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.

On May 21, the New York Court of Appeals struck down a proposed state program to evade court oversight in providing an “alternative to formal foster care arrangements.” The case is Lawyers for Children v. OCFS . In 2022, New York’s Office for Children and Family Services launched a new program called Host Family Homes, creating a new pathway for separating families without using formal foster care. Opponents of the program, including Lawyers for Children, The Legal Aid Society of New York, and the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo Inc., argued that the legislature never authorized such a move and that the Office lacked authority to do so on its own initiative. The Parental Rights Foundation joined an amicus brief expressing concerns that the program’s absence of court oversight fails to protect families’ rights. The Host Family Homes program was announced in December of 2021 , and “the state describes the program as ‘temporarily supporting a family when a parent has made a determination that he/she is unable to care for their child’ and has made an informed agreement ‘to allow a host family to care for his or her child as a way to avert the need for more child welfare intervention’,” according to an April 2022 report from ProPublica . The problem, critics of the program argue, is that the program doesn’t include the rules and requirements for protecting children and family rights provided by the state’s existing avenues for placement. This includes existing laws allowing families to voluntarily place their children with others, as well as laws allowing the state’s agencies to take custody of children and place them in foster care. The Host Homes program provides no judicial oversight, no requirement to provide preventative services, nor any requirement to prioritize placement with kin when a child must be separated from a parent. The brief we signed onto, penned by Josh Gupta-Kagan of Columbia Law School's Family Defense Clinic, points out that “Hidden foster care is a coercive practice that strips parents of procedural rights and leads to unnecessary separations.” And for all its good intentions, “[t]he Host Family Homes regulation would create a new form of hidden foster care.” In 2025, the New York Superior Court, which is the state’s appeals court, sided with the agency in a 3-2 decision allowing the program to move forward. The two dissenting justices, though, issued a stinging opinion of their own in which they warned that “OCFS has gone rogue,” creating a program that outs children “in an administrative mousetrap with no way out.” The litigants immediately appealed to the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, which ruled unanimously (7-0) in their favor on May 21 (2026). Writing for the court, Justice Cannataro pointed out several problems with the program. “Under the program, courts need not approve placements lasting longer than 30 days, nor are they required to assess the well-being of the child if they have been left in foster care for over eight months. Because the courts are not involved, the State need not provide assigned counsel to the parents or children to advocate for them during these mandatory hearings. OCFS is likewise not required to identify known friends or relatives who might care for the child, nor offer any government-paid preventive services, before allowing parents to access host family care.” It is precisely this lack of court oversight and legal representation that concerned the Parental Rights Foundation and led us to sign on to the amicus brief. In the court’s conclusion, Cannataro added, “Respondents created the Host Family Homes program to offer parents an alternative means of temporarily placing out their children in times of difficulty. The governing law does not permit them to do so.” We are grateful for the opportunity to have weighed in on this case and gratified that the court ultimately heard our concerns and ended the state’s program. And I am grateful to each of you for standing with us to protect children by empowering parents in New York and across the country.

