children. The defendants have indicated that they will not do so; to the precise contrary,
the defendants intend to persist in presenting themes of romantic homosexual activity to
second-graders.
66. On information and belief, the reason why the defendants will not inform the Wirthlins is
that the defendants' specific intention is to coercively indoctrinate the children into moral
belief systems that are markedly different from those of their parents, and the defendants
harbor a specific intention to denigrate the Wirthlins' sincere and deeply-held faith. The
Wirthlins wish to direct the personal moral and religious views of their own children and
believe these children are too young, at ages seven and eight to be able to comprehend the
complexities of such a controversial and advanced topic.
67. On or about April 13, 2006, the plaintiff Robin Wirthlin encountered the defendant Ms.
Jay in the Wirthlins' daughter's classroom. RobinWirthlin asked Ms. Jay why she would
not further discuss the issues, and again sought to discuss the issues with Principal Jay.
Ms. Jay refused to discuss the issues with the Wirthlins, and stated that she had been
instructed by Dr. Ash not to speak with the Wirthlins about these issues.
68. The conduct of Ms. Jay and Dr. Ash is the direct implementation of an unconstitutional
policy planned and conducted by themselves and the other co-defendants.
69. There exists a true and justiciable conflict between the plaintiffs and the defendants,
which conflict is certain to continue such that declaratory relief may be granted.
COUNT I:
42 U.S.C. 6 1983/DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
UNREASONABLE INTRUSION INTO HYBRID
RIGHTS TO DIRECT MORAL UPBRINGING OF CHILDREN
FAMILIAL PRIVACY. AND FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION