Image Credit:
Submitted by Connie Reguli, J.D. –
Flashback to the spring of 2024, three bills to codify fundamental parental rights in Tennessee battled to cross the finish line. Here is the April 4, 2024 article that warned you of the deception.
In the final lap, HB 2936 (Faison, White, Raper) / SB 2749 (Haile, Hensley, Jackson, Lowe, Massey, Stevens, White), won the prize.
The official Parental Rights law was signed by Governor Lee on May 28, 2024. Defenders of the bill promised that this would protect parents from intrusions into their private lives and protect them from surly medical and school personnel who attempted to impress their cultural beliefs on your children.
The parental rights bill seemed to fall right in line with Tennessee’s strong stance banning gender-affirming care for minors in HB1 / SB 1 in 2023. Although this law raised the ire of the ACLU, the challengers of the bill would fail.
The United States Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional in 2025, ruling that, although parental rights matter, the government has the right to control, regulate, and criminalize parental choices that the government deems as dangerous to your child.
Opponents of the parental rights bill of 2024, argued that this would serve only to sidestep parental rights by slicing away those rights with exceptions and intrusions by Tennessee lawmakers by inserting the word “unless” into future legislation year after year until a parent was a mere legal fiction.
The United States Supreme Court had already confirmed the fundamental right of parenting and family integrity in 1923 in Meyer v. Nebraska, and has repeatedly restated that decision. By 2000, the United States Supreme Court stated that parental rights were “perhaps the oldest fundamental liberty interest recognized by the court.” Troxel v. Granville.
What became the Parental Rights law of 2024 guaranteed a “fundamental right” in the “care, custody, and control of the parent’s child.” But the word “unless” appears within the context of the very first section, i.e, “unless the government entity demonstrates that there is a compelling governmental interest of the highest order and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” T.C.A. § 36-8-103.
Besides redefining “parent” as an individual who has been granted decision-making authority over the child under state law”, the bill carved out (1) seven “unless” circumstances, (2) one “does not apply when”, and (3) one “except as otherwise provided by statutory law, case law, or court order”. Statutory law, case law, and court orders are mere pieces of paper authored by third parties that are subject to change by the mere swipe of a pen. Your parental rights are not immovable, absolute, or guaranteed.
The word “unless” is more than a simple exclusion of rights under exceptional circumstances, it is really a “condition precedent” that removes all of your parental rights under any of the listed conditions. And those conditions are not extreme, exigent, or life-threatening.
Under Tennessee’s parental rights bill, any judge, lawmaker, state agency, law enforcement, or future new insertion into the law, anywhere in the volumes of code, removes all of your rights. If there is an investigation by the Department of Children’s Services, law enforcement interaction, blanket consent, another person faking they are the parent, or a court proceeding, then your parental rights do not exist.
This year’s legislation is just more evidence of the illusion you were sold on parental rights.
Five bills take a deep slice at parental rights and might otherwise be deemed unconstitutional if not for Tennessee lawmakers granting themselves the right to carve away those rights. A brave and brilliant lawyer might still be able to show that the General Assembly has gone too far, but since Tennessee has a dearth of constitutional lawyers and certainly none that will fight the arduous and expensive battle with the Attorney General’s Office, these laws, if passed, will cut deep into family security.
These five bills stack up like this:
- HB1699 (Raper) / SB1703 (Lowe) – Circumstances beyond the parent’s control.
- HB2127 (Alexander) / SB 2539 (Hatcher) – Highest weight to credible evidence of domestic violence.
- HB2128 (Alexander) / SB2538 (Hatcher) – Children’s equal protection and fundamental right to safety.
- HB2526 (Lamberth) / SB1868 (Johnson) – Child in need of heightened supervision.
• HB2459 (Pearson) / SB2675 (Akbari) – Removing parental consent for school social work.
HOW THESE BILLS STACK UP AGAINST YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS
HB1699 (Raper R-24) / SB1703 (Lowe R-1) – Cirsumstances beyond the parent’s control.
This bill creates a new category of a “dependent and neglected” child under section 37-1-102(b). But for the parental rights bill and the ability of lawmakers to carve away at your parental rights, this bill would not be able to stand the strict scrutiny test required to overcome fundamental parental rights.
Under this bill, a child whose parent is “unable to provide for the care and control of the child due to circumstances beyond the parent’s control” can be adjudicated by the juvenile court as a “dependent and neglected” child giving the court complete control over every aspect of the child’s life and excruciating control over the parents, requiring mental health assessment, classes, months of repeated court appearances, and burdensome attorney’s fees. The classic fundamental parental rights doctrine requires a court to find inflicted harm or a “risk of substantial harm” or “substantial risk of serious harm”. There is nothing about this code section that suggests that the child needs to be in harm’s way to trigger complete state intervention.
