The persistence of public-school officials to get into their students’ heads continues, with new information surfacing seemingly every day. On September 3, Phyllis Schlafly Eagles received word from a concerned parent about a change in Illinois law which, as a letter from the Edwardsville, IL School District explained, “impacts how schools provide counseling services to students.”

The letter “informs” parents about the new state mandate 405 ILCS 5/3-550, which reads:

• Any minor 12 years of age or older may request and receive counseling services or psychotherapy on an outpatient basis. The consent of the minor’s parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis shall not be necessary to authorize outpatient counseling services or psychotherapy. [Emphasis added.]

The mandate contains the caveat that outpatient counseling or psychotherapy provided to children under the age of 17 “initially” will be limited to “8 90-minute sessions” until parental authorization is obtained. But the law quickly renders this condition meaningless with the stipulation that if, through consultation with the minor, the provider considers that attempting to obtain parental consent “would be detrimental to the minor’s well-being,” the provider will consult with his/her supervisor to determine if services should continue without the parents’ consent.

As observers might imagine, this opens a Pandora’s box, with any minor wishing to pursue a lifestyle with which his or her parents might disagree; e.g., a transition to the opposite sex, is likely to qualify for exemption from parental notification.

The new law codifies the outrageous notion that 12-year-old children know best when it comes to their thoughts and feelings, which often change by the day. These young people are entrusting their emotional wellbeing, and potentially their entire future, to strangers who may place a political agenda ahead of their best interests. Granted, there are always exceptions — occasionally a youth may need protection from addicted or abusive parents — but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

The law further states: “The minor’s parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis shall not be informed of the counseling services or psychotherapy without the written consent of the minor unless the service provider believes the disclosure is necessary....” It’s easy to imagine, in lieu of the overreach of public schools in so many instances, that almost any child who wishes to circumvent his or her parents might be empowered to do so by mental health “experts.”

As Education Reporter described last month, Illinois passed a bill over the summer that will force public schoolchildren in grades 3-12 to undergo annual mental health screenings beginning with the 2027-28 school year. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed that bill into law on July 31. Combined, these statutes ensure that no Illinois public-school child is likely to escape the mental health screening and subsequent treatment gauntlet.

Not just in Illinois

While Illinois parents grapple with the latest intrusion of their blue state education system and determine how to fight it, parents in other states face similar challenges.

An interactive map posted by World Population Review shows the age of consent for mental health treatment by state for 2025. The heavily footnoted post asserts that all states “have some sort of law that allows minors to be diagnosed and treated for certain mental health concerns in special circumstances, with the youngest age being 12, and the generally accepted age of majority being 18 for medical care consent.” It is unclear whether World Population Review is referencing treatment available through the public schools without parental consent for students between the ages of 12 and 17.

In California, Assembly Bill (AB) 665 took effect July 1, 2024, which allows public schools to provide mental health services to children 12 and up without their parents’ consent. The law further allows these services to be paid for through the students’ Medi-Cal benefits.

An FAQ by the California Alliance of Child and Family Services explains that the law removed the requirement of these youth “to demonstrate that they are in danger of serious physical or mental harm to themselves or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling, or are the alleged victim [sic] of incest or child abuse in order to access care and use their Medi-Cal coverage to pay for it....”

Young people with private insurance are also able to obtain mental health services without their parents’ consent. The FAQ states: “Starting on July 1, 2024, access to minor consent mental health services must be made available to all young people based on the same consent standard, regardless of insurance type.” In California at least, it is possible to bill a minor’s insurance carrier “confidentially.”

According to the FAQ, the law says “a minor may self-consent if ‘in the opinion of the attending professional person,’ the minor is ‘mature enough to participate intelligently’ in outpatient services.” But the statute “does not define ‘mature enough’ for this purpose. It simply says that it is based on the opinion of the attending professional.” In other words, the law relegates the determination of whether or not a child is “mature enough to participate intelligently” in his or her treatment not to the parents, but to the mental health counselor, psychologist, or “professional person,” whatever that means.

The opt-out option

While conservatives agree parents should have to opt children in to objectionable curricula, programs, and activities, including mental health screenings and treatments, it is possible in nearly every school district to opt them out. Information on opting out is readily available online from many sources, including the Parental Rights Foundation, Parents Defending Education, and the Pacific Justice Institute, to name a few. Some websites also provide generic opt-out forms, although many school districts require parents to use forms specific to the district.

The Parental Rights Foundation publishes Opt-Out-Report 2025, which summarizes by state the laws covering the rights of parents to opt their children out of “certain public school classes and activities.” The report’s introduction admits that some of the information may change or may have already changed since the June 27, 2025 Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which reinforced the right of parents to direct the education of their children on the basis of religion. (See Education Reporter, July 2025.) “This decision,” notes the guide, “will no doubt alter the opt-out provisions and policies of some states and many districts.”

Nonetheless, the opt-out guide should be helpful in most instances, as the majority of state laws “are not likely to change as a direct result of the Mahmoud ruling.” The foundation cautions that the ease with which parents are able to enforce their decision to remove their children from offensive programs or curricula “varies from state to state, and sometimes from school to school.”

Parents Defending Education advises parents to familiarize themselves with the opt-out process in their school district and to ask for the forms. “If your district does not provide an opt-out form,” its leaders stress, “ask how to opt out. Some districts do not want students to opt out, so they do not make the opt-out forms readily available and they do not publicize the right to opt out.”

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a pro-family, Christian organization battling government intrusion into the lives and minds of children and families in the state, asks the pertinent questions: “Who decides what qualifies as a mental health issue? Can we really trust government-approved professionals to make such judgments when many of them reject the foundational truth that God created us male and female—and that God has set clear moral boundaries for sexuality and life?”

IFI’s executive director, David E. Smith, speculates as to what might happen when a boy suffering from gender dysphoria is screened by the district and his confusion is discovered. He asks: “Will the school notify the parents—or conceal it in the name of ‘affirmation’? What if the parents disagree with the label or proposed treatment—do they have any rights or recourse? Will the DCFS be called in to interrogate parents, or worse?”

Smith continues: “And will the same institutions now labeling children as mentally unwell also promote curriculum that normalizes LGBTQ ideology and graphic sex-ed, even in kindergarten?”

IFI and other pro-parent organizations encourage parents unable to homeschool or afford a private school to protect their children through vigilance and use of opt-out forms provided by their school districts or available online.

Even as the noose appears to tighten, there remain ways parents can fight back. Barring any other type of pushback by outraged parents in Edwardsville, Illinois, for example—class action lawsuit?—many parents there will doubtless be exercising their right to opt their children out of mental health mandates.

Want to be notified of new
Education Reporter content?
Your information will NOT be sold or shared and will ONLY be used to notify you of new content.

Click Here

Return to Home PageEducation Reporter Online - September 2025