The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to decide a major child abuse case that could affect when the state can legally protect children from parental violence.
The case is For the benefit of KN, KL, KL, and KL.began in 2022 as an effort by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to provide services and subsequently terminate parental rights following credible reports of child abuse and neglect for four children. But during oral arguments last December, it was clear that the case’s position had changed. Some justices seemed open to the possibility that a parental rights amendment passed by Texas voters in November 2025 could override Texas’ child abuse laws and require children to be placed in abusive homes. The proposed amendment establishes parents’ “fundamental rights to the care, custody, and control of their children, including the right to make decisions regarding their child’s upbringing.”
This kind of case is by no means the only one. In some jurisdictions across the country, courts, spurred by strong social movements, have expressed an interest in recognizing parental rights far more absolute than those recognized by constitutional precedent or common law. These cases — and KN. In particular, it reveals the dangers of such unlimited parental rights.
From ordinary cases to major constitutional disputes
KN The case began when the state Department of Protective Services intervened in a case involving four children who were undoubtedly victims of abuse and neglect. For example, to discipline the oldest child, parents must KN They had to deprive her of food, make her sit against a wall for hours, beat her with belts and wooden spoons, pull her hair, and kneel over grains of rice for long periods of time. School officials and family members notified the state after noticing bruises, scratches and belt marks on one of the children’s body.
The state first required and ordered the mother, who committed most of the violent acts, to attend counseling, but she refused. Instead, the parents moved to Louisiana without notifying the state and then opted not to enroll their children in school, hoping to prevent further abuse investigations. The Texas Department of Parole then moved to strip the parents of their rights. The parents requested a trial, and a jury subsequently found four grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights to her eldest son (the father is “unknown,” according to court filings) and the father’s rights to the other three children. The four children were placed in state custody.
The parents appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because they had moved to Louisiana and that there was insufficient evidence to justify termination of their rights. Ahead of oral arguments before the Texas Supreme Court last December, the case appeared to be limited to these questions.
During the first 30 minutes of oral argument, the court focused on these issues. Judge James Sullivan then asked the state attorney about the recently enacted custody amendment. Before the bill passed, many conservative advocacy groups promoted it as an uncontroversial way to respect and protect existing rights, even if courts and state legislatures were reorganized. But the justices seemed uncertain whether the amendment simply constitutionalized existing parental rights or recognized new ones.
Citing a brief submitted by the Family Freedom Project, an organization that “defends parents’ God-given right to raise their children,” Sullivan asked whether the new bill would require that the actions of child abuse agencies be evaluated under strict oversight, the strictest standard of judicial review, which often results in adverse outcomes for states. The parties did not discuss the proposed amendments in their briefs and appeared unprepared for questions regarding the proposed amendments.
Surprisingly, some judges seemed open to the possibility that parents’ conduct could be protected if evaluated against strict standards of review. Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock asked whether a reasonable jury could find that the “aggressive discipline” in this case was not abuse, and whether there was a “constitutional right to subject children to reasonable discipline.” Ms. Blacklock seemed particularly concerned about parents being punished for spanking. The justices also asked how they would evaluate the parents’ actions and whether the court should use the 1876 standard when the state constitution was approved, or whether what Sullivan called the “2025 standard” would be more appropriate. Mr Blacklock expressed openness to the possibility that “belting” could be protected by fundamental parental rights, even if the beating left bruises.
Two days after arguments, the court issued an order requiring additional briefing on how the proposed custody amendment would affect the proceedings. The case has since attracted the attention of the influential Texas Public Policy Foundation, one of the main proponents of the Texas amendment, which filed an amicus brief asking the Texas Supreme Court to apply strict scrutiny to any case involving the termination of parental rights. The foundation argued that the amendment would require states to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that parental rights should be terminated, rather than applying the current, somewhat less demanding standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”
“Parental absolutism” is accelerating
Cases of this kind of broad custody claim, which we have elsewhere referred to as “custodial absolutism,” are occurring across the country. similarly KNin many of these cases, it is the conservative judges themselves who are raising the issue. In one high-profile case, a minor in Florida appealed a judge who had denied permission for an abortion under the state’s judicial avoidance law, which allows certain minors to avoid parental involvement in abortion decisions if parental notification is not in the minor’s best interests or if they are mature enough to make the decision themselves. A panel of Florida appellate judges asked the state’s attorney general to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on whether the bypass violates parents’ constitutional rights, prompting the attorney general to intervene in the case. The court held that Bypass violated parental due process guarantees by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard on issues involving important parental rights under the state and federal constitutions.
