Parental Rights Suit Against Government

Summary#

HB 157, titled Protection of Parental Rights—Cause of Action, would amend Wyoming’s Governmental Claims Act and the law cited as W.S. 14-2-206. Its stated goal is to let a parent seek a court remedy if a state or local government infringes parental rights under that section. The bill is listed as failed, so it did not take effect; it proposed a July 1, 2026 effective date if enacted.

• A parent could sue the state, a state agency or a political subdivision (such as a local government) for an alleged infringement under W.S. 14-2-206, seeking a court declaration or an order to stop or require action.
• The bill says a governmental entity is liable for damages resulting from a violation, but the new cause-of-action section lists only declaratory and injunctive relief. How those provisions fit together is unclear.
• A parent bringing this action would not have to follow the Governmental Claims Act’s usual claim-presentation requirement.
• A court would have to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a parent who wins. The bill would also add an exception to the Act’s usual bar on attorney-fee awards.

What it means for you#

• Parents: If a government entity infringed your parental rights under W.S. 14-2-206, the bill would give you a route to seek a court declaration or an order requiring or stopping action. It does not specify how a case would be started or decided.
• State and local government entities: They could face lawsuits under this provision and liability for damages as stated in the bill. They would not receive the usual claim notice required by the Governmental Claims Act before such an action.
• Other residents: The bill would not create a new service or benefit for the public generally. It would not itself define the parental rights referenced in W.S. 14-2-206.

Money#

No cost estimate is in the available material.

• The bill could expose government entities to damages and to attorney fees and costs when a parent prevails; no estimate of that exposure is provided.
• No appropriation, fee, staffing requirement or estimate of government costs is included.

What is unclear#

• The text of the existing W.S. 14-2-206 is not supplied, so I could not verify what parental rights it protects under current law or how much of that section the bill would change.
• The bill says government entities are liable for damages, but describes the new lawsuit as seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. It does not explain whether a parent could recover monetary damages.
• The bill does not define what counts as an infringement or set out filing deadlines, court procedures, or a process for resolving disputes.
• It waives the usual claim-presentation requirement but does not explain what information, if any, a parent must provide before suing.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that a legal right may be difficult to enforce without a clear way to ask a court for help.
• A court declaration or order could address an alleged government infringement directly.
• Requiring the government to pay a winning parent’s reasonable fees and costs could make it more practical for a parent to bring a case.

Case against#

• The bill does not clearly reconcile its damages-liability language with its list of court remedies. That uncertainty could lead to disputes over what a court may award.
• The bill does not define infringement or provide case procedures, leaving important questions for courts to resolve.
• By waiving the usual claim-presentation requirement, the bill removes a step that would otherwise apply before a lawsuit under the Governmental Claims Act. The text does not explain what, if anything, replaces that step.