SHAME ON THEM! DEALING WITH UNRULY, DISRUPTIVE, AND ABUSIVE PARENTS ON CAMPUS By David Backus Attorney at Law Underwood Law Firm P.C. Lubbock, Texas “Son, that is no way to speak about the President of the United States! You may not respect the man, but you must respect the office he holds.” With those words, my father chastised me many years ago after I spoke derogatorily about the President following his speech to the nation. My peers and I grew up in an environment where those in authority over us were held in high esteem by our parents regardless of their flaws. It was this knowledge that caused me, at approximately the same point in time, to tell my parents one day that all had gone well at school when, in fact, I had been paddled by the principal for my misbehavior. In my adolescent worldview, I knew with absolute certainty that if my parents were made aware of my misconduct and punishment at school, there would be additional consequences at home. These anecdotes occurred in 1977. Times have changed. In 2011, it is just as likely that a student disciplined at school will report the discipline immediately to a parent and that the parent will take up the student’s cause against the school to varying degrees of intensity. Oftentimes the parental defense of a perceived injustice to a child at school includes retaining a lawyer to fight the school. Other times, the parent determines to fight the school on his or her own. Either way, an angry parent poses a difficult dilemma for the school administrator. On the one hand, the law clearly states that parents are partners with administrators in the education of their children.1 On the other hand, partners sometimes disagree vehemently about what course of action is best for the partnership. Add into the mix the intensity of emotions the parent may feel, and you often have a recipe for disaster. This article will explore, through the examination of a “real world” situation,2 the options that an administrator has when dealing with a partnership that has gone bad, i.e., dealing with a problem parent. The author’s hope is that, by the end of the article, the reader will understand that the administrator is greatly empowered by the law to deal effectively with such a parent. 1 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. PARENT RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION Under the U.S. Constitution, parents have a constitutional right to direct the care, education, and upbringing of their children.3 Parents whose access to their child’s campus has been restricted have sued, claiming violations of that constitutional right. For example, in a recent case involving the Lake Travis Independent School District, Yvonne and Larry Meadows sued the district after Mrs. Meadows was refused access to certain secured areas of her children’s elementary school.4 A new visitor’s policy known as Regulation FFF, required all school visitors to provide personal identification to determine whether they were registered sex offenders. The district implemented the policy following an incident in which a sex offender gained access to a school in the district and exposed himself to a child. It was designed to provide greater safety for students. When Mrs. Meadows refused to provide her driver’s license information at her children’s campus, the district placed restrictions on her ability to access certain areas of the campus. The Meadows challenged the policy as a violation of their constitutional rights. The trial court granted judgment against the Meadows and they appealed. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Meadows’ main argument was that Regulation FFF violated their substantive due process right to direct their children’s education. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that the Meadows failed to show that they had a fundamental right to access secure areas of the school. The appeals court stated that “[w]e readily acknowledge that parents do have a constitutional right to direct their children’s education, but the Meadows have put forth no caselaw for the proposition that this right extends so far as to include the unfettered right of a parent to visit all areas of a school campus while students are present.” Further, the record showed that the Meadows were not denied the ability to make fundamental decisions about their children’s education. Even if the Meadows had a fundamental right to access all areas of the school, Regulation FFF did not violate that right. The appeals court applied the “strict scrutiny” standard to this constitutional claim, requiring consideration of whether the district had a “compelling interest” in enforcing its policy and whether the policy was “narrowly tailored” to serve that interest. According to the appeals court, the district had a “compelling interest” in determining whether a potential visitor is a registered sex offender. Further, the regulation was “narrowly tailored” because the Raptor system took only the minimum amount of information necessary to determine sex-­‐offender status, identify the visitor, and ensure the lack of a false positive reading. In another case out of Duncanville Independent School District, a federal court upheld the district’s decision to restrict a father’s access to his son’s elementary school.5 The summary judgment record showed an escalating pattern of threatening, abusive, and disruptive conduct 2 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. by the father toward the faculty and administration at the school. The incidents included yelling at his son's first grade teacher and following her into the parking lot, swatting his son and another student on the backside for misbehaving as they walked down the hallway, and using profanity when addressing school administrators. At first, the father was restricted from entering the classroom but was allowed to eat lunch with his son and daughter in a separate area of the cafeteria. The man also was told to schedule a formal conference with the principal if he wanted to communicate with any teachers. When he ignored