What about parents facing life-threatening disease, devastating floods, loss of employment, or accidental injury leaving them paralyzed. While they may be able to accommodate the logistical needs of the child with assistance, the state’s ability to rip apart the relationship and bond between the parent and child will have an even greater traumatic impact on the child.
But for the parental rights bill that gave lawmakers carte blanche to slice away at parental rights with mere language instead of real harm, this bill is unconstitutional as written.
This bill should be rejected as too offensive to parental rights.
HB2127 (Alexander / R-27) / SB 2539 (Hatcher R-2)– Highest weight to credible evidence of domestic violence.
This bill is a bold attempt to disrupt two hundred years of well established legal doctrine that has governed litigation well before this country was established. Even in the British courts of common law, the doctrine of “res judicata” was recognized as bringing finality to a dispute brought before the courts. The United States, the Supreme Court, as well as Tennessee courts have incorporated res judicata as a method to foreclose litigating the same facts and same issues after the entry of a final judgment. Only in a limited set of circumstances, can one “reach into the past” and pull out facts already litigated as explained in Taylor. Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 US 880 (2008).
HB2127/SB2539 inserts language into section 36-6-106 and says that the “doctrine of res judicata does not preclude admission of evidence concerning a parent’s or caregiver’s conduct that occurred prior to the entry of the most recent parenting plan, when such evidence is relevant to the child’s best interest.
Then the bill defines “evidence” as including, but not limited to, sworn testimony, medical or mental health records, psychological evaluations, police reports, child protective services records, school or childcare records, audio, video, or photographic documentation, expert witness findings, previous court dockets, and any documentation or credible reporting by professionals mandated to report child abuse or neglect.
While not specifically stating that this evidence is admissible, the rules of evidence would prohibit most of the items in this list. The bill suggests that the parties can sling a free-for-all pile of already hashed out claims of abuse again and again and again and again…ad nauseum.
Then the bill states, “in determining the best interest of the child, courts shall give highest weight to credible evidence of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or domestic violence. The weight must be applied equally to abuse committed against any member of the child’s household, including siblings, half-siblings, foster siblings, and step-siblings.”
So judges and attorneys are going to be arguing for years what the “highest weight” actually means. And the second sentence is equally baffling. The “weight must be equally applied to”.. is going to drive even the appellate panels into pages of legal debate finding that there simply is no precedent for determining what this means. Since nearly half of all appeals now are domestic related cases, this phraseology will load the dockets, while families are piled with legal bills and months and years caught up in legal debate.
Then the bill says, “a court that issues a custody order, including a temporary order, must take into consideration the restrictions in § 36-6-406.” In other words, this legislation says that the judge should follow the law that already exists. Why does this sound unnecessary and redundant? It is.
The Tennessee code section 36-6-406 already says that the court SHALL restrict parenting time if the court finds (1) Willful abandonment that continues for an extended period of time or substantial refusal to perform parenting responsibilities; or (2) Physical or sexual abuse or a pattern of emotional abuse of the parent, child or of another person living with that child as defined in § 36-3-601. A simple amendment to this code requiring the court to make detailed findings of fact where this code section is raised in litigation would serve the purpose and not upset two hundred years of didactic law.
HB2128 (Alexander R-27) / SB (Hatcher R-2)– Children’s equal protection and fundamental right to safety.
This bill attaches similar priorities in determining the best interest of the child. This time by adding an entirely new part 10 to title 37. The sections are labeled 37-1-1001, 37-1-1002, and 37-1-1003. This code establishes fundamental rights of children, but not to family integrity and parental association. The bill states that children have (a) “equal protection under the law and possess fundamental rights to safety, protection from harm, and consideration of their best interests as the paramount concern in all legal proceedings, governmental actions, and policy decisions affecting their welfare” and (b) “every child has the inalienable right to be protected from physical, sexual emotional, and psychological abuse, neglect, and exploitation. A child shall not be knowingly placed in the custody, care, or unsupervised contact of any person with a documented history of child abuse, domestic violence, or other conduct that poses a substantial risk of harm to the child.”
Under section 37-1-1002(a), the bill says a child is entitled to legal representation in all proceedings (that does not include an agent of the court), the right to have their views and preferences heard, to express their own concerns about safety, and timely resolution of legal proceedings.
