Committee adopts technical changes to 'parental rights' bill, rejects passage as amended after debate on private schools, mental‑health confidentiality and fees

Senate Bill 72, a proposed statute that would codify a set of parental rights in the school setting and require written notice to parents, was the subject of extended committee debate and multiple technical amendments before the committee voted not to advance the bill as amended.

The bill as presented would require school districts to provide written notice to parents of a statutory "bill of rights" for students, list statutes and federal provisions governing disclosure (including seclusion and restraint notices), and set conditions under which school officials could proceed without parental consent for certain medical or mental‑health procedures. It also included a provision regarding recovery of attorney fees in some cases; committee members removed that provision during discussion.

Throughout the hearing and executive session, senators debated several contested points. Committee members amended the bill to clarify grammar, change the delegated official who a teacher or staff member would report to ("principal or designee"), and explicitly add "mental‑health treatment" to the list of procedures for which parental notification and consent would ordinarily be required. DCYF and other witnesses emphasized that confidentiality rules for mental‑health care remain separate from the right to be informed and give consent prior to a procedure or evaluation.

A central policy disagreement was whether the statute should apply to private schools that enroll a single Education Freedom Account (EFA) student or other students who receive state education funds; the bill's sponsor said the original legislative intent was not to include private schools, and the committee's amendment removed language that could have extended coverage to private schools. Senators debated the evidentiary standard a school must meet to justify an action without parental consent; the transcript records an extended discussion of "clear and convincing evidence" versus "preponderance of the evidence." Senator Greg Patton urged consistency with other family‑law evidentiary standards, while other members argued a higher threshold is appropriate when restricting parental rights.

Committee members also removed a provision that would have required unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay school legal fees, noting existing remedies already apply for frivolous lawsuits. Lawmakers discussed the practical mechanics of annual distribution — for example, inclusion in student handbooks — and suggested the Department of Education could issue technical guidance to promote consistent district compliance.

In executive session the committee adopted technical amendments (including 2025‑0527s) but ultimately approved a motion "not to pass as amended" by a recorded voice vote noted in the transcript as 2‑to‑1 in favor of not passing. Committee discussion emphasized that sponsors and members largely agreed with the intent to inform parents of statutory rights but diverged on scope, evidentiary standards, and remedies.

The bill drew sustained attention from committee members who said they wanted clearer drafting and consistent statewide technical guidance before any requirement to distribute statutory text to parents is finalized.