Last month, the Parental Rights Foundation proudly announced the release of our first-ever State of Parental Rights in America (SOPRA) publication. Today, we are thrilled to bring it to the EPPiC Broadcast . EPPiC stands for “Empowering Parents, Protecting Children,” and the EPPiC Broadcast is the official podcast of the Parental Rights Foundation. Each week, I host a half-hour conversation with a scholar, lawyer, or thought leader in the realm of parental rights. This season , we have featured Kelly Fong and Frank Edwards, Vernadette Broyles, Will Estrada, Sharon Balmer-Cartagena, Alex Cinney and Toia Potts, David Kelly, Layal Bou Harfouch, Allison Green and Natalece Washington, and our new board chairman, William Wagner. Topics ranged from Fong and Edwards’ recent study on the connection between child abuse mortality rates and the number of children taken into foster care (spoiler: there is none!), to a discussion of parental rights cases then before the U.S. Supreme Court, to homeschool freedom, to the benefits of pre-petition counsel for parents, to children’s counsel in CPS cases. Now we’re finishing our twelfth season with two of the authors from this year’s SOPRA publication. May 12: Joyce McMillan The May 12 episode features Joyce McMillan, a left-leaning thought leader and parent activist, whose SOPRA article, “Common Sense Guardrails for CPS,” we unpack on the show. We discuss Joyce’s assertion that Child Protective Services, or CPS, is a carceral apparatus, not a social service system , and that as such, it should be subject to the same due process restrictions as law enforcement. Joyce also shares stories of parents caught in the system, and how recent legislative efforts in New York state are starting to move the needle in favor of keeping families free from unnecessary investigations and intrusions. Joyce is a straight shooter who turned her own tragic experience with the system into a thirty-year service to similarly-situated families. As the founder and executive director of Just Making a Change for Families ( JMAC for Families ), she has helped countless families navigate the treacherous waters of a CPS investigation while lending her voice to so many more. I am honored to have her on our Board of Advisors , and it was a privilege to speak to her for the EPPiC Broadcast . I hope you’ll take a few minutes this week to hear what she had to say. May 19: Emilie Kao Then on May 19, we’ll feature Emilie Kao, (pronounced “Gow,” rhymes with “now”) a conservative scholar and attorney, whose SOPRA article, “Preserving Childhood: Dependency, Consent, and Parental Rights in Healthcare,” fuels our conversation. Emilie shares with me how the “mature minor” doctrine arose in the twentieth century and why it should be discarded in favor of a return to the “parental presumption” that it replaced. It’s a move that would have far-reaching policy implications, but for those who support parental rights, Emilie says, it’s the right thing to do. Children, she says, are not yet ready to make such serious decisions on their own, and parents are their best and surest source of guidance. As senior counsel and vice president of advocacy strategy for Alliance Defending Freedom , Emilie is an eminent scholar in the area of parental rights, having professional experience at Heritage Foundation, the Office of International Religious Freedom at the U.S. Department of State, and even at the United Nations in Geneva. Now we are honored to have her on our Board of Advisors . Emilie has spoken on the role of the family before the United Nations in New York and in Geneva, and before the U.S. Congress in Washington. Next week, I hope you’ll tune in to hear her unpack a bit of family policy just for us in this one-on-one conversation. It was a privilege to host her on the EPPiC Broadcast. What’s Next? After Emilie’s episode, the EPPiC Broadcast will take a break for the summer, starting work in just the next few weeks to bring you new and engaging episodes starting again in September. Please take a moment to share the EPPiC Broadcast with your friends and family who can benefit from serious discussion about the need for parental rights protection in law and policy. And consider making a donation to keep the program on the air. (Like all of the Parental Rights Foundation’s work, the EPPiC Broadcast is completely donor supported.) As always, thank you for standing with us, and with these thought leaders from both sides of the political aisle, in protecting children by empowering parents.

Pictured above: Parental Rights Foundation Vice President Patti Sullivan with January Littlejohn at a Florida event in 2025.

Today, it is my honor and privilege to announce the first-of-its-kind Parental Rights Foundation publication , The State of Parental Rights in America 2026 (SOPRA-26) , featuring scholars and lived-experience experts from the Parental Rights Foundation’s Board of Advisors . The publication strives to take a snapshot of where we are in our defense of parental rights (and the families they protect) right here at the start of 2026. The journal features a few data points to help us track progress year by year, from the number of children in foster care to the list of states with parental rights statutes. But its true strength is in the articles, which take on the issues and highlight the cases that are of greatest importance right now. Columbia University professor Josh Gupta-Kagan takes on the issue of “Hidden Foster Care,” or out-of-home placements that are supposed to be voluntary (but often aren’t) in the interest of avoiding foster care. Martin Guggenheim , NYU professor of law emeritus, writes about the hypocrisy of a child welfare system that claims to seek the best for children, while persisting in practices we all know to be detrimental. And lived-experience advocate (and activist powerhouse!) Joyce McMillan highlights legislation in New York that offers a rare and welcome step forward in protecting families from anonymous hotline calls. These three represent the Parental Rights Foundation’s Board of Advisors Committee on Child Welfare. They are joined by three additional scholars from the Committee on the Constitution. Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris , founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and the Parental Rights Foundation, rejoices in the Supreme Court’s overturning of a case he himself argued decades ago—one that never sat well with him. Melissa Moschella , professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, offers a Catholic perspective on the importance of the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor , probably the most important parental rights case in a quarter century (and, incidentally, the same case Michael Farris celebrates in his article). And Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Emilie Kao tackles the “mature minor doctrine,” opining that it may be time to end this notion in state and federal law. In light of existing Supreme Court precedent, it is certainly a discussion whose time has come. When we first launched the Foundation in 2014, our mission was to provide research with which to educate policymakers, lawmakers, and the general public on the important matters of parental rights. In the years since, we have also found it important for these conversations to take place across the political aisle. With this publication, we lean into both. I dare say many readers will find something in SOPRA-26 that they disagree with. But you will find much more that you can cheer on and support. That’s the beauty of working together across the aisle: it drives us to always “keep the main thing the main thing.” We come from all walks and from many different places on the political spectrum. But we stand united in this: that parents, not government bureaucrats, are in the best position to make the decisions for children, leading them to become their very best selves. I hope you will enjoy reading SOPRA-26 as much as we enjoyed putting it together. I am deeply indebted to our entire Board of Advisors, especially these six who authored papers for this inaugural publication. (Hopefully other members can add their voices to the next edition, too!) Protecting children by empowering parents. It’s the Foundation’s motto, and the theme of the State of Parental Rights in America 2026 . I hope you’ll download and enjoy your copy today—and share it with those who need to hear these voices!