Meanwhile, parents in Washington are suing to overturn a state law that established the Student Bill of Rights, which includes limits on parents’ rights to access their children’s school medical records. Part of the purpose of this measure was to protect the privacy of vulnerable children, including those who identify as LGBTQ+.
And in Arizona, a mother sued a school district because the school district failed to notify her that her child had socially transitioned at school. The appeals court ruled that the case could proceed under Arizona’s Statutory Parents Bill of Rights.
Parental Rights before the United States Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court also recently weighed in on the scope of parental rights. last week, Mirabelli vs Beautifulblocked a California law that would require schools to obtain student consent before disclosing changes to pronouns or gender expression to students’ parents. The court said the law burdens the religious practices of parents who have “sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender,” including opposition to sex reassignment, and who feel a “religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs.” And in June of last year, Mahmoud vs. Taylora court found that a Maryland school district likely violated parents’ religious freedom by not allowing their children to opt out of classes that included LGBTQ picture books.
Meanwhile, in July, the court refused to consider a Montana Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law requiring parental consent for abortions for minors. In a separate letter, Justice Samual Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that the parties had not clearly raised the question of whether allowing a minor to seek an abortion without parental consent violates the parents’ own fundamental rights. Alito emphasized that the court’s decision not to file a lawsuit was not a rejection of that claim.
A few months later, in October, the court denied a petition for certiorari by a group of parents challenging a Colorado school policy that excluded parents from discussions about their children’s gender identity without their children’s consent. Alito, joined by Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, agreed that the court should not grant the petition, but wrote that “the troubling — and tragic — allegations in this case highlight the ‘large and growing national importance’ of the issues raised by the parent petitioners.”
In fact, courts may consider many more custody cases in the coming years. For example, the pending certiorari petition seeks to address “whether a public school violates the constitutional rights of parents when it encourages a student to transition to a new ‘gender’ or participates in the process without the parent’s knowledge or consent.”
The growing danger of parental rights
whatever happens next KNthis case is a striking reminder of the dangers of new laws that define unlimited parental rights. The Texas amendment could serve as a blueprint for others across the country, and could ultimately expand the scope of parental authority far beyond what voters seemed to understand when it passed.
In fact, as we will argue in two upcoming legal review articles, the strict standard of review in the Texas amendment and other similar amendments represents a sharp break from both the common law and our nation’s longstanding constitutional traditions. Parental rights have long been of considerable importance in our nation’s legal tradition. But we obey our parents primarily because we assume that they act in the best interests of their children. In other words, our tradition respects the rights of parents as a means to achieving the goal of the welfare of the child. This means that courts have historically weakened parental rights in favor of the state’s interest in protecting children, including in cases of abuse and neglect.
There are multiple problems with the modern parental rights movement. One obvious problem is that not all parents are treated equally. Consider that black children are much more likely to be separated from their parents and placed in foster care than white children, even if the risk of harm is the same. States have protected parents’ rights to object to their children learning about transgender students while suppressing parents’ rights to seek gender-affirming care for their transgender children.
However, the absolutism of parental rights is also problematic because it takes a lot of attention away from what children need to grow. Surprisingly, during oral argument, KNa Texas Supreme Court justice said little about the welfare of children. In courts across the country, this inaction could be just the beginning.
For the four children, KNa finding against termination of parental rights in this case could mean being returned to the home where the abuse was found.
Mary Ziegler is the Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law.
Naomi Kahn is the Anthony M. Kennedy Professor of Law and co-director of the Family Law Center at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Maxine Eichner is the Graham Kennan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
Recommended citation: Mary Ziegler et al. Texas Parental Rights Amendment could override child abuse lawSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (March 12, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/texas-parental-rights-amendment-threatens-invalidate-child-abuse-laws
