By Flor Blanco, Photo by Phil Desforges
NOVEMBER 19, 2025, SAN DIEGO–A ninth district federal judge heard arguments for the Mirabelli et. al. v Olson et. al. yesterday in San Diego county. The case involved two former teachers employed in the Escondido School District who thwarted district policy that requried they refer to students by their preferred name. The policy, which is linked to school supported social gender affirmation policies, often aligns preferred name practicies with students expressing gender incongurity issues. In CA, this is often done without any knowledge or notification of parents. Former teachers, Mirabelli and West, believed the policy violated their 1st and 14th amendment rights.
Uncensored Beat was able to obtain information about the hearing from a parent, who is to remain annonymous. The parent attended the hearing and was suprised at the judge’s concern over parental rights, which he expressed was overlooked by the policy. Per the parent, the judge emphasized that the recent law instituted under CA AB1955 did not prevent school staff from informing parents. Instead, the policy prevented districts from implementing displinary policies for scenarios where staff did not notify parents.
Yet, recent school policies that require anti-harrassment training for school staff now include gender affirmation and social transition lessons to support students. Within these lessons include training to withhold notification to parents. Per UB’s contact, PRISIM, one of the common platforms for this type of non-harrassment training, was offline for over a week, making it unavailable for the judge to evaluate the language of the training in preparation of the court date. The abrupt disconnection of the training was an issue for the judge, per our contact. The judge sought to find out those responsible for implementing the so-called updates to the training in tandem with the hearing date as well as those responsible for greenlighting the trainings.
“One of the concerns over these types of trainings and social transitioning school policies is that kids seek medical transitioning procedures at age 18 without their parents ever knowing that their kids were transitioning in school,” shared our UB contact. The parent continued to state the judge expressed medical issues like gender incongruency were outside the scope of responsibility for the school. Proponents of the policies adovocated for safey of transgender children who may fall victim to abuse by parents. Despite expressions of concern towards parents, the judge moved to make a verdict eight-weeks from the date, after further review, per our contact.