Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Board of Education

I dissent. Notwithstanding the fact that the fundamental question in this appeal is a procedural one, the proper resolution of which renders any discussion of the substantive constitutional issues premature, the majority reaches the latter by a cavalier disposal of the former in a footnote.

In doing so, the majority has reached a conclusion which is contrary to both the spirit and the law of pleading in this state and, in my opinion, has countenanced the unsavory practice of “judge-shopping” which is specifically prohibited by Code of Civil Procedure, section 1008.

The results of the court’s holding are (1) an unnecessary treatise on constitutional principles which are discussed in the abstract for the simple reason that the issues raised by the pleadings have not been filled in with evidentiary support and amplification, and (2) a denial of the right of the plaintiffs to attempt to factually prove their bases for relief.

*34 A brief summary of the pleading and procedural history in the court below will demonstrate why plaintiffs are entitled to go to trial and why, therefore, the granting of the motion to dismiss was erroneous.

Having traveled a very tortuous route of…

This is an appeal by Citizens for Parental Rights, et al. (an unincorporated association of parents and as individual parents, hereafter parents), from a judgment of dismissal entered to their seventh amended class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. *5 The basic substantive question is whether the implementation of family life and sex education programs by the five respondent school districts in the jurisdiction of respondent, San Mateo County 1 violates the constitutional rights of the individual parents and their children under the First, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.of the United States Constitution, and the parallel provisions of the California Constitution. 2 The case also presents a question of first impression as to the constitutionality of Education Code sections 8506 and 8701. 3 We have concluded that the family life and sex education programs, adoption of the resource guides, and the statutes are constitutional for the reasons set forth below, and that therefore the judgment of dismissal based on the *6 failure of amended complaint to state a cause of action must be affirmed.

*7 Before turning to the issues involved, a brief…

This is an appeal by Citizens for Parental Rights, et al. (an unincorporated association of parents and as individual parents, hereafter parents), from a judgment of dismissal entered to their seventh amended class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The basic substantive question is whether the implementation of family life and sex education programs by the five respondent school districts in the jurisdiction of respondent, San Mateo County [1] violates the constitutional rights of the individual parents and their children under the First, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the parallel provisions of the California Constitution. [2] The case also presents a question of first impression as to the constitutionality of Education Code sections 8506 and 8701. [3] (1) (See fn. 4.) We have concluded that the family life and sex education programs, adoption of the resource guides, and the statutes are constitutional for the reasons set forth below, and that therefore the judgment of dismissal based on the failure of amended complaint to state a cause of action must be affirmed. [4]

Before turning to…