Timeline
Confidential medical release has been a hot topic for over 25 years -- and we summarized its history with about 500 words. Read the timeline to learn about key players and events.
July 28, 1983. John Van de Kamp, California’s Attorney General, issued an opinion on confidential medical services. First, he said that public schools have the authority to excuse pupils for medical services. This was an option, not a requirement. Second, he said that if schools choose to excuse pupils for medical services, they were under no obligation to notify parents.
March 6, 1985. Assemblyman Eric Seastrand introduced Assembly Bill 1541, partly in response to the Attorney General’s opinion. The goal of AB 1541: make sure parents are notified that school districts have the option of releasing minors for confidential medical services.
June 28, 1985. A claim for damages letter was issued against Thermalito School District for $3.2 million. On March 27, 1985, a Thermalito teacher had taken a student to receive medical services, and injury resulted to the child. The teacher acted within the scope of her duties, but without parental consent.
June 27, 1986. AB 1541 passed with more than a two-thirds majority. It became Education Code §46010.1. As a piece of “urgency” legislation, this parental consent law took effect immediately. Shortly afterward, many districts passed policies requiring parental consent, before students were released from school for confidential medical services. To our knowledge, Poway Unified was the first to enact such a policy. West Covina enacted a parent-friendly policy in 1992, after a lawsuit threat from a parent, whose child was taken off campus for medical services without her knowledge.
February 25, 1987. Assemblyman Eric Seastrand wrote a letter to school superintendents, intended “to clarify [his] intent in sponsoring AB 1541.” It told them to “be careful in your wording of the notification to parents that you do not confuse the intent of AB 1541 and lead them to believe that AB 1541 ‘mandates’ school districts to maintain this practice of dismissal without [a] parent’s consent.” He said that policy on “the release of children from school” should be set “according to the decision of the local school board” (emphasis in original).
November 29, 2004. Solano County counsel, under pressure from teacher’s unions, requested that Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued a legal opinion on confidential release. Without citing a single case or law that required parental notification, Lockyer concluded that school districts must release students without parental notification. His opinion was criticized as unsound. In a December 2004 media interview, Lockyer said, “The law is ambiguous.” He also stated that, in his belief, no school district would be sued for choosing to notify parents. Many respected law firms have written legal opinions, stating that districts can require parental notification when children are released from campus.
Present. Our research suggests that some 37 percent of California school districts require parental consent before minor students leave campus for confidential medical services. Some districts have faced legal action for excluding parents from this process. No district with a parent-friendly policy, however, has ever faced a lawsuit for requiring parental consent.
July 28, 1983. John Van de Kamp, California’s Attorney General, issued an opinion on confidential medical services. First, he said that public schools have the authority to excuse pupils for medical services. This was an option, not a requirement. Second, he said that if schools choose to excuse pupils for medical services, they were under no obligation to notify parents.
March 6, 1985. Assemblyman Eric Seastrand introduced Assembly Bill 1541, partly in response to the Attorney General’s opinion. The goal of AB 1541: make sure parents are notified that school districts have the option of releasing minors for confidential medical services.
June 28, 1985. A claim for damages letter was issued against Thermalito School District for $3.2 million. On March 27, 1985, a Thermalito teacher had taken a student to receive medical services, and injury resulted to the child. The teacher acted within the scope of her duties, but without parental consent.
June 27, 1986. AB 1541 passed with more than a two-thirds majority. It became Education Code §46010.1. As a piece of “urgency” legislation, this parental consent law took effect immediately. Shortly afterward, many districts passed policies requiring parental consent, before students were released from school for confidential medical services. To our knowledge, Poway Unified was the first to enact such a policy. West Covina enacted a parent-friendly policy in 1992, after a lawsuit threat from a parent, whose child was taken off campus for medical services without her knowledge.
February 25, 1987. Assemblyman Eric Seastrand wrote a letter to school superintendents, intended “to clarify [his] intent in sponsoring AB 1541.” It told them to “be careful in your wording of the notification to parents that you do not confuse the intent of AB 1541 and lead them to believe that AB 1541 ‘mandates’ school districts to maintain this practice of dismissal without [a] parent’s consent.” He said that policy on “the release of children from school” should be set “according to the decision of the local school board” (emphasis in original).
November 29, 2004. Solano County counsel, under pressure from teacher’s unions, requested that Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued a legal opinion on confidential release. Without citing a single case or law that required parental notification, Lockyer concluded that school districts must release students without parental notification. His opinion was criticized as unsound. In a December 2004 media interview, Lockyer said, “The law is ambiguous.” He also stated that, in his belief, no school district would be sued for choosing to notify parents. Many respected law firms have written legal opinions, stating that districts can require parental notification when children are released from campus.
Present. Our research suggests that some 37 percent of California school districts require parental consent before minor students leave campus for confidential medical services. Some districts have faced legal action for excluding parents from this process. No district with a parent-friendly policy, however, has ever faced a lawsuit for requiring parental consent.