Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:17.720> um someone you love much l a parent um someone you love much l a parent um
• parent arrested or in court.
• parent arrested or in court.
• But the role of the parent with the child, the relationship of the parent with the child—does the parent
• <00:57:48.599> aren't parent and even parents who aren't parent and even parents who aren't

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:20 Discussion of 25RS HB 479 00:03:22 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 479 00:04:51 Discussion of 25RS HB 574 00:21:49 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 475 00:23:41 Discussion of 25RS HB 291 01:04:38 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 291 01:05:42 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Families and Children met and first took up House Bill 479, which would require one hour of dementia training for DCBS workers. Representative Derrick Lewis and the Alzheimer’s Association said the bill was a straightforward, bipartisan effort to address dementia awareness and improve worker training, with no fiscal impact. Members spoke in support, including remarks about personal family experiences with dementia and the importance of recognizing symptoms early. The committee voted 11-0 to pass the bill with favorable expression. The committee then heard House Bill 574, the “Baby Maya” child protection bill, sponsored by Representatives Dossett and Lewis. The bill would require reporting when a child is born to a parent who previously had children removed for neglect or abuse, create a rebuttable presumption allowing the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to make an initial safety determination, authorize emergency custody procedures, and name the measure the Baby Maya Law. Sponsors said it was intended to add guardrails after the Baby Maya case and stressed that it would not automatically remove children or add new mandatory-reporter penalties. Members asked about hospital involvement, HIPAA, and information-sharing; the Cabinet commissioner said the agency would be open to better data-sharing with hospitals, but currently has no such system. The bill passed 12-1 with favorable expression. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 291, the Family Preservation and Accountability Act, with a committee substitute. The bill would expand sentencing alternatives for primary caregivers convicted of nonviolent offenses, allowing judges to consider family status and use options such as counseling, parenting classes, and related services. Supporters argued it would keep families together, reduce harm from parental incarceration, and save money; one witness cited a report estimating $4 million in direct incarceration savings and broader economic benefits. Another witness, Amanda Hall, gave emotional testimony about the long-term harm of parental incarceration and said access to help would have been better for her family than prison. The committee adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill 12-1 with favorable expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• parents already do.
• Are these the real stories from parents?
• The parents couldn't... ...find her.
• Now we've talked about parental controls. Well, why don't parents just supervise their children?
• The state does not have a mandate to parent our children in place of the wisdom of individual parents

Bills: HB186, HB201, HB229, HB796, HB1506, HB2702, HB2885, HB3225, HB3909, HB4285, HB5138

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, financial crime, card fraud, motor fuel theft, law enforcement, criminal activity, skimmers, prevention, training, biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, federal directives, state authority

Transcript Highlights:

• rest with parents listed.
• rest with parents listed.
• rest with parents listed.
• rest with parents listed.
• rest with parents listed.

Keywords: 00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 01:32 Discussion on 25RS HB 164 10:07 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 164 11:30 Discussion on 25RS HB 242 13:09 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 242 15:08 Consideration of Referred Administrative Regulations 17:37 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Families and Children held its first meeting of 2025, with the chair welcoming new members and Vice Chair Wilson. After roll call, the committee took up House Bill 164, sponsored by Representative Wesley, which concerns an honorary adoption situation. The committee adopted a House committee substitute clarifying that any survivor benefits or inheritance would not go to honorary adoptive parents, and heard emotional testimony from Caitlyn Rollins about fostering and adopting a child who later died before a scheduled adoption date. Members discussed the bill’s purpose as providing closure and ensuring legal parentage is recognized in life and death, while also noting a possible drafting issue about whether all listed conditions must be met. The committee agreed to address that concern through a possible House floor amendment, and HB 164 passed favorably 16-0. The committee then heard House Bill 242, sponsored by Representative Sam, and testimony from child welfare researcher Matthew Walden. The bill is intended to increase transparency in Kentucky’s child welfare system by making program data available to researchers while protecting privacy. With no questions from members, the bill passed the committee favorably by a 16-0 vote. Finally, the committee reviewed referred administrative regulations and considered agency amendment 490 related to adoption assistance and Title IV-E adoption assistance. CHFS representatives explained that the amendment removes a civil determination requirement from certain sections because the cabinet cannot make such determinations and already relies on substantiations and other safety checks. The committee approved the agency amendment by voice vote, then concluded its review of the remaining regulations without further action. The next meeting was announced for February 20, 2025, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is extraordinarily concerning to me, given that it requires then a minor that would need parental
• This is extraordinarily concerning to me, given that it requires then a minor that would need parental
• So my main concern here is that the bill doesn't actually properly address when the parent is serving
• I'm going to get my parents the parental consent.
• I'm going to get my parents the parental consent.