The court is to consider the child’s safety, well-being, and best interests as the paramount concern and consider ALL available evidence regarding risks to the child, including criminal history, protective service records, medical evidence, and expert testimony. Expert testimony MUST be admitted ONLY if the professional has demonstrated subject-matter-specific clinical and professional capacity expertise directly related to the opinions offered. Such expertise shall not be based solely on forensic experience, and qualification shall be evaluated under Rule 702 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.
Under section 37-1-1002(b)(3), the court shall provide “clear justification” when placing a child with a caregiver “against the recommendations of child protective services, a guardian ad litem, or other child welfare professionals.”
Finally, this bill states, “any violation of a child’s rights under this section constitutes a deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law. A child, through the child’s representative, has standing to seek judicial relief for violations of rights guaranteed by this part. This bill does not limit other protections afforded to children under law.”
This bill is packed full of great intent. Protecting children from harm is a task of a civilized society. However, this bill should be rejected as written and here is why:
First, children also have a fundamental right to maintain family integrity. The long term results are in – separating a child from their family of origin causes long-term emotional and psychological pain for a child, altering their brain architecture and impacting their ability to develop emotionally. Children’s fundamental rights to be protected from abuse and harm is critical even when that harm is caused by the government. Any “best interest” analysis must include the attachment the child has to the family of origin. An addition of this critical language would make this bill more palatable.
The enumerated rights of a child to be represented and participate in court proceedings is noble, but not always possible, but this section (37-1-1002(a)) is acceptable.
The language in 37-1-1102(b)(2) gets entangled with what “evidence” is admissible which is already articulated in rules and well-established Tennessee jurisprudence regarding the consideration of expert testimony. The courts consider what is called the McDaniel/Daubert reliability test and most of what is stated here is included in application of Evidence Rule 702. This is simply not needed.
Subsection (b)(3) gives us another new standard of proof called “clear justification”. Most juvenile court cases require a “clear and convincing” standard of evidence because the proceeding interrupts the fundamental right to parent a child. In this bill, it does not assume any other adjudication has occurred but creates this stand-alone burden of proof which is not defined. More language that causes unnecessary snares in the litigation process for families and children already trapped in a legal quagmire.
This requirement poses a unique conflict for the judges, in that they would be required to elevate the opinions of some litigants, i.e, DCS, guardians ad litem, and other state employees, over the presentation of evidence by parents. This “clear justification” language unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to the parent to overcome the opinion of their litigation opponents, instead of prioritizing parental rights.
Families need judicial efficiency and expedious litigation, not years in the court system, multiple appeals, and thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Finally, section 37-1-1003 is eloquent, but hollow language. The “deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law” is a legal term and “under color of law” refers to “state actors” or, in other words, government employees. This could wrap up a tidy civil rights action against a DCS case worker, if she failed to take a child to court for a hearing or refused to let the child speak. But, if the sponsors believe that they are creating a cause of legal action against a judge for failing to consider these rights of the child, those hopes are annihilated with judicial and sovereign immunity.
This is a well intended bill whose language will only create more litigation chaos. A child’s bill of rights must include that child’s ability to depend on his parents for medical and education decisions, as much as the parental rights bill sets forth those rights for parents.
HB2526 (Lamberth R-44) / SB1868 (Johnson R-27)– Child in need of heightened supervision.
This bill creates a new category of child; something more than neglected and less than delinquent. Lamberth and Johnson propose that a child “in need of heightened supervision” is added to the long list of definitions for a child classified as “dependent and neglected”. These definitions are found under Tenn. Code § 37-1-102(b) and give the juvenile court judge the authority to remove all parental rights, enter ex parte (secret) orders for taking your child without a hearing, place your child in foster care, and order the parent to complete a laundry list of state mandated assessment, classes, and document production before, if ever, you can regain care and control of your child.
The statute defines a child “in need of heightened supervision” as one who has exhibited or threatened violent felonious behavior listed under section 37-1-131(a)(2)(B)(i) which are aggressive dangerous behaviors. However, the second part of the definition describes a child who is incompetent to be adjudicated but has exhibited violent behavior. It is this section that leaves disabled children at risk because of the tie-in in the following section.
Children “in need of heightened supervision” will also be included as a category of children that can be detained under section 37-1-114(c). “Detained” in Tennessee under the juvenile code means “jail”. When Tennessee passed the mass violence law in 2021, it applied to children as well. Children who made reckless statements about guns or crashes or bombs were rushed to juvenile detention without any notice to their parents and held without bond until released by the juvenile judge. Two lawsuits were filed in Williamson County in 2024 and two lawsuits appeared in Hamilton County in 2025. One child was as young as eleven years old. This code section (37-1-114(c)) permitted the juvenile detention centers to hold the children. The bill will likely lead to similar incarcerations for disabled children and trigger more litigation. But litigation or not, the jailing of disabled children leaves a lasting emotional mark on a child.
