Angela Fletcher

I am a parent of a child with disabilities. Although my child is not currently enrolled in public school, I am deeply concerned about the children and families who will be directly affected by HB1688, including friends, neighbors, and countless families whose voices are too often unheard. I submit this testimony to advocate for those children—especially those who cannot advocate for themselves. HB1688 expands the circumstances under which physical restraint may be used in schools and treatment facilities and modifies the definition of seclusion by excluding the involuntary separation of a child from a “stressful environment.” I strongly oppose these changes. Children with disabilities are disproportionately subjected to restraint and seclusion. These practices are not neutral interventions—they are high-risk actions with well-documented potential for physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term harm. Expanding when restraint is permitted, while simultaneously narrowing what qualifies as seclusion, creates a dangerous loophole that prioritizes adult convenience over child safety. Redefining involuntary isolation as something other than seclusion simply because it is framed as removing a child from a “stressful environment” is deeply troubling. Isolation is not a therapeutic intervention. Isolation is a form of segregation. For many children with disabilities—particularly those with communication challenges, sensory sensitivities, or trauma histories—forced separation exacerbates distress, reinforces fear, and undermines trust. Renaming the practice does not change its impact on the child. HB1688 will not help the current mental health crisis, particularly the crisis affecting individuals with disabilities. Instead, it risks deepening it. Children who experience restraint and isolation are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and school avoidance. These outcomes do not end at the classroom door—they follow children into their homes, communities, and into an already strained mental health system. At a time when mental health services are overwhelmed, staffing shortages persist, and families struggle to access appropriate care, HB1688 moves us in the wrong direction. Policies that increase the use of restraint and isolation will inevitably increase the demand for intensive mental health services later, placing additional strain on systems that are already failing to meet current needs. This bill represents a slippery slope. History has shown that when safeguards are weakened and definitions are broadened, harmful practices become normalized. What begins as an “exception” can quickly become routine. Without strong, enforceable limits, restraint and isolation risk being used as behavior management tools rather than true last-resort safety measures. I am especially concerned about children who cannot tell their parents what happens during the school day, who may not have advocates present at meetings, or whose behaviors are misunderstood rather than supported. These children depend on lawmakers to establish firm protections that uphold their dignity, bodily autonomy, and emotional well-being. There are proven, evidence-based alternatives to restraint and seclusion, including trauma-informed care, de-escalation strategies, adequate staffing, and meaningful behavioral supports. Legislation should strengthen these approaches, not expand permission for practices that carry significant risk of harm. I urge you to oppose HB1688 and instead pursue policies that reduce the use of restraint and seclusion, increase transparency and accountability, and address the mental health needs of children with disabilities in ways that are humane, effective, and rights-respecting. Children who cannot speak up for themselves rely on all of us to do so. Please do not move backward under the guise of flexibility or convenience. Respectfully, Angela Fletcher