Illinois HB 3247 and LGBTQ+ Children: How the Safe Schools Act Intersects with Custody Law

By Jonathan D. Steele, Partner at Beermann LLP

Illinois House Bill 3247, the Safe Schools for All Act, took effect January 1, 2026. While the legislation is primarily framed as education policy, its implications extend significantly into family law—particularly custody disputes involving LGBTQ+ children. This article examines how HB 3247 intersects with Illinois's best-interest analysis and what practitioners and parents should understand about its potential impact on custody determinations.

The Legislative Framework

HB 3247 establishes an anti-discrimination framework requiring all Illinois public schools receiving state funding to:

• Implement comprehensive policies protecting students from discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity
• Maintain documentation of discriminatory incidents, including the nature of each incident, parties involved, and remedial measures taken
• Establish reporting procedures that provide clear channels for students, parents, and staff to report discrimination
• Train personnel on recognizing and responding to identity-based discrimination
• Provide annual compliance reports to the Illinois State Board of Education

The documentation requirements are particularly significant for family law practitioners. Schools must now maintain records that could become evidence in custody proceedings—a consideration that was largely absent from pre-HB 3247 custody litigation.

Intersection with Illinois Custody Law

Illinois determines custody and parenting time under the "best interest of the child" standard codified in 750 ILCS 5/602.7. This statute requires courts to consider numerous factors, including:

"The mental and physical health of all individuals involved" and "the child's adjustment to his or her home, school, and community." — 750 ILCS 5/602.7(b)

HB 3247 adds new dimensions to these statutory factors. When a child identifies as LGBTQ+ and experiences—or is at risk of experiencing—discrimination at school, courts must now consider:

1. School environment quality: Does the child's school have compliant policies under HB 3247? Has discrimination been documented?
2. Parental response: How has each parent responded to documented incidents or compliance concerns?
3. School choice advocacy: Which parent advocates for educational environments with robust protections?
4. Home-school continuity: Is there consistency between how the child's identity is treated at home versus school?

Applying the Best-Interest Factors

Factor 1: Child's Adjustment to School (750 ILCS 5/602.7(b)(3))

When evaluating a child's adjustment to school, courts have historically focused on academic performance and social relationships. HB 3247 expands this inquiry to include whether the school environment is safe for the child's identity.

A child who experiences identity-based bullying at a non-compliant school may demonstrate poor adjustment—declining grades, school avoidance, social withdrawal. The parent who addresses these concerns by advocating for policy compliance or seeking a safer educational environment may be viewed as better serving the child's best interest.

Factor 2: Mental and Physical Health (750 ILCS 5/602.7(b)(5))

Research consistently demonstrates that LGBTQ+ youth who experience family rejection face significantly elevated risks of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidality. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association have all published guidance emphasizing the importance of family acceptance to LGBTQ+ youth mental health.

Under HB 3247's framework, a parent's conduct toward their child's identity—whether supportive, neutral, or rejecting—falls squarely within the mental health analysis. Courts may consider:

• Whether a parent uses the child's chosen name and pronouns
• How a parent responds when the child reports identity-based discrimination
• Whether a parent's statements or conduct at home contradict or undermine protective measures at school
• The parent's willingness to engage with mental health professionals who support the child's identity

Factor 3: Willingness to Facilitate Relationship (750 ILCS 5/602.7(b)(9))

This factor traditionally focuses on whether each parent supports the child's relationship with the other parent. In cases involving LGBTQ+ children, courts may extend this inquiry to whether a parent facilitates the child's authentic self-expression—or whether one parent's rejection of the child's identity creates barriers to the child's relationship with both parents and their own sense of self.

Evidentiary Implications

HB 3247's documentation requirements create new evidentiary pathways for custody litigation:

School Records

Attorneys can subpoena HB 3247 compliance records, including:

• Incident reports documenting discrimination the child experienced
• School policy documents and compliance certifications
• Communications between parents and school administrators regarding the child's identity
• Records of parental responses to documented incidents

Expert Testimony

Mental health professionals may testify regarding:

• The child's psychological adjustment relative to parental acceptance or rejection
• Best practices for supporting LGBTQ+ youth development
• The documented impact of family rejection on LGBTQ+ youth outcomes
• Whether each parent's conduct aligns with or contradicts professional standards of care

Pattern Evidence

A parent's conduct over time—documented through school records, communications, and testimony—may establish a pattern relevant to predicting future behavior. A parent who consistently dismissed or minimized discrimination concerns may face scrutiny about their ability to protect the child's emotional wellbeing going forward.

Practical Considerations for Parents

For Parents Supporting Their LGBTQ+ Child

• Document your advocacy: Maintain records of communications with schools about anti-discrimination policies, responses to incidents, and school choice decisions
• Engage appropriate professionals: Work with mental health providers experienced in LGBTQ+ youth care; their records and potential testimony can support your position
• Ensure school compliance: Verify that your child's school has implemented HB 3247-compliant policies; if not, document your efforts to address deficiencies
• Consistency matters: Demonstrate that your support for your child is consistent across home, school, and community contexts

For All Parents in Custody Disputes

• Understand that conduct matters: How you respond to your child's identity—whether through active support, passive acceptance, or rejection—may become evidence in custody proceedings
• School records are discoverable: Communications with school administrators, responses to incident reports, and attendance at school meetings may all be relevant
• Professional guidance is essential: An experienced family law attorney can help you understand how HB 3247 may affect your specific situation

Constitutional Considerations

HB 3247's intersection with custody law raises potential constitutional questions that courts have not yet addressed:

Parental Rights

Parents retain constitutional rights to direct their children's upbringing. However, these rights have never been absolute—they yield when parental conduct harms the child. Courts will need to balance parental autonomy against the child's interest in identity protection as this framework develops.

Religious Exercise

Some parents may argue that their religious beliefs inform their response to a child's LGBTQ+ identity. Courts generally do not inquire into the sincerity of religious beliefs, but they may consider whether religiously-motivated conduct harms the child's best interest. This tension is likely to generate appellate guidance in coming years.

Looking Ahead

HB 3247 represents a significant development in how Illinois law addresses LGBTQ+ youth protection. For family law practitioners, the legislation opens new avenues for advocacy on behalf of children whose identities are at stake in custody disputes. For parents, it underscores that conduct toward a child's identity carries potential legal consequences beyond the family home.

As courts begin applying this framework, we expect to see:

• Discovery requests specifically targeting HB 3247 compliance records
• Expert testimony on parental acceptance and youth outcomes becoming standard in relevant cases
• Judicial guidance on how to weigh identity-supportive conduct within the best-interest analysis
• Potential appellate decisions addressing constitutional boundaries

This legislation has opened a door that will not easily close. Parents navigating custody disputes should understand that their child's school experience—and their own response to identity-related concerns—may now be material factors in custody determinations.

Jonathan D. Steele is a family law partner at Beermann LLP in Chicago, focusing on complex custody disputes and high-net-worth divorce. He holds cybersecurity certifications (CompTIA Security+, ISC2 CC, EC-Council CEH) and advises clients on digital privacy concerns in family law proceedings. For a consultation, contact (312) 782-2000.

Legal analysis is current as of January 2026. Laws may be amended or interpreted differently by courts after this date. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.