The bill is not finished. Finally, the last section adds a new twist for a child in the legal custody of the state (Department of Children’s Services) and held in “residential placement” under section 37-1-137(b)(1). If a child in residential placement assaults a staff member, “then the child’s indefinite commitment must not be discharged” and the child is not permitted to be released on home supervision for six months from the date of the assault. This is troubling, not because staff workers don’t deserve to be safe, but children in institutionalized settings in Tennessee have been the pawns of third-party abuse as described in Doe 1 et. al v. State of Tennessee filed in June 2024. The lawsuit describes children locked in cells 23 hours a day for months, denied schooling, and mental health care, becoming suicidal, ripping out their hair, and being pepper sprayed and even restrained during disability-related meltdowns. Allegations include abuses at facilities such as Wilder Youth Development Center, Middle Tennessee Juvenile Detention Center, and other DCS-monitored juvenile detention centers.
Under this bill, a child could easily be threatened by staff members that a report by the child will be met with retaliation with a report of an assault by the child. It is not hard to imagine when this lawsuit explains the brutal detail of treatment inside the walls of these facilities.
The December 2025 performance report of DCS leaves one with more pause. Here, the report explained that there was a lack of management in completing the investigations from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). While the author doubts that many legislators read the 200-page report, multiple news sources found this detail to be news worthy and a headliner. This means that abuse that occurs within DCS facilities, by professionals like teachers or medical professionals, foster homes, detention facilities, and group homes were not completely investigated leaving children vulnerable and without recourse.
In 2023, Alegend Jones died inside a Youth Villages facility in Memphis and two employees were indicted but never prosecuted. The video showed that the child had been grabbed by the neck and shoved to the corner, but the crowd around her blocked the view. Soon, she would be dead. The employess were charged with aggravated child abuse and reckless homicide, but the district attorney dropped the case. Youth Villages is the largest contractor with the Department of Children’s services and operates as a nonprofit. After a lawsuit was filed, the family’s attorney and Youth Villages announced it was a “medical emergency” and a “tragic accident.” Many of the details remain sealed.
This bill should be rejected as “not needed” as it relates to juvenile violent offenders. The code sections described above already provided for detention of children who have committed violent felonies. Children who are not competent to defend themselves need the assistance of counsel, just as would be available to an adult. The final section regarding assaults is not needed. Children who assault a staff person will already be faced with delinquency charges. This bill only complicates the existing code and places disabled children at risk.
HB2459 (Pearson D-86) / SB2675 (Akbari D-29)– Removing parental consent for school social work.
This bill appears as a simple one-sentence bill. Section 63-1-176(c) is amended by adding the following as a new subdivision: (10) A school social worker, licensed by the state board of education, provides preventative and developmental counseling.
Title 63 is Parental Consent for Treatment of Minors. This code was intended to protect parental rights and protect children from receiving medical or mental health treatment without the knowledge and consent of their parents. Just like the parental rights bill, this code section cleverly strips those rights away with “except when otherwise provided by statutory law, case law, or court order” and by statute excludes multiple persons and situations. This is the perfect example of how lawmakers slice away your rights in the blink of an eye.
This bill would remove all parental consent for school social workers to privately consult and treat your child on any developmental issue. This could include gender dysphoria, suicidal ideation, threats of violence, or otherwise.
This bill is a hard “no”.
Apologies for the interminable discourse, but this legislation needs a coordinated response. Legislators cannot know the entirety of green book code and most have not worked in the environments where these laws would affect the lives of others. It’s not just about the law. Public policy is derived from the words of legislators. This collective of legislation does not support that public policy that was articulated in the parental rights legislation. A reset is necessary.
All five should be tossed.
The citizens of Tennessee can make a difference. Email and call the sponsors of these bills, share this article on social media and with friends and associates, and support Tennessee Conservative News, so you can stay informed.
Find the list of House Members here.
Find the list of Senate Members here.
If you don’t know your representatives, put your address in here.
Connie Reguli J.D. has 28 years experience in family and juvenile law and is a political activist for child welfare reform. She organized the Family Forward Project through social media and has 28,000 families nationwide working towards reform.
She can be contacted at connie.familyforward@gmail.com or through Facebook messenger.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@connieregulifamilyforward
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/connie.reguli
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/conniereguli/