those directives, he was banned from the campus. Nevertheless, the father continued to defy school officials by entering the campus and verbally taunting teachers. Twice the police were called to remove him from school property. He also confronted his son's teacher during a class field trip to the zoo, shouting “No Justice, No Peace” and using profanity in front of the students. The trial court observed that “no court has ever interpreted the due process clause to create a parental right of unfettered access to school facilities. To the contrary, courts have consistently upheld the authority of school officials to control activities on school property. This includes barring third parties, including parents, from access to the premises when necessary to maintain order and prevent disruptions to the educational environment.”6 Thus, school officials can take action against abusive, disruptive parents to restrict their access to the campus. SCENARIO Texas ISD’s elementary school campus, Sam Houston Elementary, is a prekindergarten through 5th grade campus that educates about 350 students. The campus principal encourages as much parental involvement in classroom activities as the parents can manage in their busy schedules. The administrator has seen the positive effects of this high parental involvement in lower student discipline referrals and higher standardized test scores. But, there is a new parent who is a distraction to her son, Billy, as well as to the other students in Billy’s first grade class. When she visits Billy’s class, Billy’s mother insists that he sit on her lap. Unfortunately, when he does sit on mommy’s lap, he not only ceases to pay attention to the classroom instruction, but he also speaks loudly to his mother in such a manner as to be a distraction to the other students. When Billy’s teacher approached her calmly to ask that she let Billy stay seated at his desk during the instruction, the parent belligerently responded, “Hell no! I’ll treat him the way I want.” The statement was uttered at a volume a little louder than a whisper, loud enough for several children in the class to hear it. Since the teacher did not want to escalate the tension, she let the matter drop but reported it to the campus principal, informing the principal that the issue must be addressed immediately or there would be an overall negative impact on the 3 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. instructional and learning environment in the classroom. The principal called Billy’s mother and set an appointment to visit with her the next day. As the principal began that meeting with the parent, it quickly became clear to the principal that the parent was not interested in cooperating with school officials. At one point during the meeting, she cut the principal off during the conversation, accused the principal of discriminating against her son, and called the principal a “Nazi.” Seeing that the meeting was not going well, the principal stated calmly that the meeting was over and they would discuss the matter again in the future. At this point, the parent screamed profanities at the principal and got up to leave the office. As she was leaving the principal’s office, Billy’s mother stated to the principal’s secretary, “Stop looking at me like that or I’m going to kick your ass!” On the way out of the building, Billy’s mother stopped at the exit door and prevented a group of third graders from going out to the playground by blocking the exit with her body. While standing at the door, she yelled to the teacher escorting the children, “Your principal is a Mother F@#%$!” With that last statement, Billy’s mother turned around, slammed open the exit doors of the building, got into her car, and recklessly raced out of the parking lot. What is the principal to do? The first legal reality that the principal must understand is that, although the elementary campus is a public building, the public does not have unrestricted access to his or her building.7 Moreover, the legislature has specifically granted to school district boards of trustees the ability to “adopt rules for the safety and welfare of students, employees, and property and other rules it considers necessary to carry out [the protection of building and grounds] and the governance of the district, including rules providing for the operation and parking of vehicles on school property.”8 Therefore, the first place that the principal of Sam Houston Elementary School must look in order to find out what the Texas ISD school board has adopted regarding the principal’s authority to deal with a problem parent is policy GKA(LOCAL). The typical school district GKA(LOCAL) policy states the following: “Principals and other designated employees are authorized to: 1. Refuse entry onto school grounds to persons who do not have legitimate business at the school; 4 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. 2. Request any unauthorized person or any person engaging in unacceptable conduct to leave the school grounds; 3. Request assistance of law enforcement officers in cases of emergency; and 4. Seek prosecution for violations of law as permitted by statute.” Clearly, GKA(LOCAL) grants to the principal authority to ask any disruptive parent to leave his or her campus, but it also begs the question, “What if the parent refuses to leave?” Again, the legislature has given the principal, and other district administrators, the authority to deal with that contingency as well. Specifically, the Texas Education Code states: “The board of trustees of a school district or its authorized representative may refuse to allow a person without legitimate business to enter on property under the board’s control and may eject any undesirable person from the property on the person’s refusal to leave peaceably on request. Identification may be required of any person on the property.”9 Even though the law permits an administrator to do so, it is not the author’s advice that any administrator engage in the forcible ejection of a parent or other person refusing to leave school