Transcript Highlights:

• One part protects taxpayers. This part protects rural patients.
• One part protects taxpayers. This part protects rural patients.
• And this is why this needs to be changed to an opt-in so that the parents are protected and don't have
• And this is why this needs to be changed to an opt-in so that the parents are protected and don't have
• to do this every time they go to the doctor. ...change to an opt-in so that the parents are protected

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• Just let the parents know of the condition, both mental and physical, of the child so the parent knows
• This is not a compelling reason not to notify parents. Parents are their authority.
• This is not a repelling reason not to notify parents. Parents are their authority.
• So the parents are being notified.
• We want to protect our youth, our runaway youth. We want to protect them. I've been in foster care.

Summary: The Senate considered Substitute Senate Bill 6184, which updates and clarifies statutes governing the Office of Homeless Youth Prevention and Protection Programs in the Department of Commerce. Supporters said the bill streamlines existing law, expands eligible housing and services for unhoused youth, supports reunification when appropriate, and removes county-based limitations so the program can continue statewide. Several amendments focused on parental notification and agency placement were offered, including proposals to move the program to DCYF and to require more direct notice to parents or law enforcement, but all were rejected after debate over safety, abuse concerns, and the role of DCYF. The bill then passed final passage by a vote of 30 yeas to 18 nays. The Senate next took up Substitute Senate Bill 5931 concerning the Workforce Education Investment Accountability and Oversight Board. An amendment was offered to restore a public-facing data dashboard for transparency and accountability, but the sponsor withdrew it after discussion. The bill was described as making administrative changes without fiscal impact, and it passed final passage overwhelmingly, 47 yeas to 2 nays. After the two bills were disposed of, the Senate announced a Rules Committee meeting following adjournment and then adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 11th, the 31st Legislative Day.

Transcript Highlights:

• about some of the federal protections that<03:26:32.319><c> parents</c><03:26:32.800><c> enjoy</c><03
• Some parents parents and school systems.
• Um, he just said, "Please don't tell my parents." Then there's no protection for the child.
• Um, he just said, "Please don't tell my parents." Then there's no protection for the child.
• So there are parents who are problematic, and we try to protect the children as much as we can from them

Summary: The committee opened with Senate Bill 22-FN, which would expand child care licensing background checks so the Department of Health and Human Services can receive fuller criminal history information, including pending charges and other non-conviction records, similar to the system already used for school staff. Grant Bossi, for Senator Pearl, and DHHS officials Melissa Clement and Christine Sheay testified in support, saying the bill closes a gap that can allow people with disqualifying charges to work with children. They explained that the FBI record is a snapshot in time, that juvenile records are not included, and that the bill would apply to child care programs including residential group homes. Questions focused on what “confidential criminal history” means and how often checks are repeated; DHHS said checks are done every five years or sooner if new charge information is received. The hearing on SB 22 was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 23-FN, which would expand the child endangerment statute and remove the word “purposely” from part of the language. Senator Pat Long said the bill is intended to strengthen protection for children and allow more serious conduct to be charged appropriately. Testimony from law enforcement, including Executive Counselor Dave Wheeler, Sergeant Ryan Rooney of Nashua Police, and Nicholas Georgulis of Manchester Police, supported the bill as a way to distinguish routine misdemeanor cases from the most egregious abuse and neglect cases, such as children living in squalor or being exposed to severe danger. Wheeler and some members raised concerns that the language could be vague or overbroad and cited a prior Manchester firearm-in-a-car arrest as an example of possible unintended consequences; supporters responded that the bill still requires knowingly violating a duty of care and that the serious bodily injury or death standard limits its reach. Rooney also described a fentanyl overdose case involving an 11-year-old and said the current misdemeanor charge did not fully reflect the seriousness of the conduct. The committee recessed SB 23 briefly to open and close SB 161, then returned to SB 23, which remained under hearing with no final vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• or a guardian, but the protection of a parent alone is not enough.
• protection cases, termination of parental rights cases, and child requiring assistance matters.
• The current presumption that these hearings remain closed exists to protect children and parents from
• This occurs most frequently when one parent has custody at the beginning of the care and protection case
• I'm demanding protection for basic parental rights, something that should never have been up for debate

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Summary: The committee hearing began with opening remarks from the House and Senate chairs outlining procedures for a large public hearing with more than 100 witnesses on 64 legislative proposals. They explained time limits, rules for in-person and virtual testimony, written testimony procedures, and the committee’s reporting deadline. Testimony then moved through a series of juvenile justice, child protection, and civil liberties bills, with witnesses generally urging favorable reports or, in one case, opposing expanded juvenile court transparency and child advocate access to records. Several witnesses supported bills aimed at juvenile justice reform. Representative Hendricks backed H. 1744 to prevent child labor exploitation and trafficking, citing federal findings of child labor in seafood processing and calling for stronger penalties and a ban on minors working in such facilities. Senator Gomez supported S. 1131 and S. 1121 to reduce juvenile fees, fines, restitution burdens, and bail-related costs, arguing they worsen racial and economic disparities. Senator Crean and other advocates supported S. 1051/H. 1695 to expand juvenile diversion eligibility, while multiple witnesses from juvenile justice and immigrant advocacy groups supported H. 1657/S. 1058 to expand juvenile expungement and to limit sharing juvenile fingerprints with federal authorities, describing recent ICE detentions of Chelsea students and the resulting fear in immigrant communities. Witnesses also supported H. 1918/S. 1240 to narrow the youthful offender statute, raising the minimum age and reducing mandatory adult-style penalties for youth. The committee also heard testimony on child safety and bodily autonomy bills. Middlesex District Attorney Marion Ryan supported H. 1752 to protect children left in extreme temperatures, explaining it would create civil penalties, allow emergency responders to remove children from cars without liability, and add criminal penalties when serious injury results. Representative Thurber and Senator O’Connor testified for H. 2011/S. 1227, a bill prohibiting coercion or mandates for health-related interventions, including vaccinations, and allowing legal remedies for violations. Senator Jalen supported S. 1136/H. 1847 to prevent false confessions by requiring recording of interrogations and banning deceptive tactics, and several innocence-project and legal-services witnesses described wrongful convictions tied to false confessions and coercive interrogations. Another major topic was H. 1626, which would require age verification for pornographic content and launch an education campaign about online sexual exploitation; Representative Cruz and survivor Udoz Wallace testified in support, describing nonconsensual image sharing and deepfake harms. Not all testimony was supportive. The Committee for Public Counsel Services opposed S. 1035, which would increase transparency in juvenile court proceedings, and H. 1689, which would expand the child advocate’s access to confidential juvenile records, arguing both would undermine privacy and trauma-informed protections for children and families. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the session consisted of opening remarks and public testimony on the listed bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• parent or legal guardian.
• It's about consumer protection.
• I'm a working parent and a parent of a little My name is Colette Vogel.
• I'm a working parent and a parent of a middle schooler in Seattle. I'm in District 46.
• telling the parent unless you're going to get hold of all these parents that there's a control on the

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on several bills. SB 5976 would revise the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act by narrowing liability for misleading email subject lines and changing damages and Consumer Protection Act claims. Business, retail, hospitality, and e-commerce witnesses supported the bill, saying recent litigation has created uncertainty and exposed routine marketing emails to excessive penalties. Consumer advocates and the Washington State Association for Justice opposed it, arguing the current law protects consumers from deceptive marketing and that the bill would weaken enforcement and class actions. SB 6111 would require age verification and parental consent for minors creating social media accounts, restrict providers’ use of minors’ data, and authorize enforcement by the Attorney General and a limited private right of action. The sponsor and several parents, medical professionals, and advocacy groups supported the bill as a response to social media harms, including addiction, depression, cyberbullying, eating disorders, and exposure to harmful content. Technology and civil liberties witnesses opposed it, warning about privacy, data security, constitutional concerns, and the difficulty of implementing reliable parental consent and age verification. The committee also heard SB 6250, which would raise the maximum small loan amount from $700 to $1,200 and index it to inflation. The sponsor and a lender representative said the change would update an outdated limit and preserve existing consumer protections. Opponents, including legal aid, poverty, housing, labor, AARP, and community advocates, argued the higher cap would increase debt burdens and fees for low-income borrowers and older adults. Staff also briefed SB 6257, which would allow illness-related tolling for trainee real estate appraiser licensing timelines, and SB 6289, which would direct Commerce to create a statewide economic development and competitiveness strategic plan; SB 6289 drew supportive testimony from Commerce, ports, economic development groups, and business interests. The committee also held confirmation hearings for several Gambling Commission and Lottery appointees, who described their backgrounds and service, but no votes or final actions were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• PARENTS KNOW THEIR KIDS BEST.
• YOU MENTIONED PARENTAL RIGHTS AND SOME CHILDREN DON'T HAVE THE BEST PARENTS OR HAVE NO PARENTS.
• LAST SESSION LAWMAKERS TRIED TO ROLL BACK THESE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.
• PROTECTING MINORS SHOULD NOT PROTECT MINORS DOES NOT MEAN FORGOING THEIR RIGHTS.
• YES WE HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are in with these protections. Thank you. We protect trans people.
• We are in with these protections. Thank you. We protect trans people in California.
• Someone has tall parents and the other people have short parents.
• I myself am a parent as well.
• Please protect us.

Summary: The committee met on April 1, 2025, first adopting its rules and then taking up AB 89, a bill to require CIF to align girls’ high school sports with federal policy and restrict participation to biological females. The author and supporters argued the bill was needed to protect fairness, safety, privacy, and competitive opportunities for girls, citing individual student-athlete stories and examples of transgender participation. Opponents, including parents, athletes, advocates, and technical witnesses, argued the bill would stigmatize transgender youth, invite invasive scrutiny and harassment, and solve a problem they said was extremely rare or unsupported by data. After lengthy public testimony and debate, the committee rejected AB 89 on a 2-7 vote and sent it to the Committee on Education as a failed motion. The committee then heard AB 844, a related measure framed by the author as restoring competitive integrity, protecting student privacy, and bringing California into compliance with Title IX and federal directives. Supporters, including Matt Walsh and a student athlete who said she lost a varsity spot to a transgender student, argued that sex-based sports rules are necessary because biological males retain athletic advantages and that California risks federal funding if it does not change course. Opponents, including educators, parents, LGBTQ advocates, and trans youth, said the bill would increase bullying, harassment, and exclusion, and that existing policies have worked without evidence of harm from transgender athletes. Public comment was again heavily divided, with many speakers on both sides. The transcript ends during public testimony on AB 844, before any final committee vote or action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill balances the constitutionally protected rights of parents with the need to protect children
• This is a critical bill that protects parents from wrongful accusations of neglect simply for making
• Parental authority is under attack, and Texas families need clear legal protections to push back against
• In contrast, the non-parent neighbor will have a litany of additional protections and higher standards
• Indian children and deprives parents of their right to protect their own children from abusive spouses

Bills: HB18 , HB37 , HB 116 , HB388 , HB879 , HB913 , HB 1151 , HB2216 , HB2358 , HB2809 , SB577 , SB1590 , SB1782 , SB1887 , SB2744 , HB18 , HB37 , HB116

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Do parents have...
• parent like this."
• Of remembering that was passed last time was that a parent could— a parent had something about parent
• And it's not one parent making the decision; it's a panel of parents.
• Giving people who want to ban these kinds of books more power does not empower parents like me or protect

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

Committee: House Public Education

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:

• And when one parent is for for parents.
• for the money because the is under the under um the parent to support to protect for do everything.
• </c> parenting behavior. parenting behavior.
• </c> our aging parents. our aging parents.
• . protected. protected.

