Parents Cannot Be Excluded From Decisions About Their Own Children

San Francisco, CA — March 16, 2026

On March 13, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an amici curiae brief with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Plaintiff-Appellant in Regino v. Blake (26-475), urging the Court to reverse the district court’s dismissal and restore constitutional protections for parents whose children are secretly “socially transitioned” at school without their knowledge or consent.

This case exposes the real consequences of school policies that deliberately exclude parents from critical decisions affecting their children. California parent, Aurora Regino, discovered that her eleven-year-old daughter had been socially transitioned at school after expressing emotional distress to a counselor. School officials changed the child’s name and pronouns and instructed staff to treat her as a boy, while concealing the attempted transition from her mother.

The Chico Unified School District’s Parental Secrecy Policy requires district personnel to socially transition a student (who could be as young as four) upon that student’s request, even over parental objection. Unless the student affirmatively authorizes parental disclosure, the Policy prohibits personnel from informing the parents. District personnel must also conceal these transitions from parents, even if parents directly ask whether such changes are taking place. The District is NOT required to obtain parental consent, nor do parents have the right to override the District’s decision to socially transition their child. 

The district court dismissed the case, allowing the policy to remain in effect. The appeal now before the Ninth Circuit asks whether parents retain the constitutional right to direct the upbringing and care of their children, including the right to be informed when government institutions initiate identity-altering psychological interventions.

This case arises amid a growing number of lawsuits challenging school policies that exclude parents from decisions affecting their children’s identity and medical trajectory. The Supreme Court has already addressed related parental rights issues in Mahmoud v. Taylor, and recently sided with parents in Mirabelli v. Bonta, reinforcing the constitutional principle that government institutions cannot sever parents from their role as the primary decision-makers in their children’s lives. Regino v. Blake presents the same constitutional conflict now before the Ninth Circuit.

America’s Frontline Doctors maintains the position that secret social “transitions” in schools are not neutral accommodations. As documented in our amici curiae brief, this is a critical step in a broader ideological process that conditions children to reject biological reality and normalizes a trajectory that leads to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, irreversible sterilization, permanent loss of sexual function, lifelong medical dependency, and surgical mutilation of healthy bodies. Parents have the fundamental right and duty to intervene before their children are placed on that path.

AFLDS attorney David Dalia said, “This case presents a deeply troubling constitutional violation exposing unwarranted governmental interference into the family. Government officials have no lawful authority to secretly insert themselves between parents and their children, to conceal critical information from families, or to substitute their own ideological judgments for the decisions of a fit parent. The Constitution protects the fundamental right and duty of parents to protect their children from harm, and that authority cannot be usurped by public school bureaucracies.”

AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Children are not wards of the state. They belong to their parents. When schools hide critical information from families and secretly participate in social ‘transitions,’ they undermine the most basic structure of society. Parents have the absolute right and obligation to protect their children from irreversible harm.”

This case carries national significance. Alongside Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay, Foote v. Ludlow, and other pending parental rights cases, Regino v. Blake will help determine whether parents retain the constitutional authority to raise and protect their children, or whether government institutions may assume that role under the guise of education and privacy.

Stay tuned as AFLDS continues to fight nationwide to defend parental rights, protect children, and restrain unlawful government usurpation.

# # #

About AFLDS

We are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future. Visit AFLDS.org

Media Contact Lisa Alexander, Executive Director | Media@AFLDS.org