property. Such physical interaction with the public should only be conducted by appropriate law enforcement personnel. Because it is a rare circumstance where a police officer is present at a school campus exactly at the time a parent is engaging in a breach of the peace, it is imperative that campus administrators conduct training and rehearsals with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the campus to respond quickly to calls for the forcible ejection of a person refusing to leave peaceably. The principal is in an uncomfortable position if a belligerent parent refuses to leave the campus and the principal has no idea whom to call or what to do next. The possibility of unruly patrons on school campuses is a modern reality. A principal needs to know that, when he or she is facing an impasse with a parent, a police officer can be called upon to respond quickly to escort a parent off school grounds, physically if necessary. In the scenario presented above, the parent did not refuse to leave campus, but instead left in a manner that few who saw it will ever forget. Is there anything that the Sam Houston Elementary School principal can do to ensure that Billy’s mother does not engage in a repeat performance? The answer to that question is, yes. 5 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. The law permits the principal to bar a person from trespassing onto his or her campus in the future. One trespassing law is found in the Education Code and the other one is in the Penal Code. Both trespassing laws provide for criminal enforcement against the trespasser. However, the Education Code trespassing statute only provides for a Class C misdemeanor punishment, which carries a maximum penalty of a $500.00 fine.10 The Penal Code trespassing statute, on the other hand, provides for a harsher, Class B misdemeanor punishment to a violator. Punishment for a Class B misdemeanor is a maximum of a $2,000.00 fine, 180 days in jail, or both the fine and confinement.11 In either case, there is a prerequisite that the principal must accomplish prior to enforcement. An examination of both statutes will clarify what Billy’s principal must do to effectively bar his mother from the campus. First, the Education Code statute states the following: “An unauthorized person who trespasses on the grounds of any school district of this state commits an offense. . .”12 It is the author’s opinion that, in the scenario being examined, Billy’s mother is not an “unauthorized person” to the Sam Houston Elementary School campus during school hours because the principal encourages parents to come onto campus during the day to interact with teachers and students. Therefore, until such time as the principal informs her that she is no longer authorized on campus, Billy’s mother can argue she is legally allowed to be there. Certainly, if Billy’s mother comes to school before being notified that she is no longer permitted on school grounds, the principal can inform her orally to depart from the campus, and if she refuses to leave, Billy’s mother, at that point, becomes an “unauthorized person” on school grounds subject to forcible removal and a $500.00 fine. However, it is better to be proactive and prevent another similar incident from occurring. Thus, if possible, the notice to the parent should be given to her before she has an opportunity to return to the campus. The Education Code statute does not specify what form such a notice should take. In the absence of any guidance in the statute itself, written notice should suffice. Further, the district should send the notice in a way that it can later prove that delivery occurred. The two methods of delivery recommended are: (1) hand delivery by a uniformed law enforcement officer, or (2) certified mail, return receipt requested. The former method is the preferred one because it can be accomplished the same day the incident occurred. Once the district has proof that the parent has been informed in writing of her exclusion from school grounds, it is a simple matter to convince law enforcement of the parent’s “unauthorized” status should the parent be found on school property. 6 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. The second trespassing statute found in the Penal Code contains the harsher penalties and states the following: “A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person: 1. Had notice that the entry was forbidden; or 2. Received notice to depart but failed to do so.”13 This Penal Code trespassing statute further defines “entry” to mean “intrusion of the entire body”14 onto the prohibited area, and defines “notice” to include five different means of communicating that the entry is prohibited, the most relevant of which is “oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner.”15 The principal of Sam Houston Elementary School has apparent authority under GKA(LOCAL) to lawfully give oral or written notice that a person’s entry is forbidden on his or her campus. Therefore, the principal should communicate to Billy’s mother in writing that her conduct was disruptive to the educational environment and, as a consequence, she is not allowed on campus. Such written warnings are commonly referred to as “Trespass Warnings.” Although the trespassing statutes do not provide for limits on the duration of Trespass Warnings, it is recommended that a finite period of time be cited in the warning. Having a specific duration of time for application of the Trespass Warning protects the school district against an argument by the parent that the prohibition interferes with the parent’s greater constitutional parental rights. When considering the appropriate duration for a Trespass Warning based on parental belligerence at school or a school function, it is prudent to err on the side of a longer period rather than a shorter one, and not to cover more than one school year, except in the most egregious of circumstances. After the initial shock of receiving the Trespass Warning dissipates and the parent realizes that the school administration is well within its legal prerogative to issue such a warning, a parent will often work hard with the district administration to reduce its length. Ultimately, the goal of the administration is peaceful cooperation with such a parent in the matters of the school and a restoration of the partnership in the education of the parent’s child. 