ChildWelfare.net
About  News  Activities  Resources 
Search:
Online Home of The Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic of the Emory University School of Law

House Bill 832 Summary and Analysis1

PDF Version for Printing

Origins of House Bill 832

House Bill 832 ("HB 832") was introduced by Representative Setzler on April 1 in the 2007 Georgia General Assembly Legislative Session. During the 2007 Legislative Session, the bill was committed to the House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil. No further action was taken on this legislation in 2007; however, the bill could still be acted on in the 2008 Session.

Legislative Purpose

The proposed bill, if enacted, would amend Part 8 of Article 1, Chapter 11 of Title 15 and Article 1, Chapter 4 of Title 17 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("O.C.G.A.") to require courts to notify the superintendent of the school district or his or her designee if any child is charged with or adjudicated delinquent for an act that would be considered a felony or misdemeanor if the same act was committed by an adult. Additionally, the same notification requirement would apply if any person under the age of 21 attending a secondary school is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.

Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Changes

HB 832 would change the notification requirements by courts to school superintendents. The bill proposes to amend Chapter 11 of Title 15 by adding a new code section, O.C.G.A. § 15-11-84. The bill also proposes to amend Chapter 4 of Title 17 by adding a new code section, O.C.G.A. § 17-4-4. All laws in conflict with the new code sections would be repealed. Specifically, the bill would amend the O.C.G.A. in the following ways:

  1. Requiring that courts notify the superintendent of the school district in which a child resides if a child is charged or adjudicated for an act which would be a misdemeanor or felony if committed by an adult.

    1. Currently, O.C.G.A. § 15-11-80 requires a court within 30 days to provide written notice to the school superintendent of the school district in which the child is enrolled if a child is adjudicated delinquent for a second or subsequent time or if a child is involved in any adjudicatory proceeding for a felony.

    2. HB 832 proposes to add a code section, O.C.G.A. §15-11-84. This new section expands current law and requires a court to also provide written notice to the school superintendent of the school district in which the child is enrolled if a child is charged or adjudicated delinquent for any act, other than a traffic offense, that would be considered a misdemeanor or a felony if committed by an adult. The court would be required to provide the child's name, address, and act charged or adjudicated to the school superintendent.

  2. Requiring that courts notify the superintendent of the school district in which a person under the age of 21 years of age who is currently enrolled in a secondary school if the person is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.

    1. HB 832 adds O.G.C.A. §17-4-4, which would require a court to provide written notice to the superintendent of a school district in which a person under the age of 21 is currently enrolled if such person is convicted of any act, other than a traffic offense, which constitutes a felony or misdemeanor. The court must provide the person's name, address, and the offense for which the person was convicted.

    2. This change expands the notice requirement in that current law only encompasses juveniles and the juvenile court system.

  3. Allowing such information to be disseminated by the superintendent at the superintendent's discretion to a child's teachers or counselors.

    1. Currently, O.C.G.A. §15-11-80 does not provide that a school superintendent may inform a child's teachers or counselor if the superintendent is notified by the court that the child has been adjudicated delinquent.

    2. HB 832 proposes to add a Code section, O.C.G.A. §15-11-84. The new Code section would allow a school superintendent, at his or her discretion, to inform a child's teachers or counselor if the superintendent is notified by a court that the child has been charged with or adjudicated for any act, other than a traffic offense, that if committed by an adult would be considered a misdemeanor or felony.

  4. Allowing such information to be disseminated by the superintendent at the superintendent's discretion to a person's teachers or counselors if the person is under the age of 21 and currently attending a secondary school.

    1. Current law does not address dissemination of records for those students under the age of 21.

    2. HB 832 adds O.C.G.A. §17-4-3, which would allow a school superintendent, at his or her discretion, to inform a person's teachers or counselor if the superintendent is notified by a court that the person under the age of 21 attending a school in his or her school district has been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, other than a traffic offense.

  5. Allowing school systems to request additional information from the court's file upon a showing that it is necessary to the public interest.

    1. Currently, O.C.G.A. §15-11-80 does not provide that the superintendent may have access to any information regarding a child other than the name of the child, and the specific delinquent act or felony that the child committed.

    2. HB 832 proposes to add a code section, O.C.G.A. § 15-11-84. The new code section would expand the amount of information that may be distributed by a court to a school district regarding a child. The school district would be allowed to request additional information about the child from the court's file, other than the name, address, and act charged or adjudicated, upon a showing that it would be necessary to the public interest.

Analysis and Recommendations

Notification of superintendents may unintentionally push children out of public schools

HB 832 is concerning because of how it potentially interacts with another code section, O.C.G.A. §20-2-751.2 (c), which states that schools must address, in a code of conduct, off-campus behavior by students that could lead to disciplinary action. The interaction of these two code sections will have the unintended consequence of pushing more students out of public schools. O.C.G.A. §20-2-751.2 (c) is vague as to exactly what off-campus behaviors should be included in the code of conduct, but specifically includes being charged with a felony that makes the student a danger to the school or which disrupts the educational process. A broad reading of this statute has led to even broader school codes of conduct, which sometimes permit schools to suspend students for even minor off-campus offenses. Additionally, under O.C.G.A. §20-2-78, schools may refuse readmission of a student to school because the student committed a felony or delinquent act. Thus, HB 832 may be used in tandem with existing law to remove more children from school.

Research shows that when children are excluded from school they are more likely to engage in future delinquent conduct. A study conducted by the Harvard Civil Rights Project concluded that those states that have high rates of school suspensions also had high rates of juvenile incarceration, and that those students who are suspended from school are much more likely to drop out of school and to break the law in the future.2 Thus, although schools hope to use juvenile court records to temporarily reduce crime on-campus and to promote school safety, research shows the opposite effect. Crime will rise in neighboring communities, which will eventually infiltrate the school system.

Notification of teachers and counselors will lead to stigma and poor outcomes for affected children

Allowing the schools to notify teachers and counselors of out of school conduct is also of concern. While there is no doubt that counselors and teachers care about the well being of their students, without the necessary programs and resources it is doubtful that they will be successful in assisting troubled children. If not handled with extreme caution, even a clear attempt to help a child could be perceived negatively by the child as mistreatment or injustice. A study conducted by Laurence Steinberg and Elizabeth Cauffman, suggests that children react negatively to apparent mistreatment and that these experiences if unresolved may carry into adulthood.3In commenting on this study, Professor Kristen Henny states that its findings are directly connected to the current juvenile record confidentiality debate.4 If teachers are informed that a student has been charged or adjudicated for an offense, teachers may provide limited educational opportunities to the student because of perceived safety concerns. Additionally, teachers may inadvertently treat these students differently from other students because of these safety concerns, which could lead the child to experience stigma and peer rejection. Thus, with the erosion of confidentiality we can expect children to continue to react negatively into adulthood.5

Unfettered access to court files is a breach of privacy and confidentiality

Given the sensitive nature of juvenile court records, the bill's provision for access to court records in the proposed O.C.G.A. § 15-11-84 is much too broad. It does not define the term "necessary to the public interest." Thus, schools could obtain additional information about a child that is not necessary to help the child or to protect the school. Furthermore, providing too much information to schools could lead to violation of other laws. For example, providing schools with a student's medical and psychiatric records, which are sometimes part of a child's case file, may lead to a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), which requires that a patient's health information and records be kept confidential.6 In addition, information about a child's past physical or sexual abuse may be contained in a case file. This type of information is highly personal, and of no value to a school system in promoting a safe environment for students. Moreover, the section does not provide who is to make the determination as to whether information contained in juvenile record is "necessary to the public interest." Thus, it may not be a judge who is making this determination.

Deference to courts

Finally, deference should be given to our justice system to keep our community safe, and to decide when an individual should not be permitted to reenter our community. Thus, if a court having heard all of the evidence has chosen not to prevent an individual child from attending school in his or her community, than schools should trust that judgment and refrain from taking action to disrupt the student's education.

Conclusion

Students who commit misdemeanors pose minimal risk to the safety of schools, thus schools do not need access to students' court records when they commit minor off-campus offenses. Additionally, school notification statutes could be used in conjunction with current off-campus suspension statutes to suspend more students from school, which will lead to an increase in juvenile crime and negatively impact students' development into adulthood. Thus, The Barton Clinic opposes the passage of HB 832.

PDF Version for Printing

1 March 5, 2008 by Jennifer Records, Student Attorney, Emory University School of Law Class of 2009.

2 Kristen Henning, Eroding Confidentiality in Delinquency Proceedings: Should Schools and Public Housing Authorities Be Notified?, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 520, 556 (2004) (citing Russell Skiba et al., Paper Presentation, Consistent Removal: Contribution of School Discipline to the School-Prison Pipeline (Harvard Civil Rights Project's School-to-Prison Pipeline Conference, Cambridge, Mass., May 16-17, 2003) (copy on file with New York University Law Review)).

3 Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Cauffman, A Developmental Perspective on Serious Juvenile Crime: When Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, 63 Fed. Probation 52, 53-54 (1999).

4 Kristen Henning, Eroding Confidentiality In Delinquency Proceedings: Should Schools and Public Housing Authorities Be Notified?, 79 NYULR 520, 541 (2004).

5 Kristen Henning, Eroding Confidentiality In Delinquency Proceedings: Should Schools and Public Housing Authorities Be Notified?, 79 NYULR 520, 541 (2004).

6 42 U.S.C. § 1320(d) (1996).
Home . About . News . Activities . Resources
The Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic, info@ChildWelfare.net
Emory University School of Law, Gambrell Hall, Atlanta, GA 30322, (404) 727-6664.