August is one of my favorite months because I get to see supporters like you start to create the legislative landscape of the coming year. It was in August of 2017 that volunteer Patti Sullivan first reached out to her state lawmaker, then-Rep. Erin Grall, to propose a parental rights bill in Florida. Rep. Grall told her she could give her 20 minutes; that turned into a two-and-a-half hour conversation. Now-Senator Grall, an attorney by trade, turned our humble fundamental parental rights model into a full-scale Parents’ Bill of Rights. And in 2021, it passed the legislature and was signed it into law. In 2018, we launched our “Resolutionary” campaign, and volunteer Esther in Indiana responded by reaching out to her lawmakers about a parental rights resolution. Her efforts brought in other nonprofit organizations in the state as the resolution morphed into a parental rights bill that passed in 2025. As amazing as these results were, the fact is that both ladies started out just like you. They read our newsletter because they cared about their families and about parental rights for all of us. But they didn’t stop at reading. They took the next step: they reached out to their lawmakers with language we provided and started a conversation about what is best for families. This year can be your turn! Perhaps, like Patti and Esther, you could take our model policies to your state lawmakers and ask them to champion a bill this coming session. For some lawmakers, election year means an arduous campaign will define the next three months. If we wait for that dust to settle before sharing a model with them, though, the legislative session will be right on top of us. And many lawmakers don’t have that concern because they are strong front-runners, or even running unopposed. So, the time to reach your lawmakers with a parental rights model is right now, this month, before campaigns get too crazy. A Model to Fit Every State Red states might be interested in our Fundamental Parental Rights model , which establishes in the legal code that parental rights are fundamental rights and that the state’s courts must apply strict judicial scrutiny —the highest level of review—to cases involving parental rights. Blue states might want to take up our Child Protection Investigations Reform Act , which requires child welfare investigators to notify parents of their rights from the very start of a child abuse or neglect investigation. And nearly any state in the country could take up our Confidential Reporting model , which has already been adopted, notably, in “very Red” Texas and “very Blue” New York. (California also has a version of this protection; the other 47 states are all fair game to take up the measure in 2027!) This model would require a state’s child abuse hotline to collect personally identifiable information like name and address from anyone calling in an allegation of child abuse or neglect. This will greatly reduce the “weaponization” of the System that is rampant across the country. Other available models address Family Rights in Medical Investigations , providing Central Registry Due Process , Reasonable Childhood Independence , and Due Process for Families Facing Potential Separation (i.e. Hidden Foster Care). Every model was drafted with input from friends on both sides of the political aisle and boasts the support of both right-leaning and left-leaning organizations. And each one has been adopted as a model policy by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative group of organizations and Republican state lawmakers who look to shape policy across the country. What to Do, Step-by-Step First, identify your state lawmakers and secure their contact information. In most states, you’ll have one state senator and one representative, delegate, or assemblyman. (In Nebraska, you just have one senator.) Next, see what you can learn about them in a Google search. Maybe one of these models touches on a topic that their voting record shows is already deeply important to them! Set up a time to visit with them. Take one of our models with you as a starting point. (You can take more in case a subject comes up, but start with just one so you don’t overwhelm them!) Ask them their position on parental rights and if they would consider championing our model in the coming session. If they say “no,” that is not the end! Ask them instead if they know another lawmaker passionate about this issue. (We have gotten many great champion connections this way!) Alternatively, ask them if they would be open to a different model, or to revisit this model at a later time. Finally, when you get home, send them an email or a postcard thanking them for their time and attention. Ultimately you want to build a relationship with them, as this will pay off huge dividends down the road. Listen: everyone who enjoys those key relationships with their lawmakers today started off just reaching out for the first time. Who knows? Yours could be the next great parental rights success story. Why not let it begin this August? Thank you for standing with us to protect children by empowering parents through positive legislation in your state , coming in 2027!

PRF President Michael Ramey with HSLDA attorney Tj Schmidt and Louisiana State Representative Beryl Amedee at ALEC 's 2024 meeting in Denver.

A few weeks ago, we announced a new way to stay informed about parental rights through text messages. If you haven't signed up yet, there's still time, and we'd love to have you join us. The landscape of parental rights can change quickly. Court decisions are released, legislation is introduced, and new research becomes available throughout the year. While we will continue sending our regular email updates, text messages allow us to reach you as soon as important developments happen. When you subscribe, you'll receive: Timely alerts about significant parental rights news Notifications when new Foundation research and resources are released Opportunities to take action when your voice can make a difference Important updates delivered directly to your phone Our goal is not to send more messages. It is to make sure you receive the most important updates as quickly as possible. We'll keep our texts focused, relevant, and respectful of your time. As we look ahead to the next legislative season, now is the perfect time to sign up so you'll be ready to receive alerts when they matter most. If you prefer to receive updates only by email, that's perfectly fine. We'll continue sending our regular newsletters just as we always have. But if you'd like the fastest way to stay informed, we encourage you to subscribe today.

As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we still “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We also believe these rights include the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their minor children without undue government interference. As we celebrate the first 250 years, we dedicate ourselves to the preservation of this fundamental right, to secure the vital role of the family in our republic for the next 250 and beyond. Happy Anniversary, America, and Happy Independence Day.

We’ve seen and heard about it countless times before. But this time, the target was someone famous. Last week, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg shared the account of recent events in which his family was the target of a knowingly false and malicious report of child abuse. “You’ve probably heard of ‘swatting,’” Buttigieg’s Substack account begins, referring to the “dangerous kind of hoax” in which “someone anonymously calls 911 with a false report” and then waits for chaos to ensue. “Now imagine the same concept, but with Child Protective Services instead of a SWAT team. Hadn’t thought of that? Neither had I…” But at the Parental Rights Foundation, we have. (Consider this law review article by Dale Margolin Cecka , and this one from Doriane Lambelet Coleman , for example.) We’ve seen it, heard about it, and formulated a model law that states can adopt to prevent it from happening again. So far, New York and Texas have adopted our Confidential Reporting model, which requires anyone making a report of child abuse to identify themselves first. Buttigieg and his family didn’t have that kind of protection. When a child welfare investigator and a police officer arrived at his home, he naively showed them in, surrendering his Fourth Amendment rights without a fight. When they told him his adopted children would need to sleep elsewhere that night, somewhere away from him, he complied. When they demanded that his children be brought to the agency’s offices the next day to be interviewed with no family members present, he complied with that, too. Finally, late the next day, the police and investigator sat him down again and explained—for the first time—the allegations that had been leveled against him: “An anonymous caller had contacted CPS. The caller said that he had spoken to a woman who claimed to have met me at a conference several years ago in Alabama, where she said I told her I had committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed my children were at risk,” Buttigieg said in his Substack. “That was all.” Now, there are so many problems with this, from the sudden emergence of “imminent risk” for the children based on information from “several years ago” (it was fine for several years, but now suddenly the children are in danger?) to the fact that the whole thing is at best a second- or third-hand account. But all those problems would have been negated if only the system had required the caller to identify themselves. Had they done so, most callers would have declined to share such a far-fetched and clearly contrived “concern.” And if one had made the call anyway, he or she would themselves be under investigation by now for the false report, and likely facing jail time. Instead, the perpetrator will slink away under the veil of anonymity while Secretary Buttigieg and his family are left to clean up. “Even though the accusation was absurdly and obviously false, and was promptly rejected by law enforcement,” Buttigieg again shared in his Substack, “I still worry about the harm it has done.” I have never met Mr. Buttigieg, but I am sure he and I disagree on many more issues than we agree on. He and I lead very different lives and hold many conflicting values; we are definitely on opposite ends of the proverbial boat. But the Fourth Amendment is intended to apply equally to every household . And that means his home should not have been invaded without (1) a warrant based on probable cause, (2) a credible imminent threat, or (3) his free and voluntary consent. This “threat" was years old, which discounts any chance of “imminent threat.” Instead, perhaps the government could have taken a couple more hours to get a warrant—if any judge would give them one. (And, sadly, there are bad judges out there who would have.) Instead, the police officer and the investigator used coercion and the threat of family separation to secure “consent” that is neither free nor voluntary. This violation of the Fourth Amendment should never have happened. The sad truth is that people use anonymous reports to weaponize the child protection system because they can . And if we don’t close that gap, the next story may include another of your political adversaries—or it may include one of your friends. It may even include me or you.