Bills: SB57, SB405, HB62, HB193, HB203, HB222, HB246, HB420, HB475, HB486, HB574, HB584, HB815, HB949, HB1092, HB1214

Keywords: SB 57, Act 735, Act 463, nutrition, public health, food additives, artificial colors, banned chemicals, ingredient labeling, food labeling, FDA, food and beverage regulation, consumer disclosure, school nutrition, Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 40, Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 17, food manufacturers, food retailers, compliance, effective date delay

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the<00:03:51.440> concern?
• <00:03:53.360> What the concern? How can we fix this? What the concern?
• by the Senate was that before a parent by the Senate was that before a parent or<00:12:44.720>
• So that's my concern.
• <00:42:06.720> Um, concerns with with that. Um, concerns with with that.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the prior meeting minutes and then spent most of the meeting discussing draft recommendations and a Senate amendment, 007-7, related to seclusion in schools. The chair explained the history of the issue, including Minnesota’s 2023 ban on seclusion from birth through grade 3, and described 007-7 as a compromise developed with stakeholders that would extend the ban through grade 6 unless strict conditions are met. Those conditions include explicit written informed consent from all parents or guardians in their primary language, oral translation of safeguards, showing the seclusion room before consent, mandatory follow-up IEP meetings after repeated use, outreach and education for families, and data reporting on use of seclusion. The chair also said the amendment would prevent judges or other officials from ordering seclusion over a parent’s objection. Members then reviewed the draft recommendations line by line. They agreed to revise language to add “and fund” after “mandate” in the first section, and discussed changing references from “level three and level four” to “level three and higher,” though several members ultimately preferred keeping the focus on school settings and not expanding into medical or correctional settings. They also discussed replacing the word “subjected” with more neutral language such as “experience” or “whose IEP includes seclusion.” Another issue was whether the recommendations should distinguish between students whose IEP already includes seclusion and students who experience seclusion in an emergency but do not have it in their IEP; members suggested splitting that into separate recommendations and possibly adding a new item for the latter situation. A final discussion focused on whether the working group should recommend a mandated alternative-to-seclusion program and whether such a mandate should be tied to funding. School district representatives said many districts already use programs such as CPI, but others, especially outstate districts, charter schools, hospitals, and residential settings, may face significant costs if required to adopt new programs like Ukeru. Members generally agreed that if the legislature is asked to require implementation of new alternatives, funding should accompany the mandate. The chair also noted that existing law already requires an IEP team meeting after restrictive procedures are used twice in 30 days, and encouraged members to compare that with the 007-7 language before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• The parents, the parents can agree to an evaluator or the judge can appoint an evaluator.
• parent.
• Uh, pro both parents and the removal should be very strict and if the parent needs help to help them.
• And then as a parent.
• by court as parents.

Bills: HB116

Keywords: film industry, incentives, economic development, state funding, media production

Transcript Highlights:

• Most parents would give us that.
• Most parents would give us that.
• Some parents might want that path. Some other parents might not.
• I am concerned about safety.
• I am concerned about safety.

Bills: HF1247, HF628

Keywords: child care, aides, supervision, child care centers, staffing regulations, childcare, day care, licensed child care center, early childhood education, child care licensing, director qualifications, staff ratios, group size, staff-to-child ratio, substitutes, volunteers, assistant teacher, teacher qualifications, infant care, toddler age

Transcript Highlights:

• uh, the parents, the child was, the child was taken from the parents.
• It's unfair to have different standards for parents who live in state and parents who live out of state
• And as you all know, the federal and state fit parent presumption says that a fit parent acts in the
• Can you explain what is the difference between a custodial parent and a non-custodial parent, because
• that was brought up, and my understanding is a non-custodial parent is a parent that the child may not

Bills: HB 26, HB 140, HB 141, HB 142, HB 215

Keywords: Medicaid, nutrition support, maternal health, chronic conditions, pilot program, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, child protective services, child abuse investigations, child neglect, child exploitation, advisory committee, Family and Protective Services Council, council abolition, foster care, due process, investigative procedures, child welfare, parental rights, family preservation services

Transcript Highlights:

• So that is the ultimate concern.
• My concern is the study committee.
• The parental consent requirements entail verifying parental relationships and parental rights, which
• The parental consent requirements entail verifying parental relationships and parental rights, which
• And so we're just here representing parents. And I'm sure, yeah, and I share your concern.

