Huntington Beach moves toward ‘parents’ right to know’ ordinance, challenging ban on forced outing

SAN DIEGO (CN) — Huntington Beach will work to fight California’s prohibition on forcing educators to out LGBTQ students after the City Council voted Tuesday night to prepare a "parents' right to know" ordinance. 

Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark submitted a request to prepare the ordinance in response to Governor Gavin Newsom signing the Support Academic Futures & Educators for Today’s Youth — or SAFETY — Act last month. The law requires schools to develop and update resources to support LGBTQ students and their families.

The law restricts school employees from revealing details about a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression without that student’s consent. It also prohibits school districts from making rules that force teachers to disclose that information to parents and guardians and bars school districts from punishing employees who support a student’s rights.

For supporters, the state’s law just clarifies the status quo — not forcing teachers to out their LGBTQ students, and granting students privacy and personal autonomy rights, an important protection for kids who might have bigoted or abusive guardians.

For opponents, the law is an assault on parental rights and authority.

It’s “a grave injustice against parents,” Van Der Mark said at the meeting. “It is a direct violation against our rights to raise our children.

She called the law a "predatory act," saying it encourages children to hide vital information from their parents, who have a right to know what is happening in their kids' lives. 

Van der Mark said the law is one of a series of egregious bills that not only amount to abuses of power, but also mark the systematic destruction of California, leading families and industry to leave the state. She cited Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which is moving its headquarters to Texas.    

The mayor’s ordinance declares the city to be a “parents’ right to know” city and directs the city attorney to find ways to challenge the law or join a lawsuit brought by parents. 

Councilmember Rhonda Bolton asked if the ordinance means the city will pursue a lawsuit against the state.

Van Der Mark said that the city will "explore any options or possibilities to assist any parents who would like to overturn AB 1955" and start "looking into the problem.” She said the city’s attorney would return to the council with an ordinance in September.

Bolton argued that the city wouldn’t have standing in court, so filing a suit would be a waste of time and money. 

Councilmember Dan Kalmick added that the city doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce ordinances over local school districts, especially since they stretch beyond the borders of Surf City into nearby Orange County towns.

Councilmember Natalie Moser asked if teachers could potentially face misdemeanor charges for noncompliance with an ordinance. 

“I don’t know if there will be,” Van Der Mark said. “Anything is possible.”

Councilmember Tony Strickland said he hopes the city’s attorney will ensure that the city is protected. He said questions about specifics were better left for when the ordinance is presented.  

Kalmick referred to the possibility of the state suing the city again.

“I think if we get three lawsuits from the state we get free sandwiches, I don’t know,” he said, alluding to the long-running legal battle over the city’s refusal to adopt a state law intended to boost affordable housing in an ever-more-expensive market.   

After referring to the SAFETY Act as “another abuse of the LGBTQ community,” Mayor Pro Tem Pat Burns compared the law to what he said was the state’s overreach in dictating the city's housing policies. 

During the meeting’s public comment portion, resident Deborah Feliz claimed the ordinance was introduced to deflect criticism from the release of a settlement agreement between the city and operators of a local air show. 

"We do have issue here," she said. "Homelessness, crime, trash, out of control e-bikers, illegal short term renters, lack of police force and a shortage of city funds, which I do believe are all things this city could put a dent in — if it was only willing to do what was best for the city, not the state, not the church, not their personal gain.

"Going forward, consider this: Stop suing the state. Start compromising," Feliz said.

Eva Weiss said she’s supportive of the mayor’s ordinance but wonders why the city isn’t taking care of more pressing issues, like potholes or bathrooms on the city’s famous beaches. At least one of those bathrooms doesn’t work and floods with sewage, she said. She said repeated calls to the city’s public works department haven't helped, and she understands fixing these issues requires time and money.

“Isn’t lawsuits a lot of money also? But somehow the city finds money for it,” she added.   

A number of speakers said they saw the mayor’s ordinance as a righteous fight for parental rights against the government telling parents how to raise their kids.

Renn, who identifies as trans, said they’re deeply saddened to hear about parents who aren't as supportive as their parents were.  

Renn was once the head of their school’s gay-straight alliance club, where they heard horror stories about parents being abusive to children expressing their gender and sexual identities, they said during the public comment part of the hearing. 

“If we’re actually concerned about the future of these children, we need to give them a better education,” Renn said. 

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit