Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Behavioral Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate hears bill aimed at protecting parents who seek inpatient care for children with severe behavioral health needs
Summary
Sen. John Steinbeck said SB372 would shield parents who seek inpatient or other professional mental‑health care for children with severe behavioral issues from being found to have abused or neglected the child solely because they sought treatment or returned the child home when no safe placement existed.
Sen. John Steinbeck (Senate District 18) presented Senate Bill 372, a measure inspired by Arizona’s Jacob’s Law, to provide legal clarity and protections for parents and guardians who seek inpatient psychiatric or behavioral‑health treatment for children with severe behavioral issues.
"Parents, legal guardians, foster parents may become overwhelmed with children whom they love very much, but have high behavioral health needs, and that they pose a risk to the family's safety and welfare. In those situations, they need professional help to protect the children with the behavioral health needs and their own family members," Steinbeck said.
Why it matters: Attorneys and affected families told the committee that current statutory language can leave parents vulnerable to child welfare investigations and findings of neglect when they seek or return children from treatment settings — especially when facilities discharge children because of violent behavior or when no appropriate placement is available.
Key testimony and details:
- Kim Surratt, a family law attorney and appeal hearing officer, described a pattern in which children with severe behavioral health needs are repeatedly discharged from facilities as "too dangerous"; parents who cannot safely house a discharged child risk child‑welfare substantiation for neglect.
- Kim and Rain Alexander (parents) recount a prolonged case in which their child had repeated violent incidents, multiple facility rejections or discharges, elopements and arrests; they said child protective services told them to take the child home or face neglect charges even when they believed it was unsafe to do so.
Sponsor intent and limitations: Surratt and the sponsor characterized the bill as a targeted statutory fix: it would not immunize a parent who intentionally abuses a child or engages in frivolous actions, but it would prevent a sole finding of abuse/neglect based only on the parent's seeking appropriate clinical care or on returning a child to the home while pursuing further treatment.
Responses and next steps: Clark County counsel requested continued work with the sponsor to refine language and to link statutory clarification with funded wraparound services; county officials noted prior bills intended to provide post‑discharge wraparound supports but said funding did not follow.
Outcome at hearing: The committee closed testimony and the sponsor indicated willingness to continue negotiating language; no committee vote occurred at the hearing itself.
Ending note: The sponsor and advocates urged interim work on broader solutions — including discharge planning, wraparound services and cross‑agency coordination — to accompany the statutory clarification.