Bills: SB1176, SB1186, SB1235, SB1286, SB1446, SB1458, SB1515, SB1616, SB1641, SB1668, SB1670, SB1678, SB1747, SB1787

Keywords: stormwater, water storage, replenishment credits, groundwater, aquifer, Arizona Revised Statutes, disclosure, state contracts, procurement records, donations, transparency, EMS, reciprocity, interstate compact, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, licensure, public safety, military personnel, veterinary telemedicine

Transcript Highlights:

• Are we catching parents? Are we punishing parents? What is the services?
• Are we catching parents? Are we punishing parents? What is the services?
• Are we catching parents? Are we punishing parents? What is the services?
• Are we catching parents? Are we punishing parents? What is the services?
• Are we catching parents? Are we punishing parents? What is the services?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The House Children and Family Law Committee met on January 28, 2025, and first heard House Bill 322, which would give a parent paying child support the exclusive right to claim the child as a dependent on taxes. Representative Barton, the sponsor, argued that because child support is no longer tax-deductible, the paying parent should at least receive the child tax credit. Committee members and later testimony from New Hampshire Legal Assistance raised concerns that the bill would override court discretion, could disadvantage low-income custodial parents, and would not account for cases where child support payments are small or where parents share support unevenly. Several members noted that judges already allocate dependency claims in divorce orders and can modify those orders when circumstances change. After testimony, the committee moved to ITL (inexpedient to legislate) HB 322. The motion was seconded, discussion continued, and the roll call was unanimous in favor of ITL. The committee then placed the bill on consent and ended the executive session on HB 322. The committee next took up House Bill 325, which would eliminate term and reimbursement alimony in no-fault divorces. Representative Barton testified that alimony in those cases was akin to involuntary servitude and should not survive dissolution of the marriage contract. The hearing then moved into questions about whether alimony is meant to compensate a spouse for sacrifices made during the marriage, such as supporting a partner through school or staying home with children, and the sponsor maintained that post-divorce support should not continue as a marital obligation. The transcript cuts off before any vote or further action on HB 325 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• individual education plans that a parent individual education plans that a parent has<00:04:11.599
• the previous speaker raised a concern the previous speaker raised a concern about<01:11:45.320><
• witness all the people all the parents witness all the people all the parents all<01:27:13.360><
• It's overwhelming for a parent.
• It's overwhelming for a parent.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are already pathways in schools and districts by which parents can express concern over materials
• Do parents have...
• parent like this."
• Of remembering that was passed last time was that a parent could— a parent had something about parent
• There's a balance between the First Amendment and parent concerns that we've heard here tonight.

Bills: SB 13, SB 27, SB 57, HB1325, HB1655, HB3312, HB5526, SB13, SB57, SB207, HB441, HB591, HB5019, SB27, SB843

Keywords: lobbying, public funds, political subdivision, local government, county association, municipal lobbying, registered lobbyist, Texas Legislature, taxpayer lawsuit, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, government finance, county dues, state association of counties, sheriffs association, law enforcement officers, legislative advocacy, bill tracking, legislative alerts, Government Code Chapter 556

Transcript Highlights:

• > can't<00:04:02.319> register parents because the child can't register parents because
• charge a parent with a felony over that. charge a parent with a felony over that.
• parent wouldn't be breaking the law. parent wouldn't be breaking the law. Correct. Correct.
• single parent that's there. single parent that's there.
• appreciate your concerns. Thank you. appreciate your concerns. Thank you.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 5:15 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee took up Bill 2802, which would address falsifying residency or enrollment documents to place a child in a different school district. Senator Rhodes explained that the current penalty is a felony with a large fine and possible prison time, but that prosecutors rarely use it; the bill would add a misdemeanor-level penalty to create a more realistic enforcement option. He also proposed an amendment changing language that would have required expulsion of the child, replacing it with language making the child ineligible for enrollment in that district so the child would not have an expulsion on record. The committee adopted that amendment by voice vote. Members then debated the bill’s broader policy effects. Supporters argued the measure is needed because districts have reported problems with parents using false addresses or other fraudulent documents, and they said the bill simply creates a lesser penalty while preserving enforcement. Opponents said the bill punishes parents who are trying to secure a better education for their children, may not increase prosecutions, and could harm families and children who did nothing wrong. One senator compared the issue to other criminalized conduct involving rule violations, while another questioned whether the state should be creating a misdemeanor for conduct that is already a felony. The committee also discussed a proposed amendment to remove the felony component entirely and make the offense only a misdemeanor. That amendment was debated at length, with concerns raised that the broader statute covers more than school enrollment fraud and could affect other forms of false statements to government entities. The transcript ends during that discussion, with no final recorded disposition on the bill itself in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The parental consent requirements entail verifying parental relationships and parental rights, which
• Right now, what I'm concerned about is that there may be actually a lot of access gained that parents
• You know, parents like, you know...
• I am firmly for parental rights and parental protections of their children.
• concerns were.

Bills: HB2128, HB2255, HB2397, HB2429, HB2591, HB2680, HB2834, HB2868, HB2911, HB2951, HB2979, HB2991, HB2996, HB2999, HB4001, HB4011, HB4017, HB4020, HB4026, HB4086, HB4088, HB2244, HB2342

Keywords: homeowners associations, condominiums, open meetings, governance, transparency, Arizona Teachers Academy, teacher preparation, education funding, public schools, scholarships, teacher certification, community colleges, HOA, homeowners association, planned community, condominium, CC&Rs, covenants, conditions and restrictions, resale disclosure, association disclosure

Transcript Highlights:

• This should be concerning to all parents, whether you're a Republican, a Democrat, or not political at
• My mom was a single parent for a while. Single parents, God bless them.
• So parent A is a loving parent, an accepting parent, and trying to help their kid figure themselves out
• other parent... parent does agree, that one parent won't lose their parental rights to have visitation
• I do respect parental decisions. I'm a parent.

Bills: HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HCR59, HCR135, HB4, HB46, HB3221, HB1403, HB3892, HB4234, HB722, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HB40, HB 101, HB 112, HB146, HB214, HB413, HB1523, HB493, HB521, HB594, HB557, HB305, HB549, HB854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB842, HB3174, HB3196, HB824, HB 1039, HB2529, HB2713, HB4936, HB4995, HB4830, HB4864, HB5219, HB5263, HB5154, HB2674, HB5525, SB529, SB541, SB2004, SB1012, SB2269, SB1886, SB1236, SB693, SB2308, HB2486, HB4862, HB4689, HB4520, HB2225, HB168, HJR218, HB4921, HB5623, HB2494, HB2545, HB2587, HB2625, HB5520, HB5436, HB4926, HB1573, HB5165, HB4811, HB5081, HB4755, HB3179, HB4310, HB4611, HB2159, HB4626, HB3637, HB3153, HB3066, HB2786, HB2966, HB638, HB640, HB876, HB497, HB5539, HB4809, HB5308, HB4687, HB4070, HB4421, HB4412, HB3284, HB3369, HB3420, HB3449, HB4098, HB4281, HB4120, HB4504, HB4370, HB 1106, HB2370, HB2404, HB3863, HB2407, HB2253, HB2273, HB2040, HB1586, HB3788, HB3993, HB4690, HB4309, HB4696, HB2308, HB 1142, HB1533, HB1621, HB2242, HB2012, HB2193, HB2442, HB2464, HB2348, HB2313, HB2289, HB1942, HB2011, HB1629, HB2993, HB3592, HB3824, HB4076, HB4535, HB4623, HB4773, HB 1091, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HB 127, HB386, HB 115, HB2868, HB 1249, HB4766, HB3720, HB4656, HB4879, HB 105, HB5383, HB4621, HB5431, HB5678, HB5534, HB4174, HB4212, HB3954, HB3966, HB3636, HB3918, HB1422, HB4765, HB4732, HB4742, HB5122, HB4518, HB5084, HB3986, HB4045, HB4144, HB3911, HB3976, HB4473, HB3425, HB3641, HB3642, HB3475, HB3509, HB3424, HB3383, HB4744, HB4531, HB4539, HB3159, HB5228, HB5370, HB4359, HB4398, HB4443, HB4466, HB3861, HB3849, HB4240, HB4706, HB4685, HB5354, HB5141, HB5686, HB3629, HB3554, HB3567, HB2015, HB3575, HB5381, HB1431, HB3514, HB4614, HB4546, HB4683, HB5681, HB5673, HB5663, HB4271, HB4350, HB4035, HB3807, HB3812, HB3552, HB3540, HB3715, HB3710, HB3664, HB4196, HB4233, HB4173, HB1998, HB3333, HB3510, HB4222, HB2070, HB2854, HB2347, HB 113, HB983, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB5151, HB265, HB1845, HB782, HB 108, HB1960, HB158, HB1954, HB1955, HB2512, HB605, HB2581, HB2803, HB627, HB2667, HB1738, HB636, HB3679, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB2438, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB2153, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3178, HB3182, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2132, HB2658, HB2413, HB2757, HB2080, HB3154, HB3063, HB3009, HB3448, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3946, HB3460, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3520, HB2060, HB4731, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2142, HB2673, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB5573, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2234, HB2203, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB139, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB2333, HB4630, HB4701, HB2583, HB2983, HB4924, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5430, HB5561, HB5611, HB5043, HB5064, HB3733, HB3781, HB3219, HB32, HB4515, HB5348, HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135

