Permits certain mental health professionals working in school districts to refer or help facilitate referral of students to professional counselors.

1)           The bill prohibits referrals when the referrer has a “significant beneficial interest” in the private counselor/practice — but “significant beneficial interest” is not defined (no dollar threshold, no reporting requirement). That makes enforcement subjective and easy to funnel students to favored providers while formally staying “compliant.” 

What exact monetary/ownership thresholds trigger the ban? Who audits disclosures? 

Perhaps demand a mandatory disclosure registry, annual audits, and criminal penalties for undisclosed financial relationships.

2)           The bill says parents/guardians must be notified and consent when a student is “not legally permitted to consent” but New Jersey has complex minor-consent exceptions (e.g., certain mental-health, sexual health situations). The text doesn’t define when a student may consent on their own or how emergency care fits. That ambiguity invites inconsistent application across districts and potential parental outrage. Also, I’m not comfortable with the “parents MUST consent”. Does this make it mandatory? If so, why bother informing the parents at all?

Ask for explicit age cutoffs and a clear emergency/mandatory-reporting exception.

3)           Moving students to private counseling can create dual records (school record vs private medical/counseling record). The bill contains no privacy safeguards, consent forms, or data-transfer rules — risking inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information, and confusion over which protections (FERPA, HIPAA) apply. 

I would demand written protocols aligning referrals with FERPA/HIPAA, parental written release templates, and limits on what school staff may forward.

4)           The bill explicitly states neither districts nor referring staff will bear cost, meaning that the families pay. What if the counselor is not covered by the parents’ insurance? That creates a two-tier system where only families who can afford outside counseling get help, while lower-income students remain dependent on underfunded in-district services. The legislation does not require schools to provide free alternatives or sliding-scale referrals. 

5)           The bill permits referrals to “an individual or practice licensed to provide professional counseling under Title 45,”  which covers a range of licenses. There is no mechanism in the bill for vetting providers’ disciplinary history, scope of practice, or fit with child/adolescent needs. That risks placing kids with inexperienced or clinically inappropriate practitioners. Apparently, the parents seem to have little or no say in the selection process.

What about safeguards such as a vetted provider list, background checks, minimum experience requirements for youth counseling, and an opt-out if the district already provides the needed services?

6)           Who enforces the referral rules? The bill has no enforcement mechanism, no disclosure filing, and no penalties for violations.

This legislation clearly has tremendous flaws and will actually harm families and children, both emotionally, psychologically, and financially.