K-12 Back To School In Georgia
PART 1: “The Georgia Constitution and Parental Rights”
Whether you are signing parent permission forms for the new school year or voting on an amendment to the Georgia Constitution, you need to understand the basics of your parental rights. The purpose of this three-part series is to do just that – teach you the basics on parental rights in Georgia.
The Parental Rights Trojan Horse
You may be saying to yourself, “I’m a good parent, so I don’t need to worry about this.” If so, let me give you one big reason why you should care. Because Georgia legislators, and even those with whom I agree on some issues, have a history of proposing dangerous parental rights amendments to the Georgia Constitution. These proposed parental rights amendments may sound good or look good on the outside, but they can be a Trojan Horse that actually undermines the parental rights that Georgians already have today!
In 2026, the Georgia legislature proposed a constitutional amendment known as House Resolution (HR) 1023.1 If HR 1023 had passed and been approved by voters, it would have gutted parental rights. It stated that parental rights were protected except when the state is acting “to protect the health and safety of children.” 2 In other words, if the State can designate a government action or law as “protecting the health and safety of children,” then anything goes. Whether it is vaccine mandates, transgender medical treatments, or whatever the State may deem “protecting the health and safety of children,” the State will be able to do whatever it wants with your children.
Do we really want the State to have the final say on the health and safety of our children? Have we forgotten that our constitutional rights, including our parental rights, protect us from the government? If HR 1023 were in effect, Georgia parents would have fewer rights today, not more! And if our legislators try to pass another parental amendment next session, we need to understand the issues and be prepared to vote NO!
The Georgia Constitution Already Protects Your Parental Rights
The bottom line is that the Georgia Constitution, which is interpreted by the Georgia Supreme Court, already recognizes the inherent rights of parents.3 These include the right to direct the care, custody, control, education and religious upbringing of their minor children.4 To accept any other limitations on parental rights is to give Georgians fewer not more parental rights than they have today.
You may be asking yourself, “What about the not-so-good parents?” Well, in 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court reiterated that “the right of fit parents to the care, custody, and control of their children is secured by both the United States Constitution and the Georgia Constitution.”5
The Paramount Right of Parents
The Court stated that “early Georgia cases acknowledged the ‘paramount right’ of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children, but recognized that the right could be overcome by a showing of harm or threat of harm to the child.”6 As for the harm or threat of harm standard, Georgia courts require clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit. Parental rights are infringed “only under the most compelling circumstances.”7 Other limitations may also apply. Plus, courts apply these standards on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts and circumstances. In other words, Georgia law already addresses the safety of children and unfit parents. We don’t need a constitutional amendment to address this issue.
Between State legislators with catchy vote-grabbing headlines like “parental rights” and voters who lack the bandwidth to read the details, parental rights in Georgia are in jeopardy. If the legislators want the “parental rights” press but are planning for the amendment’s failure, they risk their credibility by placing it behind a dangerous amendment. If they are well-intended, as I think they are, they will change course.
The Georgia Constitution is the most powerful document in the state, taking precedence over all other state laws. Plus, constitutional law is complex and drafting constitutional amendments is much different than drafting legislation. It takes time to explore are all of the unintended consequences before a constitutional amendment is sent to the voters. The good news is that sometimes . . . less is more.
Sometimes, Less is More
Our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights have withstood the test of time, and they used fewer words, not more. The founding fathers did not include a list of exceptions to our right to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the freedom to peaceably assemble.8 This is how great constitutions function. They set forth a basic right. Then, that right is interpreted by the courts, which clarify the meaning and create exceptions as needed. Laws are also passed that further the right.
If our founders had written in exceptions to free speech, how would the freedom of speech have adapted over the centuries? Would it protect speech over the phone, in emails, and in texts? Probably not, and that is the point! We cannot anticipate what the future holds. Exceptions written into the constitution tend to be inflexible, exploited, and can swallow up the constitutional right in one giant gulp, as was the case with HR 1023.
So, when the next legislative session rolls around and you are asked about the proposed Parental Rights Amendment, you can astutely answer, “It’s unnecessary, parental rights are already protected. Plus, I prefer the ‘less is more’ approach used in the First Amendment – no carve outs and no exceptions!”
Action Items:
- Remember that your constitutional rights, including parental rights, protect you from the government. Do you really want the State to have the final say on the health and safety of your children? Do you really want a constitutional amendment that gives you fewer parental rights than you have today?
- Be prepared to oppose parental rights amendments with exceptions or carve outs, especially the “health and safety exception.”
Join like-minded parents HERE.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only. No information contained in this article should be construed as legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. Readers are encouraged to contact an attorney in their jurisdiction with any questions.
Kelly Himes Brolly is an attorney, author, consultant, and the Managing Member of Double Umbrella Publications, LLC, d/b/a Double Umbrella Consulting. For more information on constitutional rights in layman’s terms, see Part II, Federal and State Constitutional Rights, in Kelly’s book, “Laws, Rules, and Rights: A Guide to Protecting Children in Public Schools,” Double Umbrella Publications, LLC (2023). To order Kelly’s book on Amazon, go here. To hear Kelly’s podcast on ThinQ Media titled “The Informed Parent,” go here. To learn more about parental rights and public schools in all 50 states, go here or to www.doubleumbrellapublications.com.
1 In Georgia, constitutional amendments are proposed by the General Assembly (also known as the state legislature) or through a state constitutional convention. The proposed constitutional amendment is written in a House or Senate Resolution exactly as it will be presented to voters. To take effect, the amendment must be approved by a majority of voters in a general election.
2 Last year, HR 1023 almost gutted parental rights in the State of Georgia. The first sentence in HB 1023 restates some, but not all of the existing parental rights Georgia. The second sentence, which is underlined, gives the State the power to trample on parental rights when the State is acting to “protect the health and safety of children.” It stated:
“Paragraph XXXI. Parental rights. Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, care, and control of their children. This right shall not be construed to authorize or excuse child abuse or neglect, nor to limit the authority of the state to protect the health and safety of children. This Paragraph shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would intentionally end life.”
Thankfully, HR 1023 failed. Yet, there are plans to try again in the next legislative session.
3 Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph I, and Article I, Section I, Paragraph XXIX. See also, Dias v. Boone, 912 S.E.2d 547, 571-572 (Ga. 2025).
4 Dias v. Boone, 912 S.E.2d 547, 570 (Ga. 2025) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) and Patten v. Ardis, 816 S.E.2d 633, 636-637 (Ga. 2018)). See also Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Busbee, 297 S.E.2d 250, 253 n.5 (Ga. 1982) (“In the absence of controlling state precedent, this court has applied analogous First Amendment standards when construing the state constitution.”) (citing Retail Credit Co. v. Russell, 218 S.E.2d 54 (Ga. 1975), and Sanders v. State, 231 Ga. 608, 203 S.E.2d 153 (1974)). See also, Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522, 543-544 (2025) (holding that parents can opt-out of LGBTQ+ content in public schools); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (stating that the U.S. Constitution “protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children”); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (recognizing “fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child”); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213-214 (1972) (recognizing “liberty of parents…to direct the upbringing and education of children” and stating “the Court’s holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children);); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (parents have the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (concluding that the state legislature unconstitutionally interfered “the power of parents to control the education of their own”).
5 Dias v. Boone, 912 S.E.2d 547, 570 (Ga. 2025) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000), and Patten v. Ardis, 816 S.E.2d 633, 636-637 (Ga. 2018)).
6 Dias v. Boone, 912 S.E.2d 547, 570-571 (Ga. 2025) (citing Patten v. Ardis, 816 S.E.2d 633, 641-642 (Ga. 2018)).
7 Dias v. Boone, 912 S.E.2d 547, 573 (Ga. 2025) (citing In re Suggs, 291 SE2d 233, 235 (1982)).
8 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Constitution, First Amendment.