June 30, 2026 // Washington, DC – The United States Supreme Court on Monday granted cert to hear International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson on appeal from the Ninth Circuit. The constitutional question in the case is “[w]hether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decision-making role,” according to the SCOTUSblog website. “This is an important and welcome decision by the Supreme Court,” says Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus William Wagner, Vice President of the Parental Rights Foundation. “For more than a century, the Court has recognized that parents, not government officials, hold the primary responsibility and constitutional liberty to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children. When a state policy deliberately interferes with that relationship, parents should not be turned away at the courthouse door.” This case will settle a dispute between the Ninth Circuit and other circuits, as well as existing Supreme Court precedent, regarding whether parents can be denied standing when policies are adopted that threaten their right to make important decisions for their minor children. “The constitutional injury occurs when the State displaces fit parents as the rightful decisionmakers for their children,” Wagner said. “Parents do not need to wait until irreversible harm occurs before seeking judicial protection. The Constitution protects the family precisely because some liberties are too fundamental to be left to bureaucratic discretion.” The case arises from State of Washington policies allowing state actors and shelters to withhold critical information from parents when a child seeks gender-related services. “The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case reflects the seriousness of the constitutional issues presented,” Wagner said. “A free constitutional republic must respect the family as an institution that precedes the state. Government exists to protect children by respecting the rightful role of loving and fit parents, not by secretly replacing them.” Wagner added that the Court’s review comes at a critical time. “Across the country, parents are asking whether the Constitution still protects their ability to guide, nurture, and care for their children. By agreeing to hear this case, the Supreme Court has taken an important step toward reaffirming that parental liberty remains one of our nation’s oldest and most fundamental rights.”  Media inquiries can be directed to Media@parentalrights.org .

On Monday, June 22, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed two bills touching on the termination of parental rights. Both bills now move to the Pennsylvania Senate. House Bill 133 (HB 133) would add a section to Pennsylvania law providing a pathway for the restoration of parental rights after those rights have been terminated. And House Bill 138 (HB 138) provides that parental incarceration alone shall not be grounds for the termination of parental rights. Both bills are championed by Rep. Rick Krajewski, a Democrat representing West Philadelphia. Under HB 138, an incarcerated parent can retain parental rights if their crime was not one of physical or sexual abuse against the child, and as long as they “mak[e] efforts to the extent feasible to comply with family service plan requirements and otherwise maintain a meaningful role in the child’s life during the time of incarceration.” This means a parent incarcerated for a non-violent crime doesn’t necessarily lose their rights to their children for life (nor do their children lose their rights to connection with their parents) simply due to their incarceration. Of course, the parents lose custody for the time they are in jail, but their relationship is not terminated and can be resumed when the incarcerated parent has served their time. This bill will result in fewer children needing permanent placements through the Office of Children, Youth, and Families (CYF), as many children can be returned to their parents’ care after the incarceration period. Reducing the number of family terminations is a very good thing, and the Parental Rights Foundation supports this bill to keep families together. Unlike HB 138, which aims to preserve families, HB 133 would restore families whose rights have already been terminated. As in other states with similar laws, HB 138 would only apply under certain conditions: Only a (former, rights-terminated) parent, a lawyer representing said parent, a lawyer representing the child, or the agency (CYF) can apply to the court for a restoration of parental rights; They can only do so after at least fifteen months have passed since the termination order was completed or once the child turns 17 years old; and They can only do so if either the child is still in the custody of the Agency with no petition for adoption underway, or the child has been returned to the Agency after a failed adoption. In other words, if no one else has claimed the child in the interim, their original parents can attempt to have them returned. As in other states, the restoration of parental rights once they have been terminated is an uphill climb for the parent. They have to show that the conditions which led to the termination have been significantly changed and that their child will now be safe with them again. But that is as one would expect, if the termination of parental rights was for legal cause in the first place, as the court must assume it was. (Every year, far too many families are permanently separated through the termination of parental rights, including innocent families who should never have been separated in the first place. But later courts do not have the luxury of assuming a termination was wrong; they have to assume that it was correct and make sure its reversal is safe for the children involved.) HB 133, then, will not be a silver bullet allowing parents whose rights were wrongfully terminated to retry their termination and be exonerated. But it does provide a path, albeit an arduous one, by which families can be reunited after a termination. For that reason, the Parental Rights Foundation supports HB 133, as well. (To learn more about the termination of parental rights and its impact on families, check out our EPPiC Broadcast episode with Alex Cinney and Toia Potts here. ) Both bills passed the House Appropriations Committee on Monday, and immediately went to the House Floor. HB 133 passed by a vote of 191-11, and HB 138 passed by a vote of 200-2. As a result, both bills have been submitted to the Pennsylvania Senate for its consideration. What You Can Do If you live in Pennsylvania , consider reaching out to your state senator (the one in Harrisburg, not the ones in D.C.) and urge their support of HB 133 and HB 138 when they come to the Senate for a vote. You can find your lawmaker’s contact information here. And if you don’t live in Pennsylvania , check your state’s laws, or check with your state lawmakers, to see if your state has or could use a law like HB 138 to keep families together beyond a parent’s incarceration, or a law like HB 133 to allow families to be reunited after a termination of parental rights. Together, we can bring good laws like these to additional states, preserving or restoring families all over the country. Thank you for standing with us to protect children by empowering parents through these and other efforts in the legislature and in the courts.

