Parents suing Charlotte private school criticize diocese for siding against them

As the North Carolina Supreme Court prepares to hear a closely watched parental rights case Oct. 29, new court filings reveal that the parents at the center of the lawsuit are challenging the involvement of the Diocese of Charlotte, arguing that their constitutional claims are irrelevant and misleading.

Doug and Nicole Turpin, whose children were expelled from Charlotte Latin School in 2021, filed a legal response this week rejecting arguments that their lawsuit threatens religious liberty, The Carolina Journal reported. Their comments come in reply to friend-of-the-court briefs filed by the diocese and associations representing independent schools across the region. 

The Turpins allege that their children, Olive and Luke, were abruptly expelled without warning after the parents raised concerns about what they saw as a growing ideological shift at the school. As CatholicVote previously reported, the couple had helped form Refocus Latin, a group of parents alarmed by what they described as “virtue-signaling,” “woke class assignments,” and sexually explicit content in the school library. 

The group was invited to present its concerns to the board under assurances that there would be no retaliation — assurances the Turpins say were broken when their children were dismissed shortly afterward.

Charlotte Latin, a non-sectarian private school, has argued that the expulsions were consistent with its enrollment contract, which allows termination if a “positive, collaborative working relationship” with parents becomes untenable. 

That defense has thus far prevailed in lower courts. In April, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the school’s position in a 2–1 decision, prompting the Turpins to appeal to the state’s highest court.

In August, the diocese entered the legal fray, filing a brief that raised First Amendment concerns. It argued that enrollment contracts are vital to the mission of religious schools and warned that judicial interference in such matters could erode religious autonomy. 

“The Diocese operates a network of Catholic schools that, like Charlotte Latin, require enrollment contracts expressly reserving the right to terminate enrollment when, among other reasons, parental conduct undermines the school’s mission,” diocesan attorney Joshua Davey wrote in the brief. “These contractual provisions are essential tools that allow religious schools to carry out their faith-based educational missions while providing clarity and transparency to families who voluntarily choose to enroll.”

But in this week’s filing, the Turpins’ attorneys countered that their case involves no religious claims at all and that Charlotte Latin is a secular institution. 

“No part of Doug and Nicole’s case touches on religious doctrine, ecclesiastical authority, or the autonomy of faith-based schools,” they wrote. “Indeed, Charlotte Latin is a secular school, and Doug and Nicole challenge only whether Latin’s enrollment contract allowed it to arbitrarily and unfairly expel their children, Olive and Luke. The Court should disregard the Diocese’s attempt to conflate these issues.”

The family also accused the diocese of acting out of institutional self-interest, referencing past parental backlash at Charlotte Catholic High School that led to administrative changes. 

“Not so long ago, the Diocese faced backlash from thousands of concerned parents, which eventually led the principal of one Diocesan school, Charlotte Catholic High School, to resign,” they said. “By siding with Latin, the Diocese hopes to gain an effective tool for dealing with vocal or inquisitive parents.”

The Turpins also pushed back against arguments from private school associations that warned that enforcing contracts in such cases could infringe on a school’s freedom of association. But the parents argued that their case centers on accountability, not autonomy. 

“[Charlotte Latin] should be treated like any other party to a contract,” their lawyers wrote. “That is, it should be held to the promises that it has made: fairness, direct communication, and good faith. Parental rights should not be subjugated to institutional power.”