The Center For Garden State Families

$5,575 of $14,000

Notice: Test mode is enabled. While in test mode no live donations are processed.

Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Donation Total: $100.00

Upholding Parental Rights:  The Legal Battle Over Hanover Township’s Policy 8463

parental rights

Hanover Township Public Schools Serving the Communities of Whippany and Cedar Knolls, New Jersey

May 23, 2023 Angela Reading

The Hanover Township Board of Education is currently embroiled in a legal tussle with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) and Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin over Board Policy 8463, titled “Parental Notice of Material Circumstances.” This policy requires school staff to inform parents about issues that could have a material impact on their child’s physical, mental, and social/emotional well-being, including, but not limited to, matters related to sexuality and gender identity.

This predicament brings to the forefront the pivotal balance of power between government oversight and the autonomy of local school boards. In this instance, one must question whether the state’s intervention might be overshadowing the inherent rights and responsibilities of local bodies to make decisions in the best interest of their educational communities.

Unpacking Policy 8463

On May 16, 2023, the Hanover Township Board of Education adopted Policy 8463 – Parental Notice of Material Circumstances. This policy was intended to guide the Hanover Township School District administrators and staff in keeping parents informed about their children’s wellbeing.

The policy requires all school staff and administrators to notify the parents of any student if they become aware of any facts or circumstances that may have a material impact on the student’s physical or mental health, safety, or social/emotional well-being. This includes a wide range of potential issues, such as substance use, peer pressure, school performance, mental health issues like anxiety or depression, antisocial behaviors, truancy, criminal activity, sexual activity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and instances of harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

A crucial safeguard is embedded in the policy: if a staff member reasonably believes that notifying a student’s parents about certain issues could put the student at risk of abuse or neglect, they must immediately report their concerns to the Department of Children and Families, the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, or the Hanover Township Police Department. This aligns with N.J.S.A. § 9:6-1, ensuring that the policy is applied in the best interests of the student’s safety.

Attorney General Challenges Policy 8463: Claims of Discrimination Lead to Temporary Suspension

In a public announcement on May 17, 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin revealed that he had filed a Division of Civil Rights complaint challenging Hanover’s new policy. The policy’s stipulation that parents be informed about any factors that could substantially affect their child’s physical, mental, and social/emotional well-being, including sexuality or gender identity, is alleged to be discriminatory and in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD).

The administrative complaint specifically alleges that Policy 8463 unlawfully discriminates based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. According to Attorney General Platkin, the policy contravenes the NJLAD as it appears to target LGBTQ+ students with differential treatment. Furthermore, he asserts that even if the policy could be interpreted as treating all students equally at first glance, its effects would nonetheless be discriminatory, resulting in an unjustified disparate impact on LGBTQ+ students.

In essence, the Attorney General’s argument posits that the policy’s specific language unfairly singles out and differentiates students belonging to protected classes, particularly those identified by their “sexuality; sexual orientation; transitioning; [and] gender identity or expression.” It’s this explicit distinction that, in the Attorney General’s view, violates the spirit and letter of the NJLAD’s protections.

An emergency court motion was filed to prevent the policy’s enactment amid ongoing legal deliberations, leading to a temporary halt of the policy on May 19. This suspension will last until May 30, when the court is scheduled to hear both parties’ arguments.


The Board’s Unwavering Defense of Policy

In response to the Attorney General’s assertions, the Hanover Township Board of Education staunchly maintains that Policy 8463 is not discriminatory or harmful to students. The Board counters that the policy is an essential tool in protecting parents’ fundamental rights to be informed about major factors affecting their child’s wellbeing. It is intended to encourage more in-depth parental involvement in their child’s education and personal development rather than marginalize or target specific student populations.

According to the Board, a straightforward reading of Policy 8463 elucidates its intention: school staff members must notify the appropriate school administrators and a student’s parents whenever they become aware of any factors or circumstances that could materially impact a student’s physical and/or mental health.


