The statistics surrounding adolescent mental health are alarming. In fact, according to research, approximately one out of every three adolescents is experiencing symptoms that meet the criteria of severe psychological distress. This distress can take many forms, including depression, anxiety, and behavior disorders.
In California, lawmakers have drafted a bill responding to the rising need for mental health services for children. This bill, also known as AB 665, specifically focuses on children ages 12 and up.
Of course, residents of the State want the best care for their children. But at the expense of parents and guardians forfeiting their parental rights or allowing the State to provide "professionals" to determine the best interest of our child - by excluding parents?
The drafters of this bill made it clear in pointing out mental health care for people of color, specifically Blacks, children of color, and the LGBTQ+ community. Here is an excerpt from the bill.
One-half of California's children are covered by Medi-Cal, the vast majority of whom are Black and children of color. (government-funded health care)
Nearly one in three adolescents in California reported symptoms that meet the criteria for serious psychological distress.
A shocking 78 percent of LGBTQ+ youth who were surveyed shared they had considered suicide, with the vast majority of those who had considered suicide sharing they had done so in the last year, and nearly one-third had made an attempt in the past year.
Seeking care for mental health issues is complicated by pervasive social stigma and centuries of systemic oppression by government programs that create legitimate fears for families to engage in services.
Youth, especially youth of color, express significant trepidation about needing to disclose to parents their mental health concerns and their need to access services. Without access to a trained professional, youth report they turn to mostly free resources of mixed quality that they access without parental intervention or adult assistance, such as social media accounts and online videos.
For LGBTQ+ youth, the rejection from parents, harassment in school, and the overall LGBTQ+ negativity present in society can lead to depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol use, and other negative outcomes. Over one-half of surveyed LGBTQ+ youth reported that not being able to get permission from their parents or guardians was sometimes or always a barrier to accessing mental health services.
Providers, particularly school-based providers, find that obtaining parental consent for a youth who needs support is complicated by the parent or caretakers' beliefs and stigma about mental health care.
In California, a minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis or to residential shelter services if the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services.
The language used in their argument aligns with the principles of social justice and the natural inclination to support marginalized groups. They aim to raise public awareness about the needs of the LGBTQ+ community and people of color. However, it is vital to question whether there is a sincere concern for our children's mental well-being or if the State has ulterior motives to exert control over them.
We should not deviate from the importance of health care for children. However, the authors of this bill argue that removing parents from the decision-making process is appropriate when it comes to the children of the State of California. They propose that professionals can assess and determine what is best for the child.
For various reasons, parents may not be able to determine their child's best interest. Parents with a history of adverse mental, emotional, and behavioral accounts may impair or limit their ability to choose what is best for their child. But wording that excludes parents based on the judgment of a State-sanctioned professional - should be scrutinized.
Suppose a minor seeks mental health treatment or counseling through the authorization of this bill. In that case, their parent or guardian should be involved. However, suppose the professional person treating or counseling the minor believes that involving the parent or guardian would not be appropriate after consulting with the child. In that case, they can proceed without parental involvement.
The mental health of our children is of utmost importance, and parents should approach it with great care and attention. However, the government should not be solely responsible for caring for our children's mental health. Parents play a crucial role in their child's well-being and should not be stripped of their parental rights, and this is precisely what this bill aims to do. After all, who knows their child better than the parents themselves?
Oppose AB 665
See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 18:10
Comments