For nearly 20 years, first as ParentalRights.org and now as the Parental Rights Foundation , we have kept you up-to-date on the rapidly changing landscape of parental rights across the country. Whether we were releasing new research, tracking legislative developments, or highlighting key parental rights issues making headlines, our goal has been to provide reliable information and analysis you can trust. Now we plan to do the very same thing in a new medium: text messages. Our regular newsletters will continue to come right to your inbox, and we can continue to send legislative alerts there, as well. But if you would like, you can now sign up to receive text messages from the Parental Rights Foundation. By subscribing, you'll receive timely alerts about significant parental rights developments, important Foundation resources, research publications, and opportunities to stay informed and engaged. Text messages will allow us to share critical updates more quickly than email when important events occur. We will not send ads. We will not blow up your phone with unwanted fluff. (And we won’t give your info to anyone else, either!) Instead, next legislative season, you can get alerts directly to your phone, complete with links you can use to take action, right there in the palm of your hand. Whether or not you sign up for this service, we will continue to update you by email just as we always have. But if you'd like to receive timely updates directly to your phone, this new service is for you! To receive these updates, simply sign up on our website today.

Last year’s Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor won’t do families any good if schools continue to ignore it for want of official guidance from the federal government. That’s essentially the message we sent in a letter to the U.S. Department of Education last week. In June of 2025, the Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor , a case over whether parents have a right to opt their children out of materials in the public schools that the parents find objectionable for religious reasons. The litigants, including Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic families, argued that the Baltimore County School System violated their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children by undermining the parents’ religious instruction to their children. The Court sided with the parents. But a full year later, reports are coming in from around the country of school systems continuing the practice, pushing content on even their youngest students without concern or respect for parents’ objections. In a few places, like California, the pressure to ignore family autonomy and ride roughshod over parents’ rights comes from the state. But in most instances, these decisions are being made at the local level. And I am gratified to see parents battling at the local level to bring their own local school boards into line with constitutional parental rights. But the federal government has a key role to play in situations like this, too. A lot of education dollars come through the federal government, and those funds come with strings attached; only those states who play by the federal rules get the federal dollars. (The Parental Rights Foundation does not hold a position on whether this should be how the system works; we merely observe that this is how the system works.) And that means that states and localities alike need to be mindful of any official guidance that comes down from the Department of Education. Ignoring such guidance can result in a loss of federal funding. This is why the absence so far of federal guidance on the application of Mahmoud is so disappointing, especially from an Administration seeking to be favorable to families and to parental rights. What’s more, federal dollars should not be used to support education sources that are actively and intentionally violating fundamental, constitutionally protected rights, such as the rights of parents recognized in the Mahmoud case. “In some places, the response to the Mahmoud decision has been disappointing, at best,” says Parental Rights Foundation board chairman and constitutional law professor emeritus William Wagner. “Clear guidance from the federal government can help put these school districts back on the proper legal footing, one that respects the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.” In short, as schools and administrators seek clarity regarding parental rights and constitutional protections, we urged the Department of Education to issue guidance that those educational professionals can rely on to properly apply the principles set forth in Mahmoud . Parental rights are fundamental, Supreme Court recognized rights that deserve protection and respect. If such guidance is issued, as we hope it will be, we will let you know and celebrate the win together. Thank you for standing with us to protect children by empowering parents.