7 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. To that end, many if not most administrators will reduce the length of the Trespass Warning upon being convinced that the parent is willing to conduct herself in a civil manner. Criminal Prosecution Now, assuming that the Sam Houston Elementary School principal has had a uniformed police officer deliver a Trespass Warning to Billy’s mother extending through the rest of the semester, it is time to examine what other remedies the law provides to a school district administrator dealing with a parent’s misconduct while on school grounds. The Education Code provides for several criminal offenses that are potentially applicable to Billy’s mother at Sam Houston Elementary. The first applicable offense is “Disruptive Activities.” That criminal provision states: “(a) A person commits an offense if the person, alone or in concert with others, intentionally engages in disruptive activity on the campus or property of any private or public school. (b) For purposes of this section, disruptive activity is: (1) Obstructing or restraining the passage of persons in an exit, entrance, or hallway of a building without the authorization of the administration of the school; (2) Seizing control of a building or portion of a building to interfere with an administrative, educational, research, or other authorized activity; (3) Preventing or attempting to prevent by force or violence or the threat of force or violence a lawful assembly authorized by the school administration so that a person attempting to participate in the assembly is unable to participate due to the use of force or violence or due to a reasonable fear that force or violence is likely to occur; (4) Disrupting by force or violence or the threat of force or violence a lawful assembly in progress; or (5) Obstructing or restraining the passage of a person at an exit or entrance to the campus or property or preventing or attempting to prevent by force or violence or by threats of force or violence the ingress or egress of a person to or from the property or campus without the authorization of the administration of the school. (c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor. 8 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. (d) Any person who is convicted the third time of violating this section is ineligible to attend any institution of higher education receiving funds from this state before the second anniversary of the third conviction. (e) This section may not be construed to infringe on any right of free speech or expression guaranteed by the constitution of the United States or of this state.”16 Undeniably, Billy’s mother was disruptive when she had her episode at the campus, but did she violate the above statute? Most likely she did. When she prevented the third grade class from going outside to the playground, she “obstruct[ed] or restrain[ed] the passage of persons in an exit, entrance, or hallway of a building without the authorization of the administration of the school.” Because she obstructed the class from going to the playground, Billy’s mother could be arrested and charged with a Class B misdemeanor offense. But that is not all. The Education Code also provides for a criminal offense in a situation where a person engages in activity that causes a disruption to classes. Specifically, the Code states: (a) A person commits an offense if the person, on school property or on public property within 500 feet of school property, alone or in concert with others, intentionally disrupts the conduct of classes or other school activities. (b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. The statute further defines the relevant terms as follows: (1) "Disrupting the conduct of classes or other school activities" includes: (A) Emitting noise of an intensity that prevents or hinders classroom instruction; (B) Enticing or attempting to entice a student away from a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend; (C) Preventing or attempting to prevent a student from attending a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend; and (D) Entering a classroom without the consent of either the principal or the teacher and, through either acts of misconduct or the use of loud or profane language, disrupting class activities. 9 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. (2) ‘Public property’ includes a street, highway, alley, public park, or sidewalk. (3) ‘School property’ includes a public school campus or school grounds on which a public school is located and any grounds or buildings used by a school for an assembly or other school-­‐sponsored activity.”17 Again, when Billy’s mother prevented the third grade class from going to the playground, she “prevent[ed] or attempt[ed] to prevent a student from attending a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend.” If so, Billy’s mother’s conduct is a criminal offense under the statute. It may be further argued that her loud use of profanity was a “noise of an intensity that prevents or hinders classroom instruction.” In either instance, if she is guilty of the offense, it is only punishable by a fine as a Class C misdemeanor offense. Nevertheless, the consequences for her conduct at Sam Houston Elementary School are escalating, and there is yet one more arena in which she may face penalties, and that concerns her ability to operate a personal vehicle safely on school property. Most school districts in Texas have rules and regulations governing the parking and operation of motor vehicles on school grounds. These rules are clearly authorized in the Education Code.18 Moreover, the Code specifically states that “a law or ordinance regulating traffic on a public highway or street applies to the operation of a vehicle