The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday denied certiorari on an appeal from the First Circuit in Foote v. Ludlow , a parental rights case out of Massachusetts. The Parental Rights Foundation had submitted a brief in the case urging the Court to grant cert (that is, to hear the case and rule on its merits). The April 20 decision means the ruling of the First Circuit, that schools did not violate parental rights when they engaged in secret gender transitions with students in public schools, will stand. The Disappointment “I’m disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant cert in this case,” declared William Estrada, the attorney who penned the Parental Rights Foundation’s amicus brief in the case. (Estrada was president of the Foundation at the time and remains on our Board of Advisors.) “I hope that soon the Court will accept one of these cases in the nation and affirm what we all know: that parental rights are fundamental, and they do not end at the public school door.” William Wagner, now chairman of the PRF board of directors, co-authored the brief with Mr. Estrada, and had this to say about the ruling: “While we are disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in Foote, leaving unresolved important questions concerning the scope of parental rights, we remain encouraged by the Court’s recent recognition in Mahmoud that parents possess a fundamental right to direct and control the religious upbringing of their children. That affirmation reflects a constitutional principle deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition. We are confident that, in due course, the Court will provide further clarity to ensure that this foundational liberty is fully protected against governmental intrusion.” The Court receives more than 6,000 cert petitions annually and grants cert to only about 60—that’s less than 1%. As is often the case when denying cert, the Court did not issue any explanation of its decision. We can attempt to guess their thoughts, but this is only speculation. The Court has recently issued two rulings favorable to parents, including in Mahmoud v. Taylor last June (as referenced by Wagner) and in last month’s preliminary injunction ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta . But both of these cases contain an element of religious freedom not present in Foote , which is cause for both disappointment and hope. It is cause for disappointment, because it suggests that when the Court had an opportunity to rule on parental rights apart from religious freedom rights, it declined to do so. Last month’s Mirabelli decision separated out parental due process rights from parental religious freedom rights and hinted favorably toward the parents on both matters. But that is only a preliminary injunction and not a final, dispositive ruling. My personal hope for Foote was a clean statement that parental rights are fundamental on their own, even if separated from any practice of religious freedom. Parental rights should be for all parents, and on all subjects, not just for religious parents or subjects of religious motivation. Yet There Is Hope Yet, this same distinction also brings hope. On the same day that the Court denied cert in the Foote case, they once again distributed for conference an appeal out of the Sixth Circuit in Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County , a case out of Florida very similar to the Foote case, but with a religious component. It is possible that the Court denied cert in Foote because it is leaning toward granting cert in Littlejohn , instead. The cases are similar enough that it always seemed unlikely that the Court would hear both unless they decided to merge them. Sadly, it is also possible that the Court will ultimately pass on Littlejohn , as well. But that would be a huge mistake. No agency or officer of the government should be permitted to keep secrets from parents about the health and wellbeing of their minor children. That is the question that both Foote and Littlejohn (as well as other cases around the country—this has been happening a lot!) raise, and the Court’s proper course should be to answer the question firmly in support of parents’ well established fundamental rights. What You Can Do As a result of this decision, minors throughout New England’s public schools remain vulnerable to overreaching government agents who choose to keep parents in the dark. The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would fix that by making clear that parents, not government employees, have the lawful and natural right to make decisions in the best interests of their children. So, take a moment today to call or email your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to sign on as a cosponsor of HJRes. 127 , proposing the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They’ll need to know that Rep. Mary Miller is the lead sponsor, and they can reach out to Worth Loving in her office to sign on. If the Supreme Court is not going to step in to protect fundamental parental rights in the schools, it is up to Congress and the States to add this protection for our children’s sake.  Thank you for standing with us as we work to protect families both through the Parental Rights Amendment and through our amicus brief efforts on important cases like Foote and Littlejohn .

