Reserve, 1967-1978
Private practice, California, 1970-1998 Judge, Superior Court, Orange County, California, 1998-2003
Race or Ethnicity: White
17 year old can't sue on her own behalf.
I have been before Selna. He is a very smart, diligent, and cerebral judge.
Reason #289 to homeschool. Bump.