on school property. . .”19 The two traffic laws that Billy’s mother potentially violated are Reckless Driving20 and Moving a Parked Vehicle.21 These two traffic laws prohibit drivers from operating their vehicles in a manner that disregards the safety of persons or property.22 Billy’s mother apparently was doing just that when she raced out of the school’s parking lot. More important than the traffic violation, though, is the administration’s ability to prohibit a parent, such as Billy’s mother, from operating a vehicle on school grounds at all. Specifically, the Education Code states that a school district may bar or suspend a person from driving or parking a vehicle on any school property as a result of the person’s violation of any rule adopted by the school district board of trustees or for violating any of the statutes set forth in Subchapter D of Chapter 37 of the Education Code.23 To sum up, the scenario involving Billy’s mother has illustrated that the Sam Houston Elementary School principal has the following authority: 1. To ask a parent to leave school grounds; 2. To forcibly eject the parent if she refuses to leave; 3. To ban such a parent from returning to the campus; 10 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. 4. To seek criminal charges against the parent for engaging in the offenses of Disruptive Activities and Disruption of Classes; and 5. To prevent a parent from operating a motor vehicle on campus. These powers given to the principal can generally be categorized as penal because they result in the school district or some other municipal or state authority penalizing the parent for her misconduct. Administrators often ask whether there are also civil mechanisms for addressing situations when a parent acts in a manner detrimental to the educational environment at school. The answer to that question is, yes, there are some potentially applicable causes of action under the civil law. Unfortunately, the legislature in its 82nd Legislative Session made pursuing them much more difficult when it passed House Bill 2973, which is known as the Anti-­‐SLAPP law.24 Civil Prosecution On June 17, 2011, the Anti-­‐SLAPP law enacted by House Bill 2973 was signed by the Governor and went into effect immediately. The law added a new chapter to the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies, Code the stated purpose of which is as follows: “The purpose of this chapter is to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury.”25 Each of the rights enumerated in the purpose statement is further defined by the new law as follows: “‘Exercise of the right of association’ means a communication between individuals who join together to collectively express, promote, pursue, or defend common interests.”26 “‘Exercise of the right of free speech’ means a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern.27 “‘Exercise of the right to petition’ means any of the following:28 (A) a communication in or pertaining to: 11 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. (i) a judicial proceeding; (ii) an official proceeding, other than a judicial proceeding, to administer the law; (iii) an executive or other proceeding before a department of the state or federal government or a subdivision of the state or federal government; (iv) a legislative proceeding, including a proceeding of a legislative committee; (v) a proceeding before an entity that requires by rule that public notice be given before proceedings of that entity; (vi) a proceeding in or before a managing board of an educational or eleemosynary institution supported directly or indirectly from public revenue; (vii) a proceeding of the governing body of any political subdivision of this state; (viii) a report of or debate and statements made in a proceeding described by Subparagraph (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii); or (ix) a public meeting dealing with a public purpose, including statements and discussions at the meeting or other matters of public concern occurring at the meeting; (B) a communication in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, judicial, or other governmental body or in another governmental or official proceeding; (C) a communication that is reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review of an issue by a legislative, executive, judicial, or other governmental body or in another governmental or official proceeding; (D) a communication reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to effect consideration of an issue by a legislative, executive, judicial, or other governmental body or in another governmental or official proceeding; and (E) any other communication that falls within the protection of the right to petition government under the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of this state.” 12 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. If a school district elects to pursue a civil legal action against a parent for engaging in what it believes to be unreasonable or irrational behavior and the parent responds that his or her actions were not unreasonable but were instead an exercise of the right to association, speech, or petition as those terms are defined above, the Anti-­‐SLAPP law allows the parent to move the court to dismiss the lawsuit.29 Following the service of the motion to dismiss on the school district, the court must hold a hearing on the parent’s motion within 30 days.30 Then, following the hearing, the court must rule on the motion with 30 days.31 The court must dismiss the case if the parent presents a preponderance of evidence that the lawsuit is based on the exercise of a right of association, speech, or petition, unless the school district can rebut the parent’s case with clear and convincing evidence for each element of the cause of action underlying the initial lawsuit.32 The Anti-­‐SLAPP law essentially provides for a mini-­‐trial before the real trial for parents to complain that the lawsuit brought by the school district is being brought for the purpose of chilling a constitutional right. Due to the