State education association warns “parental rights” bill could shield child abusers
Lawmakers advanced a bill that would allow parents to forbid school health screenings, the “frontline defense” for catching abusive parents. Albany County’s Rothfuss and Provenza voted against.
A draft bill advanced by lawmakers this week would allow parents to opt their children out of health screenings and questionnaires offered by their school. It would also require schools to notify parents “if there is a change in the student’s physical, mental or emotional health or well-being.”
Supporters of the proposed legislation view the issue as a matter of parental rights, but detractors warn it would provide an easy way for abusive or neglectful parents to avoid detection — and that it could require teachers to out gay or trans students to unsupportive or potentially dangerous parents.
The bill raised questions of state vs. local control, the rights of children vs. the rights of their parents, and the complexities of mandatory reporting requirements.
But when Tate Mullen of the Wyoming Education Association took to the microphone, he kept his testimony short and to the point.
“Our schools are the frontline defense for catching cases of abuse and neglect, and these are mostly done through those health screenings,” he said. “If we provide an option for an opt-out, we do run the risk of missing a lot of these cases of abuse and neglect for first detection.”
Mullen added there’s data from the pandemic to support this fear.
“We have seen this evidence in testimony from (the Department of Family Services) about their caseload from 2019 to 2020 — when we weren't providing these screenings — and their caseload plummeted because of the lack of screening,” Mullen said.
Mullen’s objection did not stop the Joint Education Committee from advancing the bill on a 10-4 vote.
Sen. Chris Rothfuss (SD-9) and Rep. Karlee Provenza (HD-45), both of Albany County, voted against the bill. Representatives Ryan Berger (HD-49) and Jerry Obermueller (HD-56), both Republicans, also voted against.
Albany County Rep. Ocean Andrew (HD-46) voted in favor.
Armed with a committee endorsement, the bill could be introduced during the Wyoming Legislature’s upcoming 2024 budget session. It will need to clear a two-thirds vote to be introduced.
Revamping the “Don’t Say Gay” bill
The new bill mirrors the “Don’t Say Gay” bill that failed in the Wyoming Legislature earlier this year. But lawmakers have removed the provisions that earned that bill its moniker.
During the 2023 session, Wyoming legislators introduced Senate File 117, a near carbon copy of Florida’s infamous “Don’t Say Gay” bill. It would have allowed parents to opt out of health screenings and required schools to notify parents about any “change” in their student’s “physical, mental or emotional health and well-being.” But it also would have forbidden elementary teachers from offering any classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.
Opponents, in both Florida and Wyoming, argued that this provision could ban the child of a same-sex couple from talking about their “dads” or their “moms” in class and perhaps ban teachers from acknowledging that child’s family.
Senate File 117 passed in its house of origin and only died when it failed to be considered for introduction in the House. Despite intense debate surrounding the bill and its implications, it died on procedural grounds rather than any negative vote from lawmakers.
The new bill advanced this week by the Joint Education Committee contains much of last session’s bill. But the new “parental rights in education” bill lacks the paragraph forbidding classroom discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Despite this, the new bill is still very much about LGBTQ rights and the backlash to them.
“Specifically, I think of the Sweetwater County case where that child was transitioned behind the parents’ back,” Sen. Bo Biteman (SD-21) said, referencing a couple who is suing their local school district for keeping them in the dark while respecting their child’s chosen pronouns. “That's why we're here.”
While technically “parental rights” could refer to a wide range of issues, public comments made it clear that this bill, at this time, is almost exclusively about a parent’s alleged right to know if their child comes out as gay or trans at school.
For example, Sarah Bieber — a Natrona County resident who sometimes represents the group Moms for Liberty — told lawmakers she was disappointed to see the language about sexual orientation and gender identity removed from this new version of the bill.
Bieber said there should be no exceptions when it comes to reporting to parents, even if a teacher thinks a child would be “at risk” in their home “because they want to change their pronouns or they want to go by a different name.”
“That's kind of the stuff that we're up against,” she said.
Public commenters included state Superintendent Megan Degenfelder and representatives of both the Republican Party and Moms for Liberty, all of whom supported the bill.
Rothfuss advocates for the rights of children
The one exception to the bill’s reporting requirement proved to be its most contentious paragraph. It reads:
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a school district from adopting procedures that authorize school district personnel to withhold from disclosing to a parent or guardian information about the student's physical, mental or emotional health or well-being if a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in abuse as defined by W.S. 14-3-202(a)(ii) or neglect as defined by W.S. 14-3-202(a)(vii).
Several amendments sought to modify or eliminate this paragraph, and Albany County’s Sen. Rothfuss fought them all.
Most significantly, Sen. Biteman put forward an amendment to strike the paragraph in its entirety, eliminating the exception altogether and requiring schools to notify parents no matter what.
Rothfuss argued that would be an easy policy to implement, but a bad one.
“The easiest policy is: Don't worry about the consequences; always tell the parents,” he said. “We like those kinds of policies because they are clean and easy. It does seem like there could be the potential for endangering the child. And honestly, that's my biggest concern. Not lawsuits, not the parents. It's always the kids.”
Rothfuss said it came down to honoring the rights of children, especially teenagers — rights which are often disregarded by those in power.
“My biggest concern about this legislation is that it is empowering for the parents and disempowering for the kids,” he said. “Their rights are seldom reflected or respected in statute realistically. Their individuality, their autonomy, their ability to to look out for their own interests — we don't look out for them very well in statute.”
And sometimes, a child’s rights or safety will conflict with the rights or wishes of their parents, Rothfuss said.
“We don't like these circumstances, and we hope they don't happen, but there are definitely going to be occasions where a parent is the problem that needs to be addressed,” Rothfuss said.
Biteman’s amendment ultimately failed.
In the wake of that failure, another amendment sought to alter the same paragraph, adding a line that would require the school personnel to file a report with law enforcement whenever they withheld information from a parent.
The argument was this: if a school official is withholding information about a student from their parents specifically because that official believes abuse may occur as a result, they should be prepared to report that abuse to the legally appropriate authorities.
This would mean that teachers could not withhold information from a parent unless they were willing to make a report to law enforcement alleging abuse.
Sen. Cheri Steinmetz (SD-03) said this would be appropriate, given the seriousness of keeping a parent in the dark.
“I think this kind of scrutiny should be available before a parent has the information withheld,” she said.
But Rothfuss railed against this amendment, too, arguing that it limited a teacher’s options in a tough situation. He said strict mandatory reporting requirements lead to a lack of communication between students and the adults they trust.
As an assistant professor at the University of Wyoming, Rothfuss said students do sometimes ask to have a private conversation about something that’s bothering them or something they can’t go to their parents with.
“The challenge is you have to respond, ‘No, no, we can't. We can't have a private conversation. Don't tell me what you're thinking, go find someone else,’” Rothfuss said. “Honestly, as a mandatory reporter at University of Wyoming, that's what I do. Do we want that? Because we can have that. But it doesn't solve problems. It just says we have a nice clean boundary.”
This amendment failed too.
As it stands now, the bill includes the exception and does not explicitly require teachers to notify law enforcement when they withhold information.
But the bill does still demand that parents be notified about changes in their student’s health and well-being — which may include coming out as gay or trans — unless and until the school believes abuse or neglect may occur.
The bill will have to pass through both houses of the Wyoming Legislature and hit the governor’s desk before it can become law. State legislators will gather in Cheyenne for the 2024 budget session in February.