Keywords: Medicaid, reimbursement, nursing facilities, ownership change, healthcare policy, mental health, psychiatric beds, inpatient psychiatric treatment, acute psychiatric care, bed availability, bed capacity, hospital reporting, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state hospitals, private mental health facilities, civil commitment, competency restoration, not guilty by reason of insanity, jail diversion

Transcript Highlights:

• Recently, in the Pajaro Valley School District, Jewish parents who were raising concerns about the adoption
• School districts have adopted harmful course materials ignoring the concerns of Jewish parents.
• I'm a concerned lesbian Jewish parent who has kids in San Francisco schools who have experienced direct
• I'm a concerned parent of a child at the SCFUSD who has been subjected to and witnessed acts of anti-Semitism
• I am here with BUSD Berkeley parents for Berkeley Jewish parents.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > that<03:56:34.760> um that concern that concern that that um that concern that concern that
• If a parent had reason to be concerned about what their child was reading and sent him a note requesting
• If a parent had reason to be concerned about what their child was reading and sent him a note requesting
• When I went into my library, the extent of this type of concern as a parent was a National Geographic
• You leave the parenting to the parents.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 763, an early bill concerning AED access at athletic events and venues. Representative Morris offered amendment 0743H to clarify the bill by removing charter schools from the language and tying AED placement to American Heart Association guidance, emphasizing that AEDs should be readily accessible within a reasonable walking distance rather than mandated on every field. The amendment and then the bill as amended both passed 17-0, and the bill was reported out as Ought to Pass with Amendment. The committee then considered House Bill 781, requiring school districts to adopt cell phone-free education policies, and a related bill, House Bill 131. HB 781 was amended to include charter public school boards, cover other personal electronic communication devices, require at minimum restrictions on student personal cell phones during class instruction, allow superintendent-approved exceptions for medical or language needs, protect students with medical needs or disabilities under Section 504, and set an effective date of July 1, 2025. Some members argued the amendment was too prescriptive and limited local control, while supporters said it still left districts flexibility outside classroom instruction. The amendment passed 16-1, and the bill then passed Ought to Pass as Amended 16-1. HB 131, described as a mirror bill, was then retained by a 17-0 vote. House Bill 398, a title bill requiring Holocaust and genocide studies to include impacts on people with disabilities, was moved to ITL after Representative Selig reported the genocide commission believed the topic was already being covered. That motion passed 17-0. The committee also agreed to hold several bills for later consideration, including HB 754, HB 1221, HB 360, and HB 699, citing the need for more review or missing copies. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 361, prohibiting mandatory mask policies in schools. Supporters argued the bill would preserve individual choice while preventing statewide or districtwide mandates in future public health emergencies, and cited a Department of Health and Human Services letter saying masks remain effective but decisions should be based on individual choice and risk assessment. Opponents emphasized local control and the need for districts to respond to different public health conditions. The transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 361 was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:32:34.960> parent.
• This gives parents more control. It takes no control away from parents.
• This gives parents more control. It takes no control away from parents.
• This gives parents more control. It takes no control away from parents.
• This gives parents more control. It takes no control away from parents.