Committee: House Children and Family Law

Transcript Highlights:

• the parents of these students.
• Without the protections that this bill presents, the kids would not have the same protections, and it
• Because there's no protection? There's no protection. So federal court, yes. Okay.
• Um, parents would sit and talk to my parents in the stands and tell them I didn't belong there. ...parents
• I am here as a parent.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a very full public hearing on the first Education Committee hearing of the session, with testimony taken on a large slate of bills, especially H. 650/S. 436 and related measures. The chairs explained the hearing rules, including two-minute testimony limits, live streaming, written testimony, and accommodations for interpreters and disabilities. The committee first heard extensive testimony on H. 460/S. 436 and later H. 650/S. 436, bills to affirm and maintain equal access to public education for all children, including immigrant students, English learners, and students with disabilities. Witnesses included parents, advocates, educators, attorneys, and state officials, many of whom described fears caused by federal policy changes and argued that Massachusetts should codify protections for school enrollment, special education, interpreter services, and due process in discipline cases. The Attorney General’s office, Mass Advocates for Children, Lawyers for Civil Rights, MIRA, the Children’s Law Center, the Disability Law/advocacy community, and others all urged favorable action, while committee members asked questions about Plyler v. Doe, manifestation determinations, interpreter qualifications, and how the bill would mirror or preserve existing federal protections at the state level. The committee also heard testimony on H. 702/S. 460, establishing an elementary and secondary school robotics grant program, which was supported as a way to expand STEM opportunities and help schools fund robotics programs. Representative Sweeney also testified on H. 713, a bill to support student participation in 4-H programming by allowing excused absences similar to those for athletics and other sanctioned activities; members noted bipartisan support and the bill’s long history. The hearing then moved to H. 543/S. 417, a recess bill requiring at least 30 minutes of free-play recess for K-8 students. Supporters included the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the League of Women Voters, educators, and parents, who emphasized recess as important for physical health, social-emotional development, attention, and academic performance, and noted that unequal local policies create disparities across districts. Several witnesses also tied recess to broader concerns about student well-being and screen time. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee simply received testimony and closed testimony on the bills as it moved through the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members in the House to protect kids and maintain parental rights to prohibit a school district employee
• to protect their child.
• SB 12 isn't about protecting children or parental rights. It's about silencing them.
• SB 12 isn't about protecting children or parental rights. It's about silencing them.
• rights to protect their kids, we should stand up for our kids and our parents, and we should make it

Bills: SB1637 , SB1 , HB300 , SB2601 , SB37 , HB2011 , HB3595 , HB3071 , SB12 , HB3372 , SB457 , HB2067 , SB2337 , SB447 , SB1506 , SB1566 , SB763 , HB3556 , SB13 , SB2018 , SB331 , SB379 , HB145 , SB441 , SB2878 , HB2885 , HB2017 , HB5246 , SB8 , SB2308 , SB1540 , HB 119 , SB1405 , SB3059 , SB15 , SB568

Keywords: SB 1637, deadly conduct, Texas Penal Code, Section 22.05, firearm, gun, pointing a gun, recklessness presumption, peace officer, law enforcement, police, officer-involved shooting, use of force, justification, self-defense, defense of others, Chapter 9, criminal prosecution, Penal Code amendment, appropriations

Summary: The House met in a late-session floor session that began with prayer, pledges, quorum, and a series of excused absences and Senate messages reporting action on numerous bills, conference committee appointments, and conference reports. Members also adopted a memorial resolution honoring Mark James Hanna, a Capitol lobbyist and advocate for nurses, and a congratulatory resolution for Rishi Tarumalasetti, an eighth-grade civics bee winner from Katy. The chamber also received and recorded a parliamentary colloquy about an unusual Senate request on SB 293, with the Chair stating the House could not recede from only part of its amendments and could not suspend the rules because the bill had not been returned from the Senate. The bulk of the session was devoted to taking up conference committee reports and related procedural resolutions, especially the state budget. The House adopted a resolution allowing the SB 1 conferees to go outside the normal bounds, then adopted the SB 1 conference report on a 107-21 vote. Debate on the budget centered on public education funding, tax relief, health care, corrections pay, and judicial compensation, with supporters calling it a responsible compromise and opponents arguing it was overly expansive and insufficient on property tax relief. The House also adopted a technical correction resolution tying judicial pay increases in SB 1 to the House version of SB 293, and members discussed at length the relationship between judicial salaries and legislative pensions. The chamber then adopted a long series of conference reports on measures covering topics such as school library review and book challenges (SB 13), SNAP restrictions on sweetened drinks and candy (SB 379), hospital price transparency (SB 331), nursing home accountability (SB 457), school district personnel compensation conflicts (HB 3372), property notice rules (HB 2011), research and development tax credits (SB 2018), and several other bills affecting elections, permits, education, and criminal justice. Most reports passed by wide margins, though some drew significant opposition, especially SB 13 and SB 379. The House also granted several Senate requests for conference committees and introduced additional resolutions to suspend conferee limits on various bills as the session moved toward adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are a national organization dedicated to protecting children and strengthening parental rights, giving
• I believe the intent behind House Bill 977 is truly to protect children and empower parents.
• ACT and our members share your commitment to protecting children online and empowering parents with meaningful
• but also protect their data.
• So it does protect those and helps the parents from all these unwanted charges that they may not be able

