Legal counsel objects to proposed Lakeland policy

COEUR d'ALENE — Parents had mixed feelings about an early draft of a Lakeland Joint School District policy for providing mental health services on campuses, but a legal counselor’s opinion was clear.

“I will start broadly and work my way to specifics,” Attorney Amy White said in her comments on the policy draft. White is the attorney with the district’s insurance company, ICRMP. “From a legal perspective, I do not believe that the policy is necessary and further I don't believe that it is in the district's best interest for the content of the policy to be approved.”

The policy is meant to reduce the district’s liability when providing campus space for counselors not employed by the district to meet with students during class time, as necessary.

“The purpose of the policy, ultimately No. 1 is to protect the district and then the children,” Lakeland Board of Trustees Chair Michelle Thompson said. “I don’t feel that there’s anything wrong with giving guidance to an outside entity that wants to come into our community and do whatever they do. They need to know what’s expected.”

While the intentions were to limit liability the result has been to increase liability, according to White’s statement.

“The District is neither responsible for nor liable for the professional practice of Heritage Health's employees providing professional services to children who are their clients,” White wrote. “The relationship in this situation is between Heritage Health and the student/parent. The school is not a party to the counseling relationship and should not become involved in the details of such a professional relationship.”

The district policy draft calls for enforcing school policy on counseling relationships, like prohibiting gender therapy or dictating communication terms between parents and counselors. The draft recently went through final revisions based on parent and legal feedback.

“First, the district is not a professional counselor,” White continued. “It should not in any manner be directing professional practice. Second … the school is not part of the professional relationship. This is no different than directing a physician as to what prescription to utilize for an ear infection or strep throat. It isn't the school's role.”

The policy writers didn't fully agree with the legal feedback on the policy draft.

“When I read her comments, I feel like she gets nothing of what’s going on, which is extremely typical,” Vice-Chair Ramona Grissom said. “When I read this, I thought she totally missed the whole understanding of what the policy was for and what its purpose was.”

Thompson and Grissom sought to reassure parents the district’s intention was to teach, and not to infringe on parent’s rights.

“How are (parents) going to feel like they are really in control?” Grissom asked during a policy committee meeting earlier this month. “We keep saying that parents are in control, but not all parents feel like they are in control or we wouldn’t have these questions coming up.”

The policy draft was sent to parents through the district and several comments supported the policy saying it protected their kids from gender politics.

“Parents should be informed on their child's mental health challenges while at school and leave any ‘gender identity’ politics within their personal home to be handled by guardians,” one parent said in a comment.

“I think the parents are responsible for this role and the district staff’s role is to support their rights rather than steer the process,” wrote another parent.

There is a fear the district offering counseling on campuses could invite “woke ideologies," referring to social-emotional learning or gender conversion therapy.

“The school district’s offering this but how do we make our parents feel like we’re not going to go take their kids and turn their kids into something they don’t have control over,” Grissom said. “Parents are saying, ‘LJSD, are you going to take my child and transition them?’ If you want to know the truth, that's what they’re asking. And LJSD will not say no.”

Many parent comments also cited concern about the legality or accuracy of the policy, and the overreach of the district.

The counseling services are initiated by parents, and only the district campus spaces are used in the agreement with Heritage Health.

“The intent of the [agreement] is solely to have a physical location to provide professional services,” White wrote. “The intent of the [agreement] is not to control or direct such services beyond a physical location and the process of a student going from class to their private provider and returning from such.”

Without the policy, parents have control over the relationship between their counselor and child, and merely utilize campus space, said Heather Hamilton, the Heritage Health Liaison and a counselor for the Lakeland School District. Parents consent to services based on the modality of care provided by Heritage Health, and if they don’t agree with the modality they can decide not to consent.

“This is a contract between my daughter and a counselor, not between the school district and my daughter,” Kim Techau said. Techau is a parent of a student who benefited from counseling on campus. “I don’t feel comfortable signing anything about what’s going on in my daughter’s counseling sessions to anyone in the school district because it’s a private thing.”

Thompson and Grissom began writing the policy after the board approved entering into an agreement with Heritage Health that would allow the health care provider's mental counselors to meet with students at their schools. Thompson and Grissom opposed the agreement.

“If the school were to attempt to take on this role and in some manner control the professional activities, the school then could be putting itself into a position of liability for the actions of the professional — a professional it does not employ nor control,” White wrote.

A policy will have to be approved before the agreement with Heritage Health is signed. The policy draft will likely go back to the board of trustees for approval Aug. 14.