A note inside the lunchbox of a 7-year-old boy causes the school to call the police. The mother of the child didn’t expect the reaction of the school after she puts a note on her son’s lunchbox. Christina Zavala thought that it would be nice to send his son a note in his lunchbox to think about at lunchtime. Unexpectedly other children would ask his 7-year-old son, only identified as “C” to share what she was writing and sooner become a common lunchtime habit.
Eventually, the school found out the lunchtime ritual of the children. The issue was that Christina sends out Bible verses to her son and sooner distributed to her son’s friend. The note also included short stories. The note was swiftly banned from lunchtime after a little girl to her teacher about the short stories. The boy was instructed that the notes can only be read at the school’s gate which he did.
School officials became furious after the routine began to be popular.
According to Washington Times, “On May 9, Principal Melanie Pagliaro reportedly approached C’s father, Jaime Zavala, and demanded he and the boy move completely off school property and onto the public sidewalk. The family immediately complied.” Later that day, a Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff reportedly arrived at the Zavalas’ home to tell the boy to stop sharing the notes, because “someone might be offended,” the Liberty Counsel said.
After the boy’s constitutional right was violated, the family has employed The Liberty Counsel, a Christian nonprofit litigation group to pursue legal action against Desert Rose Elementary School in Palmdale.
In a letter to the Palmdale School District, the Liberty Counsel said, “having reviewed the above facts, district policies, and applicable law, it is clear that the actions of the district staff in this instance, in prohibiting voluntary student religious expression during non-instructional time; then completely banning such student expression from school property entirely, and finally calling the police to report the same are simply unconstitutional. These actions must be disavowed and reversed, to avoid liability for civil rights violations”.
The district was given until June 1st to respond which was reportedly ignored.