Committee Hears Parents—s Bill of Rights; Supporters Urge clearer notice and mental-health consent

Senator Kim Ling, sponsor: Senate Bill 72 would create a consolidated parental bill of rights for students and require school districts to provide parents a single, clear notice of their rights at the start of each school year.

The bill, introduced at a public hearing of the state Senate Children and Family Law Committee on Oct. 12, seeks to gather statutes that currently spread parental rights across multiple chapters into one chapter of law and to require schools to post the consolidated notice on their websites and distribute it to parents in writing. "That's the whole bill," Senator Kim Ling said, summing up the measure's intent to make existing rights easier for nonlawyers to find.

Supporters told the committee that a single statutory location and a simple notice would help parents understand and exercise rights that are currently scattered across state and federal rules. "This crucial legislation acknowledges and safeguards the fundamental rights of parents to guide their minor children's upbringing, education, and care," said Kimberly Allen, an educator and parent, who asked the committee to add explicit language on parental consent for mental-health services after describing a case in which her son was moved to a different class and offered in-school counseling without her prior notice.

Several witnesses urged changes to clarify how the bill would interact with existing privacy and medical-consent laws. Anne Marie Banfield, a parental-rights advocate, said school practices have sometimes shared personally identifiable mental-health information with outside evaluators and that the bill should explicitly protect parents' right to informed consent for mental-health assessments and services. "There is no privacy in public education," she said, describing data-sharing to outside vendors as a recurring concern.

Representatives of teachers—s organizations and school staff offered measured testimony. Deborah Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers-New Hampshire, said the union was neutral on the measure and recommended clarifying language that could otherwise create confusion (for example, by suggesting a standard of proof for when schools may withhold information from parents). "We are not taking a position on this bill. We are neutral on it," Howes said, and urged the committee to avoid language that might unintentionally expand rights or interfere with mandated-reporting duties.

Brian Hawkins of NEA New Hampshire urged clearer drafting on several enumerated rights, including the bill—s references to "moral or religious training" and how parental direction of education would interact with the rights of other parents sharing a classroom. He suggested the committee add text that makes explicit what the bill does not change in existing school-discipline or curriculum-adoption processes.

Opponents and cautious witnesses raised concerns that the bill, as drafted, could make it difficult for school staff to act as a confidential, trusted adult when a child seeks help. David Trumbull said the measure would make parental rights "an unqualified fundamental right" if the bill retained a "compelling state interest/clear-and-convincing" standard for withholding information, a standard he said the New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected in a recent decision over Manchester school policies.

Health-system testimony flagged federal privacy rules. Courtney Tanner of Dartmouth Health asked the committee to align any medical-records provisions with HIPAA and other federal protections (for example, 42 CFR part 2 for substance-use treatment), and to preserve minors' limited rights under existing federal and state law for certain services provided to adolescents without parental consent.

Nut graf: Supporters said SB 72 would make existing rights easier to find and enforce; critics cautioned that the draft needs targeted fixes on student privacy, mental-health consent, exceptions for safety reporting and the evidentiary standard for withholding information.

Key provisions and debate details - Consolidation and notice: The bill would consolidate multiple statutory parental-rights citations into a single chapter and require school districts to give parents a clear notice each year and post it online. Sponsor Kim Ling said the notice provision (page 5 in the draft) is the practical core of the bill. - Remedy and target of suits: The draft provides that parents may seek declaratory or injunctive relief and monetary damages "against the school," not individual teachers, for violations, and several witnesses emphasized that the remedy is civil and directed at districts. - Withholding information and evidentiary standard: The bill permits schools to withhold information only if a narrowly tailored, compelling-state-interest standard is met and supported by clear-and-convincing evidence. Multiple witnesses told the committee that the wording could conflict with mandated-reporting statutes and with case law; some recommended substituting the preponderance-of-the-evidence or "best judgment" formulation used in prior court guidance. - Mental-health consent and data: Multiple witnesses urged explicit language that parental consent is required for school-initiated mental-health assessments or treatment, and that student mental-health data not be shared with outside vendors without consent. Testimony cited concerns about blanket consent forms and the extent of data sharing by third-party ed-tech vendors. - Scope: Witnesses asked the committee to clarify whether the bill applies to entities that receive state funds indirectly (for example, some charter or nonprofit providers) and to make explicit how the bill interacts with private schools receiving EFA (education funding account) money.

Ending: The committee took public testimony from parents, educators, unions and health-care representatives and closed the public hearing; at the end of the hearing members said they would consider amendments that address mental-health consent, privacy and the evidentiary standard before any vote.