Despite this clarity, Attorney General Platkin and Governor Murphy appear to have misunderstood the policy’s true intent, misrepresenting it as a mechanism to “out” LGBTQ+ students. The Hanover Township Board of Education provides a different narrative, seeing the policy as a commitment to ensuring that parents are actively involved in critical areas of their child’s life. The Board remains steadfast in its aim to “vigorously defend this common-sense policy that upholds parental rights and ensures the safety of all school children.”

A Shield, Not a Sword – Why Policy 8463 Does Not Violate New Jersey Law

As someone deeply invested in the world of education and armed with the knowledge acquired during my journey towards a Juris Doctor degree, I feel an obligation to share my understanding of the ongoing legal debate surrounding Policy 8463. It’s important to clarify upfront, however, that while I am academically qualified in the field, I am not a practicing legal expert. Therefore, what follows should be considered my personal viewpoint rather than professional legal advice.

Policy 8463 Upholds Recognized Parental Rights under U.S. Law

Policy 8463 is firmly rooted in jurisprudence that recognizes parents’ fundamental rights. In the landmark case of Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court reinforced the liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children. Policy 8463 stays true to this by facilitating transparency and a parental role in significant aspects of their children’s lives. The policy upholds this constitutionally protected right, providing a strong legal ground against the contention of the Attorney General.

Promoting the School District’s Legitimate Educational Interests

The Board possesses a legitimate and legally recognized interest in promoting an environment conducive to the intellectual and emotional growth of all students. Encouraging parental engagement, as Policy 8463 does, is backed by extensive academic studies showing enhanced student outcomes. As such, the policy supports the Board’s legitimate interests, placing it firmly within the boundaries of established law.

Policy 8463 Does Not Discriminate

A primary objection to Policy 8463 lies in its alleged discrimination against LGBTQ+ students. However, I believe that the accusation fundamentally misinterprets the policy’s intent. Rather than targeting any specific demographic, the policy is in place as a comprehensive measure to safeguard all students’ well-being. It mandates that parents are duly informed about any concerns that might materially affect their children’s health or safety, thereby strengthening familial relationships and fostering an environment of open communication.

Policy 8463 Applies Equally to All Students

Policy 8463 does not selectively target or penalize students based on their gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other personal characteristics. Instead, it necessitates parental notification for a broad range of “facts or circumstances” that could impact a student’s well-being, including but not limited to academic pressures, substance abuse, or bullying. The policy’s inclusiveness of “sexuality; sexual orientation; transitioning; [and] gender identity or expression” is not a ground for discrimination but rather an acknowledgment that these elements can affect a student’s well-being, thus warranting parental awareness.

Compliance with NJLAD

In my view, the Attorney General’s claim that Policy 8463 violates the LAD seems to be based on thin evidence. When you delve into the LAD, it clearly forbids any form of “differential treatment” because of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Yet, when we look at Policy 8463, it strikes me as being completely neutral, with its application equally extending to all students, without exception. What’s more, it’s hard for me to see how the Board is in any way supporting, encouraging, or enforcing discriminatory practices. On the contrary, they’re intent on enforcing a policy that, by all appearances, is neutral and developed with the intention of protecting every student.

Consistency with the NJDOE’s Guidance

Contrary to the Attorney General’s assertion, Policy 8463 does not contradict the Department of Education’s Transgender Guidance. The Guidance does encourage confidentiality regarding a student’s transgender status, but it also acknowledges the need to consider multiple factors, including student safety and health, on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, Policy 8463 is in sync with the Guidance, fortifying its legal standing.


In conclusion, while the concerns raised by the Attorney General merit due consideration, in my academic opinion, the argument that Policy 8463 contravenes the law doesn’t stand under the weight of careful legal scrutiny. As a policy designed to safeguard student well-being, it operates within the framework of the Law Against Discrimination and respects the rights of LGBTQ+ students.


Please be aware that this discussion represents an academic exploration of a legal topic, and is not meant to provide any form of legal advice. This should not be used as a basis for any legal decision-making or action. Always consult with a qualified legal professional or expert if you need advice or guidance on a specific legal matter.