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.

Good news! HB148 – Fundamental Rights of Parents – has been scheduled for the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, March 18, 2026, at 1:30 PM. This constitutional amendment protects parents as the primary decision-makers in their children’s education, upbringing, care, and control, while leaving child-protection laws unchanged. Action: Please contact each committee member before Tuesday afternoon and ask them to vote YES on HB148. Your voice matters in ensuring Alabama families’ rights are fully protected. This bill, championed by Rep. Kenneth Paschal (HD 73), proposes an amendment to the Alabama Constitution to preserve the fundamental liberty of parents for generations to come. If passed in the legislature and favorable voted on by the people, it would make Alabama the second state (after Texas in 2025) to add parental rights to those rights explicitly protected in its constitution. House Judiciary Committee Contacts: Chairman – Rep. Jim Hill Brandy Rogers, Judiciary Clerk (334) 261-0494 | brandy.allen@alhouse.gov Vice Chair – Rep. Tim Wadsworth (205) 300-4008 | wadsworth.tim654321@gmail.com Rep. Russel Bedsole (334) 261-0491 | russell.bedsole@alhouse.gov Rep. Prince Chestnut (334) 261-0598 | chestnut4house@gmail.com Rep. David Faulkner (334) 261-0442 | David@DavidFaulknerAL46.com Rep. Patrice McClammy (334) 261-0580 | patrice.mcclammy@alhouse.gov Rep. Phillip Pettus (334) 261-0591 | phillip.pettus@alhouse.gov Rep. Ben Robbins (334) 261-0477 | ben.robbins@alhouse.gov Rep. Chad Robertson (334) 261-0496 | ChadrobertsonD40@gmail.com Rep. Matt Simpson (334) 261-0424 | MattSimpsonAL96@gmail.com Rep. Jerry Starnes (334) 261-0499 | jerry.starnes@alhouse.gov Rep. Shane Stringer (334) 261-0594 | shane.stringer@alhouse.gov Rep. Ontario Tillman (334) 261-0529 | ojtillman@gmail.com Rep. Chris England (334) 261-0503 | cengland1@hotmail.com Rep. Bryan Brinyark (334) 261-0482 | bryan.brinyark@alhouse.gov Sample Message: “Hello [Representative Name], I’m [Your Name] from [City]. I urge you to vote YES on HB148, the Fundamental Rights of Parents amendment. It protects parents as the primary decision-makers for their children’s education, upbringing, care, and control, without changing child-protection or custody laws. Also included is a fact sheet with additional information. Thank you for supporting Alabama families." Thank you for supporting Alabama families and protecting children by empowering parents.

Call Now to Support the Parental Rights Amendment (HB148)! House Bill 148, sponsored by Kenneth Paschal, would add a Parental Rights Amendment to the Alabama Constitution , affirming that: Parents have the fundamental right to direct the education, upbringing, care, and control of their child. HB148 was placed on the agenda of the Alabama House Judiciary Committee on February 25 but a vote was delayed to make minor edits so the language mirrors the 2023 parental rights law HB6 (Act No. 2023-555). If passed by the Legislature and ratified by the people of Alabama, this amendment would secure parental rights in the state constitution. ACTION NEEDED: Please call or email the Judiciary Committee Clerk and respectfully ask that she relay your request to Chairman Jim Hill to place HB148 on next week’s committee agenda. Contact Brady Allen at brandy.allen@alhouse.gov or (334) 261-0494. A quick call or email today can help protect parental rights for generations.