Bills: HB19, HB170, HB171, HB173, HB174, HB19, HB170, HB171, HB173, HB174

Keywords: Ebony Alert, missing youth, public safety, law enforcement, racial equity, HB170, supplemental appropriations, Education Trust Fund, Alabama education budget, school funding, K-12 education, local boards of education, textbook adoption, school buses, school safety, charter schools, summer programs, afterschool programs, reading intervention, college and career readiness

Transcript Highlights:

• Then parents can opt out of student materials.
• The other speakers have expressed real concerns that this bill causes distrust and fear among parents
• It's people's concerns enough to be here.
• So parents know in advance what they're actually opting out of, and it gives parents clear, timely access
• So parents know in advance what they're actually opting out of, and it gives parents clear, timely access

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee took up CS for House Bill 1071, a broad education package described by the sponsor as updating transparency, parental rights, student safety, early learning accountability, scholarship oversight, and instructional program rules. The committee adopted two amendments without objection: one clarifying that Title I funds may be used for STEM programs, and another removing a prior provision related to canine dogs on school grounds. Members then questioned the bill’s provisions on student records transfers, instructional materials adoption and removal, educational emergency authority for low-performing schools, health education and a fetal development video, student-led organizations, FHSAA board language, lab schools, and rulemaking authority. The sponsor repeatedly said the bill was intended to improve accountability, keep education dollars focused on students, and give districts flexibility, while also noting that some issues would be addressed through future rulemaking or later amendments. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed. Many speakers argued the bill was an omnibus measure that bundled unrelated policies together, making it hard for families and educators to understand or meaningfully comment on it. Opponents also said it would increase school-law enforcement coordination, chill immigrant and mixed-status families’ participation, restrict DEI-related and student-led organizations, and impose controversial health and embryology content on students. Supporters, including the Christian Family Coalition and Florida Citizens Alliance, backed the fetal development video and the bill’s parental rights and funding restrictions, saying the content should be medically accurate and that schools should not fund political advocacy. Several speakers urged the committee to break the bill into separate measures. In debate, some members praised the sponsor’s responsiveness but said they would vote no because of constituent concerns, especially around DEI, the fetal development video, and local control. Others supported the bill, emphasizing rulemaking, educational emergency flexibility, EpiPen access, early learning changes, and evidence-based math instruction. The sponsor closed by reiterating support for the bill as amended, saying the law enforcement provision had been removed, the embryology content would be opt-out with posted materials, state funds should not support political advocacy, and the bill would help with safety, accountability, and student outcomes. The committee then voted on the bill after debate, with the sponsor indicating support and members stating their positions during closing discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when parents very proudly say...
• Of course, the parent is. Of course, the parent is the first teacher.
• Parent involvement is extremely important. We all know that the parents' dynamics have changed.
• There's a lot more single parents, divorced parents sharing custody.
• One of the concerns, and I know you reached out to me, and one of the concerns, and one of the One of

Summary: The Student Academic Success Subcommittee met with a quorum and considered two bills. The first, PCS for HB 1565, would expand permitted purchases under the Personalized Education Program scholarship to include digital devices, clarify statutory terms, and distinguish between parent-directed part-time programs and full-time instructor-led programs. Rep. Hinson questioned oversight and misuse safeguards, while the sponsor said existing statutory and SFO oversight already applies. Public testimony included support from the James Madison Institute, and the bill was reported favorably by a 12-1 vote. The committee then heard PCS for HB 1483, the SCORE Act, which would gradually align Florida’s school grading scale with the familiar A-F scale used for students over a 10-year transition. The sponsor argued that current school grades are inflated and confusing to parents, and said the bill would also expand early support identification from pre-K through 8th grade. Members raised concerns about the impact on public and charter schools, low-income communities, teacher workload, resources, property values, and whether the bill should be paired with funding and professional development. Public testimony included an ESE teacher asking about funding and class size, one opponent from Orange County teachers, and a proponent from Florida Citizens Alliance. After extensive debate, the committee voted 12-5 to report PCS for HB 1483 favorably. Supporters said the bill would improve transparency and accountability for parents and create pressure to raise standards, while opponents warned it could sharply increase lower-rated schools without sufficient resources and could mislead the public about school performance during the transition.