A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge has left California's restriction on unprompted parental notification in place while confirming that school staff may not misrepresent the situation when a parent asks directly about a child's gender identity at school.
Judge Michael Sachs rejected Chino Valley Unified School District's request to dissolve an injunction he issued in 2024, according to EdSource. That injunction blocks a policy the district's board adopted in 2023 requiring employees to notify parents within three days if a student asked to use a name or pronoun different from official records, or to join a sex-segregated program such as an athletic team.
The ruling divides two questions that are often collapsed together. Districts may not compel staff to volunteer the information. Staff also may not conceal or misrepresent it when a parent asks. Both halves now apply at the same time in California.
Three Legal Instruments Produced One Split Outcome
The outcome reflects three overlapping authorities. California's AB 1955, known as the SAFETY Act and signed in 2024, bars school districts from adopting or enforcing policies that require employees to disclose a student's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression without the student's consent.
Separately, in Mirabelli v. Bonta, teachers challenged non-disclosure policies on religious exercise and free speech grounds. In an emergency-docket order in March, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the parents' position, and the district's attorneys read that order as holding that parents have a constitutional right to be informed when their child expresses gender incongruence at school. The district then moved to dissolve the 2024 injunction, arguing it was caught between conflicting orders.
Sachs disagreed that the two conflicted. At the hearing he distinguished the policy at issue in the Supreme Court case, which required employees to withhold information from parents who asked. "The school's policy essentially mandated that staff lie to the parent," he said of that case, and the court had not accepted it.
A third case, City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, challenges the SAFETY Act directly. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction for the parents who sued to block enforcement of that law, and the litigation continues, which means the framework described here can still change.
Both Sides Describe the Same Ruling Differently
Parental rights organizations have characterized the underlying Supreme Court order as a significant victory, and the district's board president, Sonja Shaw, who is running for state superintendent of public instruction, criticized this week's proceedings in sharp terms, LAist reported.
An attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California said the ruling was consistent with the Supreme Court's order and other applicable law, and that blanket policies requiring employees to disclose a student's gender identity to parents in all circumstances remain unlawful in California. The state attorney general's office has separately warned districts against such policies.
MedicalDaily is reporting the legal holding rather than taking a position on the underlying policy debate, on which the parties and advocacy groups disagree sharply.
Records Rules Were Already Separate from Classroom Practice
One element of this dispute predates the litigation. Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, parents generally have the right to inspect and review their child's education records.
That matters for how the ruling reaches ordinary families. A parent seeking information has two routes that operate differently: asking a teacher or counselor, which the court order addresses, and requesting records, which federal law addresses.
The ruling does not address clinical care. California's laws governing when a minor may consent to medical or mental health services, and the confidentiality attached to that care, sit outside this case and were not altered by it. Families with questions about a specific clinical situation should raise them with a licensed clinician rather than inferring an answer from a school policy ruling.
Practical Steps for Families and School Staff in California
Parents who want information about their child's experience at school can ask the school directly, and under the current order staff cannot misrepresent the answer. Parents can also submit a written request to inspect education records through the district office.
Families who prefer to understand the district's own policy should ask for it in writing, since districts across California are operating under different local policies while the appellate case proceeds. School employees uncertain about their obligations should route questions through district counsel rather than relying on guidance issued before this spring, much of which is now outdated.
Adolescents navigating these conversations, and parents navigating them, may find the process stressful regardless of where they stand on the policy. Pediatricians, school counselors and licensed mental health professionals can support that conversation, and a young person in distress should be connected with professional support rather than left to manage it alone. Anyone in immediate crisis can reach the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by call or text.
What happens next: the Ninth Circuit's handling of City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom will shape whether the SAFETY Act survives, and further proceedings in the Chino Valley case remain possible. MedicalDaily will report confirmed rulings.
Key Questions Answered
What did the judge decide? He declined to dissolve a 2024 injunction blocking Chino Valley Unified's policy of notifying parents within three days, leaving the restriction on unprompted notification in place.
Must schools tell parents when a student changes name or pronouns? Not on their own initiative under this ruling. Districts cannot compel staff to volunteer it.
What happens if a parent asks directly? Staff cannot conceal or misrepresent the information, following the U.S. Supreme Court's order this year in Mirabelli v. Bonta.
Is the SAFETY Act still law? AB 1955 remains on the books, but its enforcement has been limited by a federal injunction while a challenge proceeds in the Ninth Circuit.
Can parents see their child's school records? Yes. Federal law gives parents the right to inspect and review their child's education records through the district.
Does this change medical confidentiality for minors? No. California laws on minor consent to health care and the confidentiality of that care were not addressed by this ruling.
Where should school staff get guidance? From district counsel, since guidance issued before this spring may no longer be accurate.
