Should DCS, schools be able to keep information from parents? Indiana Senate bill says no
The Indiana Senate passed a bill Monday that aims to keep government entities like the Indiana Department of Child Services and school districts from interfering in parents' rights, despite concerns that it could end up hurting the privacy rights of LGBTQ youth.
Approved by a 44-5 vote, Senate Bill 143 would forbid government entities from denying parents access to certain information about their children, and from "advising, directing or coercing" a child to withhold that information from parents.
Bill author Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, said the bill "gives parents the rights in Indiana which most of us thought we already had."
"We're just making sure that government does not constrain or in any way restrict a parent's right to direct the upbringing, religious instruction, or health of their child," Brown said. "You need a compelling governmental interest to interfere with that relationship."
The bill makes an exception for protecting the health and safety of a child, and for active criminal law enforcement investigations involving a parent.
It also wouldn't allow parents to decide that their children could access procedures that are banned in Indiana, such as abortion, gender-affirming care or female genital mutilation.
"A parent can't say they now have that right," Brown said. "We're not going to allow a parent to supersede us on mutilating their child or (abortion)."
The bill now moves on to the House for consideration and it still has a lengthy process to becoming law. A similar legislative effort to enshrine parental rights died in the past, though this year's bill has support from both Republicans and Democrats.
However, there is also some bipartisan opposition, with three Republicans and two Democrats voting against it in the Senate on Monday.
Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, said he worried about the bill's unintended consequences, though he "strongly agrees" with its goals. Just five years ago, he said, the state decided at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic that it had a compelling interest to close businesses and restrict travel. He doesn't want the government to create more hurdles for parents in the future.
"It was a compelling government interest back then," Freeman said. "I don't want to make it easier for government to say, well, because it's a compelling government interest, you have to get your children vaccinated. I don't want to make it easier for the government to act against parents."
Some advocates have raised concerns about how the bill would impact transgender children and their families.
Christopher Daley, executive director of the Indiana ACLU, said the legislation "encroaches on the privacy rights of minors throughout the state." The organization opposed a similar bill in the past, stating then that the legislation "could have been used to force a teacher to 'out' an LGBTQ student to their parents."
But Brown, the bill's author, said that wasn't a concern.
"I do not believe that minors have any significant privacy rights," Brown said, "particularly that are being invaded by this bill."
Sen. Mike Gaskill, R-Pendleton, also was motivated by the issue of transgender youth, but supported the bill. The legislation "really hits home" where here's from, he said.
His constituents lost custody of their child because of a disagreement over the child's transgender identity, Gaskill said, in a case that made national news as the parents sought a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. But the high court ultimately declined to hear the case.
"They lost it to the long arm of the state," Gaskill said. "This is long overdue."
Still, much of the testimony surrounding the bill related to alleged failures by DCS.
Indiana parents Grant and Myranda Phillips, for example, testified that they temporarily lost custody of their two children for nearly a year, and were kept from their children's medical records, after they said DCS incorrectly alleged abuse of a two-month-old infant.
It turned out instead that the child was suffering with an undiagnosed connective tissue disorder and DCS eventually dismissed the case, the family said. They have since filed a lawsuit.
"We've been healing as a family since getting our children home, and we're trying to use this horrible situation to bring attention to the things that are going on here in Indiana," Grant Phillips said. "The parents going ahead of us into these situations needs these kinds of protections that we did not have."
Though he had concerns about the bill, Freeman said its passage was a signal to DCS that the legislature wants the agency to "stay in their lane."
A DCS spokesperson said "the Braun administration values parents' rights and their access to information about their children."
"DCS has had productive conversations with the bill's author to develop language that complies with disclosure laws and court orders related to the department's ability to release such information," spokesperson Brian Heinemann told IndyStar.
"While we cannot comment specifically on open cases involving children or their information due to confidentiality laws," Heinemann said, "we take all allegations of non-compliance seriously and review those for corrective action when substantiated."
Contact senior government accountability reporter Hayleigh Colombo at hcolombo@indystar.com.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Bill protecting parents' rights from DCS, schools passes Indiana Senate
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Newsom Formally Asks Trump to Pull National Guard Out of L.A.