Here is an urgent message from our friends in Alabama: Time is running out. Wednesday, April 1 is likely the last opportunity to move HB148 to the House floor in time for Senate consideration. HB148 – Fundamental Rights of Parents has passed committee and is ready for a full House vote. This constitutional amendment: Affirms parents as the primary decision-makers in their children’s education, upbringing, care, and control Keeps all existing child-protection laws fully intact Builds on HB6 (Act 2023-555), which passed with strong bipartisan support (87–8) Aligns with the Alabama Republican Party State Executive Committee Resolution (2022-2-15) The Rules Committee is expected to meet Tuesday afternoon to finalize Wednesday’s calendar— likely the final chance to advance HB148. House leadership is preparing the final House calendars before shifting focus to Senate bills in the last week of session. Inclusion now is critical. TAKE ACTION NOW Call AND email BOTH: • The Rules Committee Office (ask for Chairman Rep. Joe Lovvorn) • The Speaker’s Office Say: “Please place HB148 on the Rules Committee pick list and the Special Order Calendar for Wednesday.” Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter nathaniel.ledbetter@alhouse.gov (334) 261-0505 tara.preyer@speaker.alhouse.gov (334) 261-0573 This is time-sensitive—if it’s not scheduled now, it may not move forward. Every call and email counts—act now. Thank you for taking action to protect children by empowering parents in Alabama!

A bill in Minnesota is advancing that would significantly limit parental authority over medical decisions for children. We need your help today to protect families. Below is a quick overview of what’s happening and how you can take action. Threat to Parental Rights Minnesota – SF 3439 (MMR Vaccine Exemptions) Status: Passed Senate Health and Human Services Committee; now in Senate Education Policy Committee SF 3439 would eliminate exemptions for the MMR vaccine for all children, including those who are homeschooled. If enacted, the bill would remove long-standing protections such as informed consent and parental discretion in medical decision-making, effectively requiring this medical procedure for all children in the state. Children are not all the same. Their bodies and circumstances differ, to say nothing of parents’ conscience and beliefs. Parents, with advice from their chosen medical professionals, are in the best position to make vital medical decisions for their children–not Minnesota lawmakers with a cookie cutter. What You Can Do Contact lawmakers: Reach out to the Senate Education Policy Committee and urge them to oppose SF 3439 Prepare to engage: Draft and save written testimony or emails now so you are ready if additional hearings are scheduled. Stay informed: Follow our allies at mnrights.org or on their Facebook page . We will also keep you updated through emails like this one. Upcoming Event Freedom Begins at Home – Rally at the Capitol Location: State Capitol Rotunda Date: Wednesday, April 8 Time: 10:00 AM Minnesota families are gathering to stand together in support of parental rights and conscientious exemptions. This is a peaceful, family-friendly event with confirmed speakers and lawmakers. View more details here . As this bill moves forward, timely engagement will be critical. Your voice can help protect parental rights and ensure families remain empowered to make decisions for their children. Thank you for standing with us.

We have good news to share with those who want to see Reasonable Childhood Independence legislation passed in Ohio. Twelve states have already passed these protections, and now Ohio has the opportunity to join them. SB 277 , sponsored by State Senate Majority Floor Leader Theresa Gavarone, will be heard in the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on March 25, 2026 at 9:45 AM at the State Capitol in Columbus. Momentum is building nationally. Indiana’s Governor signed a Reasonable Childhood Independence bill in February, and Kansas is preparing to vote on its version as well. Now Ohio has the opportunity to protect children’s rights to engage in reasonable independent activities and parents’ abilities to allow them to do so. You can track the progress of the bill here. Here’s How You Can Help We are asking Ohio supporters to either testify in person or submit written testimony in support of SB 277. Option 1: Testify in Person If you are able to travel to Columbus and testify at the hearing, please email Diane Redleaf at LetGrow, who is coordinating the testimony with: A brief statement explaining why you support the legislation A few sentences about your background Diane is happy to provide guidance if you have never testified before. Please note that Ohio does not allow testimony by video/Zoom, so in-person participation is especially appreciated. Option 2: Submit Written Testimony If attending in person is not possible, you can still submit written testimony. A short statement can be as simple as: “Thank you for sponsoring SB 277. I support this legislation because children benefit from reasonable childhood independence, and families should not fear investigation for allowing these normal childhood activities.” Longer testimony (1–3 pages) is also welcome, especially if you can share: Personal or professional experiences related to childhood independence Concerns about children being prevented from engaging in normal independent activities Observations from parenting, education, youth work, or community life Please include: Your name Address and ZIP code Email and phone number Written testimony must be submitted online through the Ohio Senate website at least 24 hours before the hearing. The submission link will appear in the committee notice typically posted the Friday before the hearing (expected March 20) here . You click on the date of the hearing. Then click Upload Testimony. If you submit longer testimony, please also send a copy to Margaret Patrick, Sen. Gavarone’s staff member, at: Margaret.Patrick@ohiosenate.gov and cc Diane at diane@letgrow.org . Additional Way to Help If you live in the district of a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, please consider emailing or calling your State Senator to express support for SB 277. You can find the committee members, their districts, and contact information here . The committee hearing will be live-streamed on The Ohio Channel Thank you so much for helping Let Grow support Ohio children and families by showing support for SB 277.