Bills: HB461 , HB467 , HB522 , HB565 , HB673 , HB799 , HB917 , HB937 , HB956 , HB977

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs

Keywords: building codes, construction standards, state uniform construction code, local option, municipal ordinance, parish ordinance, resilient construction, FORTIFIED Home, IBHS, Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, hurricane resistance, storm resilience, roof replacement, residential construction, certificate of occupancy, code enforcement, building resilience, home hardening, wind mitigation, residential roof

Transcript Highlights:

• But to protect the world of work and protect workers and protect people... ...the world of work and protect
• I also want to protect children.
• The choice isn’t whether to protect children; it’s whether to do so through parental empowerment and
• our privacy, protect our dignity, and to protect basic fairness for Floridians.
• protection, political transparency, defamation rights, parental control, right to beneficial use for

Summary: The Committee on Commerce and Tourism considered a series of bills affecting tax policy, workforce development, business regulation, consumer protection, rural development, and artificial intelligence. SB 1076 would raise Florida’s research and development tax credit cap from $9 million to $50 million beginning with the 2027 allocation, and it was reported favorably. CS/SB 1266 would create a cybersecurity experiential internship and clearance-readiness program with the Department of Commerce and Cyber Florida; an amendment removed an appropriation from the bill, and the committee reported it favorably. SB 554, a broad update to Florida’s not-for-profit corporation law, was also reported favorably after supportive testimony from Florida Bar representatives. SB 1004, aimed at protecting buyers of dogs and cats from deceptive sales and predatory financing practices, received strong support from animal welfare advocates and was reported favorably. SB 1074, which provides rounding rules for cash transactions if pennies are unavailable, was likewise reported favorably. SB 214, expanding the rural community definition to include special districts in rural counties for economic development purposes, was reported favorably. SPB 7030, a public records exemption tied to Department of Legal Affairs investigations, was adopted as a committee bill and favorably reported. The committee also heard extensive discussion on SB 998, the Department of Commerce package. The bill would modernize the Florida Small Cities Community Development Block Grant program, clarify rural community eligibility for certain unincorporated areas, exempt military entities from a reverter clause on land conveyances, and revise E-Verify enforcement procedures. Members questioned the E-Verify provisions, including penalties, protections for workers incorrectly flagged, and the treatment of gig workers. Senator Smith opposed the bill, arguing it creates unequal treatment between employers and immigrant workers, while Senator Wright supported the military-related provisions. Despite the debate, SB 998 was reported favorably, with Senators Bracy Davis, Smith, and Errington voting no. The committee also took up SB 482, an “Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights” that would create consumer protections for companion chatbots, require parental consent and access for minors, mandate periodic disclosures that users are interacting with AI, restrict certain uses of personal data and likenesses, and give the Attorney General enforcement authority. The bill drew both support and criticism: supporters emphasized child safety, transparency, and consumer protection, while opponents raised concerns about privacy, broad definitions, lack of audit mechanisms, and the absence of a private right of action for adults. Senators Smith and Davis urged clearer definitions and stronger accountability, but both said the bill was a starting point. The committee reported SB 482 favorably. The meeting ended with recorded affirmative votes requested by Senators Yarbrough, Wright, and Davis on selected tabs, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not a parent.
• It's protected children.
• So are those parents making the right choices, and then our parents aren't?
• So are those parents making the right choices, and then our parents aren't?
• So as, you know, parent to parent, I'm just kind of curious.

