Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Parental Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates parental-rights provisions, attorney-fee language in school-related bill; work on amendments to continue
Summary
In a lengthy debate on engrossed Senate Bill 22-44, committee members discussed provisions on parental remedies, attorney fees, and statutory cross-references. The committee approved a sponsor amendment but paused further action to draft clarifying language and agreed to return with additional amendments.
The House Education Committee spent extended time debating amendments and policy language in engrossed Senate Bill 22-44, which the transcript shows addresses parent remedies and references multiple statutory sections related to minors’ consent for health services.
Representative Heilman moved the sponsor amendment (identified in the transcript as Senator Paulson's amendment, beginning on page 3, line 13). Representative Morton seconded; the amendment was explained on the record with references to several statutory headings. Representative Hauck summarized statutory headings cited in the draft, saying the items include “a minor's emergency care,” “blood donation,” “a minor's consent for prenatal care or other pregnancy care services,” and “unaccompanied homeless minor's consent for health care.” The amendment was placed and the clerk recorded the roll; the transcript notes “K. That motion passes.”
Subsequent debate focused on two contested provisions: (1) language allowing parents to recover attorney fees and (2) whether parents should be required to exhaust other remedies before filing suit. Several members expressed concern that the attorney-fees language could invite frivolous litigation; Representative Marshall said the bill should allow prevailing parties to recover “reasonable attorney's fees.” Representative Novak and others said they feared the current drafting would let parents recover fees even if the school had not been found at fault. Representative Morton argued the language should remain to allow access to the courts for aggrieved parents, saying most people would not sue frivolously because of the cost.
Other members, including Chairman Heinert, Representative Longmire and Representative Jonas, said they opposed the bill in principle because of constitutional concerns and potential litigation exposure. Representative Novak said she would vote no on the bill but wanted the language improved before any final vote.
The committee discussed a request from the School Boards Association for language requiring parents to exhaust administrative remedies before taking legal action; Representative Novak and Representative Marshall expressed support for adding such a requirement. Representative Jonas and others advocated removing certain fee and remedy provisions entirely to avoid encouraging lawsuits.
Rather than vote on final passage, the committee agreed to draft and circulate amendments. Representative Jonas moved a do-not-pass; the motion was later withdrawn so the committee could “move forward with the amendments and bring them back to full committee.” No final do-pass or do-not-pass recommendation was adopted on the bill during this session. The transcript records that the committee will continue work on the amendment language and return with a revised bill.
