A mother is suing Algonquin-based School District 300 after they allegedly socially transitioned her high school son’s gender and executed a “gender support” plan without her consent and despite her objections after she became aware of it.
The federal lawsuit was filed on Sunday under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Community Unit School District 300, based in Algonquin.
Naperville-based Attorney Ajay Gupta is representing the mother on a pro bono basis.
Gupta told Lake & McHenry County Scanner that he is acting in an individual capacity and that his representation of the mother is not affiliated with any employer or law firm.
The suit names District 300, Superintendent Dr. Martina Smith and 10 unnamed people as the defendants.
The parent, identified as “S.K.” in the suit, alleges that District 300 subjected her high school son, “T.K.,” and other minor students to “psychological and identity-based interventions, while deliberately excluding their parents from participation, consent, and knowledge,” the civil complaint said.
“Through these policies and practices, Defendants facilitate social transition within the school environment, including the use of alternate names and pronouns and coordination with school-based and outside personnel, while excluding or minimizing parental involvement,” the complaint alleges.
District 300 spans northern Kane County and parts of McHenry, Cook and DeKalb counties.
They operate three high schools – Dundee-Crown High School in Carpentersville, Hampshire High School in Hampshire and Harry D. Jacobs High School in Algonquin.
The complaint did not specify which high school T.K. attended.
The parent S.K. alleges that as a result of District 300’s policies and practices, she and other parents were “deprived of their fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children, causing ongoing and irreparable harm to the parent-child relationship.”
In 2022, the defendants allegedly began using an alternate name and pronouns for T.K. in certain classes without informing S.K.
“During this time, T.K. experienced declining mental health and difficulty completing schoolwork,” the complaint alleges.
In December 2022, the parent S.K. contacted school staff to discuss her son’s declining academic performance and mental health, but the school allegedly never told S.K. that they were using an alternate name and pronouns for T.K.
In February 2023, T.K. was admitted to the hospital for suicidal ideations, the complaint said.
“Following this, Plaintiff S.K. sought out information from school personnel regarding T.K.’s mental health. Defendants did not provide substantive responses to Plaintiff S.K.’s inquiries and instead directed Plaintiff S.K. to general guidance materials,” the complaint alleges.
Around two weeks after T.K. was hospitalized, both S.K. and T.K. attended a reintegration meeting with school staff.
While S.K. was out of the meeting room to use the restroom, school staff allegedly discussed a “gender support” plan for T.K. to socially transition at school.
“Plaintiff S.K. was told upon returning to the room that T.K. had expressed a desire for this plan,” the complaint said.
On March 1, 2023, the parent was invited to meet with school staff regarding the development of the “gender support” plan for her son.
S.K. asked the school to postpone the meeting due to her son’s mental health condition and his “inability at that time to make informed decisions regarding such supports,” the complaint said.
“While Defendants did delay that meeting until 2024, they continued to socially transition T.K. in the meantime without informing Plaintiff S.K.,” the complaint added.
S.K. told the school multiple times that she did not consent to any “gender support” plan for her son and requested information about the plan’s contents.
“Thereafter, school personnel ceased communication with Plaintiff S.K. on this matter,” the complaint said.
By fall 2023, the school “expanded” the use of an alternate name and pronouns in all of T.K.’s classes and continued to socially transition him without informing his mother, the complaint alleges.
“On February 6, 2024, school personnel completed a formal plan with T.K. regarding a social gender transition at school without notifying Plaintiff S.K. in advance or inviting Plaintiff S.K. to attend the meeting.”
In February 2025, during a phone call with the school, the mother requested permission to modify the supposed plan to address her son’s needs, but the school allegedly denied the request.
She continued to ask school staff for information and the ability to participate in decisions affecting her son, but they “failed to provide complete responses and, at times, ceased responding altogether,” the complaint said.
“Plaintiff S.K. expressly requested that no further meetings or decisions regarding T.K.’s social transition occur without Plaintiff S.K.’s presence. Defendants, however, indicated that they would continue to communicate with T.K. regarding the plan,” the complaint added.
On May 16, 2025, the mother filed a Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) complaint, which led to the school finally providing her with a copy of the gender support plan on September 25, 2025, the complaint said.
Despite his mother’s requests, the school allegedly began using another alternate name and alternate pronouns in all of T.K.’s classes later that year and allegedly continued to socially transition him without informing his mother.
“On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff S.K. received a final determination from Defendant Dr. Martina Smith and an investigative report from the School District, which included assertions that Plaintiff S.K. had been informed of and declined to participate in relevant decisions, despite Plaintiff S.K.’s well-documented history of requests and complaints that establish the contrary,” the complaint said.
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff S.K. has suffered severe emotional distress, anxiety, and significant interference with her fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of her child, T.K.,” the complaint added.
The lawsuit further alleges that the school violated S.K.’s parental rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children, including decisions concerning psychological and medical care,” the complaint said.
“Defendants’ policies and practices impermissibly intrude upon this fundamental right by authorizing school officials to initiate and implement interventions that affect a minor child’s identity, mental health, and familial relationships without parental knowledge or consent.”
The complaint further alleges that the school’s conduct is not justified because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and there is no legitimate educational objective that would permit them to override parental authority.
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff S.K. and the proposed class have suffered irreparable harm, including deprivation of their constitutional rights, interference with the parent-child relationship, and emotional distress,” the complaint said.
The plaintiff is asking the court to declare that District 300’s policies and practices for gender support plans and similar interventions for students without parental consent or adequate notice are a violation of the Due Process Clause.
The plaintiff is also asking the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that would prohibit District 300 from initiating, implementing or enforcing gender support plans or similar interventions without first notifying parents and obtaining their consent, prohibit them from withholding information on the interventions from parents, prohibit them from excluding parents from participating in such decisions, and prohibit them from retaliating against students or parents if they object to such interventions.
In addition to compensation for damages and attorney fees, the plaintiff is further asking the court to order District 300 to adopt and implement policies, training, and procedures that would “ensure constitutionally adequate parental notice, transparency, and participation before any such interventions occur.”
S.K. filed a motion asking the court to keep using the pseudonym “S.K.,” refer to her son only by initials “T.K.,” and seal all court documents that contain her or her son’s full name, citing a “substantial risk of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation from members of the public who hold strong opposing views on issues of gender identity in schools.”
“Such risks are substantial, particularly given the public controversy surrounding these issues,” the motion said.
A hearing on the motion has been set for May 20, and a status hearing is set for July 29 in front of Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman.