Relating to mental health therapy for children in family law proceedings.
Summary
Senate Bill 1106 would require Oregon courts, in proceedings to establish or modify parenting time, to order that a child receive mental health therapy if the child is at least 5 years old and under 18 years old. For children under 5, the bill would allow the court to require therapy at its discretion. The measure applies to family law cases involving parenting time and places the obligation on the parties to ensure the child receives the therapy ordered by the court.
The bill is framed as a child-focused family law measure intended to make mental health therapy a standard part of parenting-time disputes involving school-age and teenage children. It does not specify the type, duration, or provider of therapy, leaving those details to be implemented through court orders and the parties’ compliance.
Impact
SB 1106 would amend Oregon family law practice by adding a mandatory mental health therapy requirement in parenting-time proceedings for children ages 5 through 17, and a discretionary option for children under 5. In effect, courts handling custody/parenting-time modifications would gain a new statutory duty to order therapy in most covered cases, and parents or other parties would be legally responsible for arranging and ensuring the child receives it. The bill would affect family court litigants, judges, and mental health providers, but it does not create a new agency program or funding mechanism.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be motivated by concern for children’s mental health in family conflict settings and is presented in a straightforward, protective manner. Because the bill was introduced without accompanying discussion in the provided materials, overall sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond its child-welfare orientation.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s mandatory nature for children ages 5 to 17 and the breadth of judicial discretion for children under 5. Critics could question whether therapy should be automatically ordered in all parenting-time cases, whether courts should have that level of authority in family disputes, and who would pay for and select the therapy. Supporters would likely emphasize the benefit of early mental health intervention for children affected by custody conflict. No specific opposing or supporting stakeholders were identified in the provided record.