Committees: House Emerging Issues , House Emerging Issues and Professional Registration

Transcript Highlights:

• But we must not overlook the most sacred and constitutionally protected rights we have: parental rights
• we have: parental rights.
• parent, the presumption is that the parent that is not in the primary custodial condition is paying
• parent is in a different state, particularly...
• I also want to speak about patient protections.

Bills: HB46 , HB272 , HB551 , HB1661 , HB2820 , HB3181 , HB4145 , HB4157 , HB46 , HB272

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Summary: The Senate Committee on State Affairs heard several House bills and took no final votes, leaving each bill pending after testimony. HB 272 would align venue and evidentiary rules for fraudulent use or possession of credit/debit card information with existing credit card abuse law; the sponsor said it would improve prosecutions, and the Texas Financial Crimes Intelligence Center supported it. HB 1661 would increase penalties for certain election-related offenses, including failure to distribute election supplies and early release of election results; no substantive opposition was heard. HB 551 would protect the residential addresses of people who receive campaign expenditures on public Texas Ethics Commission reports, similar to donor privacy protections, and a witness from Texas Eagle Forum later indicated support for the privacy change. The committee also heard HB 2820, which would raise the amount charitable bingo organizations may keep in operating capital from $50,000 to $100,000. The sponsor and a Texans for Charitable Bingo representative said inflation and operating costs have made the current cap too low and that the bill would help charities maintain stable operations without expanding gaming. HB 3181 would impose stronger consequences for repeated denial of court-ordered child possession and access, including limiting probation and requiring attorney’s fees after multiple contempt findings; a family court judge and a parent testified in support, while another witness argued the bill should be paired with stronger criminal enforcement and that parents already face high costs. HB 4157 would update Texas law for commercial spaceflight by recognizing liability waivers and preserving workers’ compensation rights; no one testified against it. The committee also heard HB 4145, which would let health care providers satisfy a timely billing requirement by sending bills to a patient’s legal representative in a personal injury case, closing what supporters described as a loophole in letter-of-protection situations. Finally, HB 46, relating to the Texas Compassionate Use Program, drew the most extensive discussion: supporters said it should expand access for legitimate medical cannabis patients and add more delivery methods and conditions, while opponents warned against broader marijuana expansion and questioned adding chronic pain and other conditions. The sponsor said he still supports the program and wants a balanced, regulated expansion, but noted the bill is still being worked on. All bills were left pending at the close of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Transparency protects workers, protects the public, and builds trust. I urge your aye vote.
• The parent who is obligated to pay support, the custodial parent relying on those payments, and, most
• who lost my rights as a parent.
• parental rights terminated.
• It protects Dr.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• We've not been believing parents.
• allegations of abuse against parents.
• But this deals with the parents' right to protect their own children.
• And yet the current law doesn't protect parents of children. That's why this bill is important.
• It protects families, it protects children, and it gives a safeguard to wrongful use of the system.

Transcript Highlights:

• By doing so, we're not only upholding the law but also protecting the sacred bond between parents and
• the sacred bond law but also protecting the sacred bond between<00:06:28.319><c> parents</c><00:06:28.599
• The statute we were trying to craft was to protect children, and while parents' rights are extremely
• It's about parents' rights, predators, sex traffickers, and protecting minor girls.
• We are protecting that young girl. parents are both working to make ends parents are both working to

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• And sometimes kids don't tell parents everything because they're trying to protect the parents because
• they</c><01:32:54.480><c> love</c> protect the parents because they love protect the parents because
• And sometimes kids don't tell parents everything because they're trying to protect the parents because
• </c> inquiries by parents. inquiries by parents.
• It just this expressly states parents<01:44:18.560><c> only.</c> parents only. parents only.

Committee: Senate Education