Stepping up his confrontation with the White House, Gov. Gavin Newsom demanded on Sunday that President Trump pull California National Guard troops off the streets and away from the demonstrations unfolding in Los Angeles. Mr. Newsom asserted on X that the deployment order was 'unlawful' and called on the Trump administration to return the command of the guard to his office. It is extremely rare for a president to call up a state's National Guard troops without the permission of that state's governor for the purpose of quelling unrest or enforcing the law. In California, the adjutant general of the state National Guard is appointed by the governor. 'Rescind the order,' Mr. Newsom wrote Sunday on X. 'Return control to California.' Read the Letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth On Sunday, Gov. Gavin Newsom's office sent a letter by email to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth objecting to the deployment of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles. The Democratic governor made his demand as protests against the immigration crackdown took place in parts of Los Angeles, marked by clouds of tear gas and confrontations between demonstrators and law enforcement. There was no immediate response from the White House. 'We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Mr. Newsom said. 'This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed.' Mr. Trump's attempt to bypass Mr. Newsom's authority and activate the Guard relied on a seldom-used reading of federal law. In signing the order on Saturday, the president cited a provision within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services that allows the federal deployment of National Guard forces if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The last time a president overrode a state governor to activate the National Guard to stop unrest or enforce the law was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama in 1965 to protect civil rights demonstrators, according to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. In a letter to Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, David Sapp, the governor's legal affairs secretary, argued there was no need for such an intervention and that the situation was being adequately controlled by local police officers. 'Local law enforcement resources are sufficient to maintain order,' Mr. Sapp told Mr. Hegseth in urging him to rescind the order. 'In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, state and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property,' Mr. Sapp wrote. He also told Mr. Hegseth that the president's order did not follow the law, which he said requires that deployment orders be issued through a state's governor.


CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
CCTV Script 06/06/25
The war of words between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, which seemed to escalate almost hourly, has already cost real money in the capital markets. Overnight, Musk's personal net worth reportedly fell by approximately $34 billion. By aligning the timing of their social media exchanges with Tesla's stock movements, a clear pattern emerges: as the feud grew more intense, with language becoming increasingly blunt and emotional, Tesla's share price continued to slide. Many analysts believe that Tesla's stock is likely to remain volatile. To assess its future trajectory, we can start with the trigger of this conflict: a recently passed House spending bill. One provision would eliminate tax credits for electric vehicles—directly impacting Tesla. JPMorgan analysts estimate that the new legislation could cut Tesla's annual profits by around $1.2 billion. However, some market observers note that both Musk and others in the industry had long anticipated that the Trump administration would eventually scrap EV subsidies. This expectation has been priced in—it was only a matter of timing. But of even greater consequence is the second layer of impact: the broader regulatory posture of the White House toward Musk, particularly in the autonomous driving space. Timing is critical. Next week, Tesla is expected to debut its long-awaited Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas. Progress in self-driving technology has been a key reason many investors remain bullish on Tesla. But the breakdown in Musk's relationship with Trump could undermine those expectations. "there's a view that the battle here going on between musk and Trump, that this is going to continue to sort of, you know, increase, and with that, ultimately does is that autonomous and the regulatory vision does Trump now, now not start to play nice in the sandbox with musk.""Elon Musk, as brilliant as he can be, can also be mercurial and impetuous. CUT TO from a trading perspective, I think the stock could easily trade down into the 250s 260s until you get some support." Beyond the personal feud, the spotlight is also shifting to the broader relationship between Silicon Valley—the U.S. tech hub—and Washington, D.C.—the political center. As Musk and Trump move from allies to adversaries, their split is drawing attention to the evolving dynamic between big tech and federal power. Analysts told CNBC that during Trump's first term, major tech firms often found themselves in the administration's crosshairs. Companies like Meta, Google, and to some extent Apple were all named in antitrust inquiries. Now, the rift between Musk and Trump may open new doors for tech leaders who have had tense relations with Musk. For instance, Jeff Bezos—who also leads a space company—has in recent months made efforts to court Trump more closely, reportedly taking cues from Musk's political playbook. This shift may also present an opportunity for Sam Altman, CEO of AI startup OpenAI. "If you're a startup that's trying to make big names or big headlines with investments for the US, that's probably a good place to be." Still, some analysts caution that this overnight drama may not deserve too much attention. A defining feature of the Trump-era policymaking process has always been its volatility—things can shift dramatically within just a few hours. What ultimately matters is returning to the fundamentals and taking a long-term view of where the industry—and the economy—are heading.


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Conservative Colombian senator in serious condition after shooting at political rally
BOGOTA — Colombian Sen. Miguel Uribe Turbay, a conservative presidential hopeful, was in 'serious' condition Sunday following surgery for a gunshot wound at a political rally a day earlier, Bogota's mayor said. Mayor Carlos Galán visited the Fundación Santa Fe clinic to express solidarity with the family of the 39-year-old senator.