Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsors seek ban on solitary confinement for youth in custody; argue research shows long‑term harm
Summary
Representatives Barbara Rachelson and Angela Arcenholtz presented H.192, a bill that would prohibit solitary confinement of children in custody, citing neurological research and a federal court order limiting the practice at one facility.
Representative Barbara Rachelson presented H.192 to the House Human Services Committee, arguing the Legislature should prohibit solitary confinement for juveniles in custody. Rachelson said scientific evidence, judicial findings and national guidance support a bright‑line statutory prohibition or strict limits.
"Solitary confinement harms kids," Representative Barbara Rachelson said when describing the bill’s rationale. Rachelson cited the Juvenile Law Center (2017) and an interview published in The Atlantic summarizing neurological research that the frontal lobe — key to planning and impulse control — continues developing into the thirties, making isolation particularly damaging to youth.
Rachelson recounted visiting the Woodside Treatment Program and noted that a federal judge ordered DCF Woodside in 2019 to reduce the use of solitary confinement and to change disciplinary procedures. She told the committee solitary confinement can cause depression, anxiety, psychosis, self‑harm and even suicide, and that youth of color, LGBTQ+ youth and youth with disabilities are disproportionately placed in isolation.
Representative Angela Arcenholtz, who joined the presentation, told the committee the design phase of a new juvenile facility makes the timing appropriate: statutory limitations set now would influence design decisions and contractual expectations for outside operators. Sponsors said the bill’s current draft seeks to prohibit solitary confinement but has language options to address narrow emergency exceptions (for immediate safety or self‑harm risk) that would be tightly circumscribed.
Committee members probed safety concerns and the need to preserve narrowly framed emergency responses when a young person poses an immediate threat to themselves or others. Several members urged careful drafting so policy changes would not leave staff unable to respond to acute safety threats, while sponsors asked the committee to consider a bright‑line prohibition coupled with specific, limited emergency language.
No vote was taken. The sponsors asked the committee to seek input from experts and advocacy groups and to weigh language options that would remove prolonged isolation as a disciplinary tool for juveniles in custody.
