Proposed Bill 374: In reaction to Sandy Hook

Originally posted on 2/6/13 on www.helenpartlow.com

Proposed Bill No. 374 was referred to the Committee on Public Health in Connecticut in January 2013 by sponsors Senator Harp and Representative Walker.  This was most likely a reaction to the devastating murders that occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT last December 2012.  The aftermath of Sandy Hook left people to question current gun control and mental health laws.  This proposed bill is "an act requiring behavioral health assessments for children."  It would require children in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 to undergo a confidential behavioral health assessment, or at ages 12, 14, and 17 if the children are home-schooled.  The results would only be available to the child's parents and health care provider, however the health care provider would be supplied by the State Board of Education.  No mental health illness indicators would be  required in order for this assessment to occur.  

Reaction to this  bill has included some criticism from the home-schooling community, claiming that "this assessment would constitute an unwarranted, gross invasion of family privacy."(http://www.hslda.org/).  They further elaborate that Proposed Bill No. 374 "would essentially authorize the state to conduct regular social services investigations of homeschooling families without any basis to do so. This outrageous legislative proposal must be stopped in its tracks before it gains any momentum." (http://www.hslda.org/)

The constitutional implications could be great if this bill became law.  It is a fundamental right under the Constitution of the United States that parents be able to control their child's upbringing.  This has been often tested.  For example, in Fields v. Palmdale School District, 427 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2005), an elementary school in Palmdale, California questioned students in a survey about the frequency of "thinking of having sex" in order to further evaluate a student's psychological barriers to learning.  The parents brought the law suit on the argument that they had a fundamental right to their child's upbringing, which included how the child was introduced to matters relating to sex.  The Fields court held "that a psychological survey is a reasonable state action pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state." Id.  

The fact that the California court upheld the school's right to question the students "for the health and welfare interests of the state" Id. raises the question of how the Connecticut courts may perceive this new proposed law.  On one hand you must consider the implied constitutional right parents have to protect their children's upbringing versus the state's concern for the welfare of the community.  Does the safety of the many supersede the rights of the few? If this bill becomes law, does it open the door for the state to further insinuate itself into the private lives of families? Will other issues become entangled in the web of what is best for society versus what is best for each family? How far can this go and where should the line be drawn?

While the  final wording of the proposed bill is unknown, there are many unanswered questions and evocative arguments that Proposed Bill 374 evokes.