Officer  Suarez issued a warning letter to a parent in the Sinton ISD. The letter listed the address of a middle school and stated:

YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED AND PLACED ON NOTICE THAT YOU CANNOT ENTER UPON OR REMAIN ON THE ABOVE PROPERTY.  YOU ARE ALSO WARNED THAT YOU MAY NOT HARASS ME IN ANY WAY, WHICH INCLUDES ANY FORM OF COMMUNICATION, EITHER VERBAL OR WRITTEN, OTHER THAN WRITTEN LEGAL NOTICE.

The Warning letter went on to threaten fines and jail time if the parent failed to abide.  It informed the parent that she needed to get permission from a school administrator before entering campuses other than the middle school. The officer verbally told the parent that she was not allowed on any SISD property without permission.

The parent sued the officer, alleging that this stern warning violated her constitutional rights. 

Oh wait—before we tell you about that, we need to tell you what happened before the suit was filed.  The woman was arrested for violating the Warning letter.  But the jury acquitted her of the criminal trespass charge.

THEN she filed the suit. 

The court refused to dismiss the case against the officer, and in doing so, offered some pointers on what should be in a warning letter like this. The court pointed out that a parent’s fundamental parental right to direct the upbringing of their child encompasses “the ability to communicate with a child’s teacher.”  The record in this case was unclear as to whether or not the parent could do that.  Based on that lack of clarity, the court refused to dismiss the case. 

Schools can issue “get off my lawn” letters like this. The courts have consistently upheld that authority. But the communication to the parent should make it clear that the parent will still have the ability to communicate with a child’s teachers.  There may be restrictions on how that happens, but there has to be an avenue.

The court also thought this Warning was too vague. Again, this was the rationale for not tossing the case out of court, but rather, requiring the development of evidence to clear things up. Key Quote:

….the Warning can be read to incorrectly define harassment as any form of communication whatsoever with SISD.  As such, the Warning is effectively a blanket ban on all communication to SISD, potentially violating [the mother’s] constitutional right to direct her daughter’s education.

So the case is not over, and Officer Suarez needs to produce some evidence to clear up these ambiguities.  The case is Roberts v. Sinton ISD, decided by the federal court for the Southern District of Texas on January 3, 2019. We found it at 2019 WL 93308.

DAWG BONE: MAKE SURE THOSE WARNING LETTERS DO NOT CUT OFF ALL COMMUNICATION, ESPECIALLY WITH THE TEACHER.

That’s it for this month, Readers.  Prepare to experience dismay.