Confidential release raises serious legal questions, which take us more in-depth than the Six FAQS. This resource discusses the core legal issue at stake, what a lawsuit in California’s Manhattan Beach has to do with district liability, and how some districts are handling this.
Q1. If a district requires parental consent before students leave campus, does that violate the students’ legal right to get confidential medical services?
A. No. The issue here is not whether minors can privately consult a doctor. The issue is who approves minors’ requests for leaving campus during school hours. When parents entrust their children’s educations to schools, they do not transfer their parental role to school officials.
Q2. What about lawyers who say a district could be sued for not offering confidential release?
A. Legal briefs that oppose parental notification only touch on related issues, such as a minor’s right to receive confidential medical services in general -- an issue that is not disputed here. The issue here is who oversees students during school hours. In a lawsuit, courts would look at state Education Code, which gives school districts permission to release students without parental consent, but does not require districts to do so. Courts would also look at legislative intent, which we address in Question One above. We should also note that no district has been sued for requiring parental consent, though some districts have required parental consent for decades.
Q3. Do school districts face liability problems if they allow confidential release?
A. Districts face at least two kinds of liability. First, California Education Code §44808 says that districts are responsible for student safety when they “provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises.” This is why San Francisco Unified’s confidential medical release protocol, for example, does not allow schools to arrange transportation. San Francisco does not even permit officials to walk students from the school to a bus stop.
Second, California’s Supreme Court wrote in Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) that districts “have the duty to exercise ordinary care to enforce” rules that keep students on campus during school hours. The Court said that districts can be liable for injuries that result from the failure to enforce. Pacific Justice Institute has written that if a student is hurt in a non-emergency abortion without parental knowledge, for example, her parents may have a strong case against the district.
Q4. Do the laws dealing with average daily attendance require districts to offer confidential release?
A. No. California Education Code §48205 is the section that addresses with average daily attendance (ADA). Since school districts receive funding based on ADA, §48205 discusses exceptions to daily attendance, when students can be excused without decreasing the school’s funding. This section of state law, however, does not mandate confidential medical release.
Q5. Can you show me districts that successfully require parental consent?
A. Yes. Examples include Desert Sands Unified (Riverside County), Glendale Unified (Los Angeles County), West Covina Unified (Los Angeles County), Clovis Unified (Fresno County), Lodi Unified (San Joaquin County) and Roseville Joint High (Placer County). Many district policies require parental consent by default; they are silent on the matter of confidential release. Roseville policy explicitly says that “students shall not be released from school without their parents/guardians’ knowledge or consent except in cases of medical emergency.”
Q6. What policy do you recommend?
A. Schools board can and do pass different policy wordings, which have the common effect of requiring parental consent before students leave campus. CRI does not endorse one particular approach. We offer this language, however, as one good option: “With the exception of medical emergencies, no student shall be dismissed from campus during school hours without the written consent or a parent or guardian. In case of medical emergencies, parents or guardians shall be contacted as soon as possible as to where their child was taken for medical care.”
Q1. If a district requires parental consent before students leave campus, does that violate the students’ legal right to get confidential medical services?
A. No. The issue here is not whether minors can privately consult a doctor. The issue is who approves minors’ requests for leaving campus during school hours. When parents entrust their children’s educations to schools, they do not transfer their parental role to school officials.
Q2. What about lawyers who say a district could be sued for not offering confidential release?
A. Legal briefs that oppose parental notification only touch on related issues, such as a minor’s right to receive confidential medical services in general -- an issue that is not disputed here. The issue here is who oversees students during school hours. In a lawsuit, courts would look at state Education Code, which gives school districts permission to release students without parental consent, but does not require districts to do so. Courts would also look at legislative intent, which we address in Question One above. We should also note that no district has been sued for requiring parental consent, though some districts have required parental consent for decades.
Q3. Do school districts face liability problems if they allow confidential release?
A. Districts face at least two kinds of liability. First, California Education Code §44808 says that districts are responsible for student safety when they “provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises.” This is why San Francisco Unified’s confidential medical release protocol, for example, does not allow schools to arrange transportation. San Francisco does not even permit officials to walk students from the school to a bus stop.
Second, California’s Supreme Court wrote in Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) that districts “have the duty to exercise ordinary care to enforce” rules that keep students on campus during school hours. The Court said that districts can be liable for injuries that result from the failure to enforce. Pacific Justice Institute has written that if a student is hurt in a non-emergency abortion without parental knowledge, for example, her parents may have a strong case against the district.
Q4. Do the laws dealing with average daily attendance require districts to offer confidential release?
A. No. California Education Code §48205 is the section that addresses with average daily attendance (ADA). Since school districts receive funding based on ADA, §48205 discusses exceptions to daily attendance, when students can be excused without decreasing the school’s funding. This section of state law, however, does not mandate confidential medical release.
Q5. Can you show me districts that successfully require parental consent?
A. Yes. Examples include Desert Sands Unified (Riverside County), Glendale Unified (Los Angeles County), West Covina Unified (Los Angeles County), Clovis Unified (Fresno County), Lodi Unified (San Joaquin County) and Roseville Joint High (Placer County). Many district policies require parental consent by default; they are silent on the matter of confidential release. Roseville policy explicitly says that “students shall not be released from school without their parents/guardians’ knowledge or consent except in cases of medical emergency.”
Q6. What policy do you recommend?
A. Schools board can and do pass different policy wordings, which have the common effect of requiring parental consent before students leave campus. CRI does not endorse one particular approach. We offer this language, however, as one good option: “With the exception of medical emergencies, no student shall be dismissed from campus during school hours without the written consent or a parent or guardian. In case of medical emergencies, parents or guardians shall be contacted as soon as possible as to where their child was taken for medical care.”