On Tuesday, March 24, the New York University Annual Survey of Law dedicated its 83rd volume to Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus Martin Guggenheim , whom we are honored to have on our Board of Advisors. In an hour-long tribute available on YouTube , Guggenheim is honored by former students and colleagues who are themselves heavy-hitters in the world of family defense. In opening remarks, NYU School of Law dean Troy Mackenzie said of Marty, “Through his scholarship, through his advocacy, through his teaching, Marty has reshaped how the law understands family integrity, State power, and ultimately justice. ” The Honorable Jey Rajaraman of the Superior Court of New Jersey, former chief counsel for the Family Representation Project at Legal Services of New Jersey, said Marty “gave us [as family defense attorneys] permission: permission to be angry, permission to be bold, permission to fight in ways that matched the stakes…. [He] taught us that before the State exercises the most extraordinary power, the power to permanently separate families, someone must stand up and insist on fairness.” The Honorable Bridget McCormack, former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, summarized that she learned from Marty that “strong parental rights strengthen families, and children’s wellbeing requires that. ” McCormack was a research assistant under Marty before she entered legal practice, and when she was Dean of the Michigan Law School she hired Vivek Sankaran to lead their child advocacy law clinic. Sankaran also has coauthored with Guggenheim and considers Marty one of his top mentors. Fittingly, then, McCormack listed a number of cases from her years on the Michigan Supreme Court and from those argued by Vivek Sankaran that have radically improved Michigan law for parental rights. “Watching Vivek argue [those cases],” she said, “was watching Marty’s influence rippling through Michigan law, case by case, family by family. ” Speaking of one particular case, which Vivek argued and the opinion for which she herself wrote, McCormack shared, “ In Re Sanders happened because Marty trained me, and he trained Vivek, and Vivek in turn trained his students. Together, they changed the law to better protect families throughout our state.” Richard Wexler , Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, likewise highlighted Marty’s role as a “root cause” for many in the family protection movement. Said Richard, “In family defense and family advocacy, Marty Guggenheim is our Edward R. Murrow. Marty Guggenheim is the father of us all. ” (Through twelve seasons hosting or producing our EPPiC Broadcast podcast , with guests from all across the family defense movement, I have found this to be remarkably and incontrovertibly true.) Finally, Marty’s longtime colleague and his successor as director of the Family Law Clinic, Christine Gottlieb , spoke, declaring, “His scholarship galvanized the largely ignored field of family regulation…. [I]n child welfare and family regulation, it’s not an overstatement to say Marty shook the existing ground so hard that the columns have started to teeter, and some are falling. ” Those of you who have suffered injustice at the hands of the family court system will appreciate the weight of that statement. She also highlighted Marty’s role in arguing the Santosky v. Kramer case before the U.S. Supreme Court, saying he convinced the Court to embrace “the idea that, quote, ‘the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.’ This is the simple yet critical idea that the vast majority of time, and until shown otherwise, parents’ and children’s legal interests are aligned, not at odds.” In short, as Gottlieb pointed out, Marty Guggenheim has transformed family defense, and I am honored to have him on our Board of Advisors Committee on Child Welfare. I would also be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to mention a new publication coming out in April, The State of Parental Rights in America 2026 , featuring articles from members of our Board of Advisors, including Marty Guggenheim. I look forward to sharing that with you as soon as it is available. Thank you for standing with us, and following Marty’s legacy, in protecting children by empowering parents.

Across the country, state legislatures are actively considering bills that affect parental rights. Below is a quick overview of a few key developments, with updates on where each bill stands and what it means for families. Protecting Parental Rights Ohio – Senate Bill 277 (Reasonable Childhood Independence Act) Status: Hearing scheduled for March 25 in the Senate Judiciary Committee This bill would clarify that allowing children reasonable independence is not neglect. It ensures that parents can make everyday decisions based on their child’s age and maturity without fear of CPS intervention. Examples of protected activities include riding a bike to school, walking to a nearby park, or playing outside without constant adult supervision. Twelve states have already adopted similar protections, including Indiana earlier this year. This bill would bring Ohio in line with those efforts. New Hampshire – House Bill 1268 Status: Passed the House, moving to the Senate This bill reduces regulatory requirements on homeschooling families, including eliminating the detailed “notice of intent.” If enacted, New Hampshire would become one of the most homeschool-friendly states in the country. The bill affirms that parents, not the government, are best positioned to direct their children’s education. Alabama – House Bill 148 (Parental Rights Amendment) Status: Passed House Judiciary Committee This proposed constitutional amendment would allow Alabama voters to decide whether to explicitly protect parental rights in the state constitution. If approved by both the legislature and voters, Alabama would become the second state after Texas to enshrine parental rights at the constitutional level. The Parental Rights Foundation supports this effort. Threats to Parental Rights Connecticut – House Bill 5468 Status: Under consideration This bill would require schools to notify the Department of Children and Families whenever a child is withdrawn for private schooling or homeschooling. While proponents claim this would only flag existing cases, the practical effect is to treat all families as suspect and expose homeschooling families to the potential trauma of an investigation. Hundreds of families recently gathered at the state capitol to oppose the bill. Our allies at the Home School Legal Defense Association are actively leading efforts against it, with our full support. Minnesota – Multiple Vaccine-Related Bills Status: Under consideration Several bills in Minnesota would significantly restrict parental authority over medical decisions: SF 4017 : Requires parents seeking a vaccine exemption to complete a state-mandated session and obtain physician approval HF 3239 / SF 3439 : Eliminate the conscientious exemption for the MMR vaccine SF 4458 : Eliminates conscientious exemptions for all vaccines Together, these measures would shift decision-making authority away from parents and limit their ability to make individualized medical choices for their children. The Parental Rights Foundation opposes these bills and maintains that such decisions should remain with parents, who know their children best. What You Can Do If you live in one of these states, stay alert for opportunities to take action. Timely engagement can help advance good legislation and stop policies that undermine parental rights. Thank you for standing with us as we work to protect children by empowering parents nationwide.