breadth of the definitions for each of the rights protected in the new statute, school districts will need to thoroughly examine the wisdom of bringing any civil action against a parent. The penalties against a school district for bringing an action that is subsequently dismissed under the Anti-­‐SLAPP law include reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, other equitable remedies, and sanctions against the school that are “sufficient to deter the [school district] from bringing similar actions.”33 Fortunately, the Anti-­‐SLAPP law by its own terms does not apply “to an enforcement action that is brought in the name of this state or a political subdivision of this state by the attorney general, a district attorney, a criminal district attorney, or a county attorney.”34 The school district’s being a “political subdivision” of the state means that the enforcement mechanisms described in the first portion of this article are not affected by the Anti-­‐SLAPP law. In other words, Billy’s mother would not be able to use the Anti-­‐SLAPP law to prevent her forcible removal from school district property, her Trespass Warnings, her criminal prosecutions, or her traffic prosecutions. Yet, the new Anti-­‐SLAPP must be considered anytime a school district is considering a civil action against a parent due to that parent’s conduct on school grounds, at a school-­‐sponsored event, or anywhere else, if the parent’s actions can be seen as “a communication in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, judicial, or other governmental body or in another governmental or official proceeding.”35 The parameters of the Anti-­‐SLAPP law have not begun to be fully developed in the courts, but its importance to governmental actions against citizens is great. With this cursory examination in the context of dealing with difficult parents, it is the author’s 13 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. hope that school district administrators will tread carefully into testing the limits of the Anti-­‐
SLAPP law. CONCLUSION Although the scenario examined in this article dealt with an elementary school campus, dealing with unreasonable or sometimes irrational parents, is a phenomenon that administrators must deal with at every grade level campus. Knowing the extent of one’s legal authority to act as an administrator can sometimes help diffuse an escalating problem with a parent. Conversely, not knowing the limits of one’s authority can lead an administrator to act in a manner that is difficult to defend after he or she has interacted with the parent. Although the legislature has mandated that parents and administrators act as partners in the education of children, the legislature has also granted to the school administrator a great deal of authority to deal with parents when the partnership breaks down. Yet with all the authority granted to administrators, the legislature’s recently-­‐enacted Anti-­‐SLAPP law must be taken into consideration before a district decides to pursue any sort of civil lawsuit against a parent who is interfering with the operation of its schools. As always, administrators should seek the assistance of their school lawyers when the partnership with a parent has deteriorated to the point of using the enforcement mechanisms described in this article. 1
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 26.001(a). The names have been changed to protect the identities of the parties involved. 3
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923). 4
th Meadows v. Braxdale, 2010 WL 3511662 (5 Cir. 2010). 5
Rodgers v. Duncanville ISD, 2005 WL 770712 and 2005 WL 991287 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (unpublished). 6
See Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 655-­‐56 (4th Cir.1999) (rejecting claim that school administrators must provide parents with “boundless access” to school property); Van Deelen v. Shawnee Mission Unified School Dist. # 512, 316 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (D.Kan.2004) (finding no constitutional right of parent to enter school); Ryans v. Gresham, 6 F.Supp.2d 595, 601 (E.D.Tex.1998) (same). 7
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 38.022. 8
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.102(a). 9
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.105 [Emphasis added]. 10
TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.23. 11
TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.22. 12
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.107. 13
TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.05(a). 14
TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.05(b)(1). 15
TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.05(b)(2)(A). 16
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.123. 17
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.124. 18
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.102(a). 19
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.102(b). 20
TEX. TRANS. CODE § 545.401. 2
14 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012. 21
TEX. TRANS. CODE § 545.402. See TEX. TRANS. CODE § 545.401(a). 23
See TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.106. 24
“SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. 25
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.002. 26
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.001(2). 27
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.001(3). 28
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.001(4). 29
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.003. 30
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.004. 31
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(a). 32
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b) and (c). 33
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.009. 34
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.010(a). 35
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.001(4)(B). 22
15 Reprint permission granted by Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest © 2012.