HB1688

I oppose lowering the standard for where physical restraint can be used in schools and treatment facilities. We have proven methods of de-escalation that work far better than attempting to restrain agitated individuals, which often causes the situation to become MORE dangerous to those involved. We should not be expanding the use of these dangerous practices that lead to lasting harm and even loss of life.

I am a mental health provider (researcher, author, lecturer, consultant) in sensory modulation. We should not be moving backwards and providing more reasons for restraint or seclusion (equally as detrimental as restraint). Both are ineffective in the long run, dehumanizing, trauma inducing and inhumane. We need to be working to provide our teachers with more education on coping skills, crisis intervention and self-regulation. I am appalled at the the suggestion that we should be allowing increased circumstances where restraint and seclusion are used on our children instead of help to facilitate better emotional and physical control.

We should not be loosening the restrictions on using restraint, or allowing involuntary seclusion to not be covered under current protections. And this comes from the parent of both a child who struggled with behavioral issues and one who is now a direct service provider (paraprofessional) at a school that serves such children.

This creates potential for harm to children.

Please protect New Hampshire students from dangerous restraint, and seclusion practices. We do not need to widen the set of circumstances under which restraint and seclusion are allowed.

Community Support Network, Inc - NH's association of Developmental Service Area Agencies - wishes to express opposition to the proposed bill HB1688. The involuntary removal of a child from an environment - including children with disabilities - can be exceptionally traumatic. This is particularly harmful for children who have experienced trauma. CSNI is concerned about the "slippery slope" toward increased opportunities for institutional abuse that this bill could create. Further, there is a level of subjectivity in this proposed language that could create additional challenges for enforcement. We respectfully request that the Committee deem this bill Inexpedient To Legislate.

Opposition of HB 1688 I strongly oppose expanding the circumstances under which restraint is permitted in schools and treatment facilities and any changes that weaken the definition of seclusion. I am a teacher with 43 years of experience. In that time, I have learned that restraint is not a safety strategy—it is a sign that systems of support have failed. I also have a loved one with a serious mental illness and has unfortunately experienced both restraints as well as seclusion. As an adult, he suffers to this day from PTSD from those restrictive practices imposed many years ago. Physical restraint must remain a last resort, used only in situations of immediate danger. Expanding its use increases the risk of trauma, injury, and misuse, especially for students with disabilities. Weakening the definition of seclusion makes harmful isolation easier to justify and harder to monitor. What actually keeps students safe are strong systems of support: adequate staffing, evidence-based behavioral supports, trauma-informed practices, mental health services, and meaningful relationships. When these systems are in place, restraint and seclusion are rarely needed. This proposal moves us backward by lowering protections for children instead of strengthening supports. I urge you to reject it and focus on building systems that ensure safety while preserving student dignity and trust. Yes, I completely understand that additional training with educators and families would need to take place. Yet the long-term positive impact to the educational community would undoubtedly foster respect, dignity, and support for all families.

This is a terribly inhumane idea taking us back to the 1800s.

I worked with children and adolescents with behavioral disorders for almost 30 years. Even in a therapeutic day treatment setting for students with serious mental illnesses, we never used isolation and very rarely used any form of physical restraint. Those are simply not effective methods of behavior management. This bill would be a dangerous and unnecessary change to current laws regarding restraint and seclusion. Current guidelines keep staff safe and work toward correcting practices that have resulted in injury to vulnerable students.

I have worked in human services for many many years in different environments a bill like this is not appropriate. It can be detrimental to both students and staff and open the door for physical abuse.

As a parent, I am utterly opposed to weakening the protections for children in public schools. Please kill this bill.

As the mother of a young son with multiple disabilities, restraint is something I worry about all the time. We need to work together as a community and team to help all people with different behavioral needs. Restricting a person without trying all other intervention is wrong. I would love to further discuss with anyone in the community and offer support from agencies who are trained in behavioral differences.

I strongly oppose HB 1688 because expanding the use of restraint and seclusion puts vulnerable students at greater risk of harm. New Hampshire has worked hard to limit these dangerous practices; broadening the circumstances where they are allowed undermines student safety, disproportionately affects children with disabilities, and moves us away from trauma-informed, evidence-based approaches

I am a school psychologist in NH and work in a number of schools. This bill will reduce protections for children in NH and greatly concerns me for safety in the schools. Please vote against this bill. We need clear restrictions on the use of restraint and seclusion in the schools as there are more effective ways to support our students.

I find it appalling that our state lawmakers would look for excuses to lay hands on a child rather than investing in positive methods with behavior issues. Any elected official that supports this type of power over children is a coward, not a leader.

Restraint and seclusion policies affect vulnerable children in our schools, particularly students with disabilities and those who may be nonverbal or or otherwise unable to advocate for themselves in the moment. For that reason, any change in law must be approached with extreme care and a clear understanding of the real risks involved. There is a place for crisis intervention when there is an immediate threat of serious physical harm. But expanding authority without strengthening safeguards risks increasing trauma, reducing transparency, and undermining trust between families and schools. If the legislature is considering changes in this area, they should be paired with strong guardrails, such as but not limited to a clear imminent harm standard, timely parent notification, consistent documentation, staff training in deescalation and trauma informed practices, and transparent public reporting. These measures protect students while also supporting educators who are navigating genuinely difficult situations. The laws governing restraint and seclusion exist because of documented harm when these practices are misused. Any revisions should move us toward greater safety and accountability.

I urge you to oppose this bill to expand the physical restraint and seclusion of students in public schools. Changes to these important yet also controversial methods should only be made in policy by highly trained mental health and teaching experts who work with children with high needs. In recent years, local school districts and educational organizations have done a lot of work to revamp their policies and regulations regarding restraint and seclusion in public schools, ensuring that it is only being used when absolutely necessary, and being handled by those trained in how to do so without hurting or further traumatizing the child.

I oppose HB 1688 because it lowers the safety threshold for physical restraint and creates loopholes in how we define and report student seclusion. Educators have come a long way from these outdated methods and for the sake of the children and educators lowering the threshold only invites harm and increased behavioral issues.

I have spent time working as a para educator in NH schools. At that time, we were being encouraged to use more restraint and isolation than was legally necessary, particularly with non-verbal students. At one point, I was encouraged to step on a student's hair if they were refusing to get up off the floor. We were told to use gentle language when describing incidents. I was asked to outright not report incidents requiring a student be removed from the classroom on at least two occasions. All of this was in one of the better school districts in the state, and was years ago when our funding was better. I could describe similar situations in the same vein, but for brevity's sake will leave the anecdotes there. My point in this isn't to launch accusations or bring up old problems in our educational system, but to acknowledge that there is already plenty of room for improvement in training, meeting the needs of students receiving special education services, and to ensure their safety in schools. Restraint and removing a child to isolate are not only incredibly difficult on the child, but also on the staff implementing these "last resort" techniques and the peers of the student who often bear witness to this. Instead of allowing MORE restraint and isolation, we should be providing funds to better train staff, improve ratios in gen ed and inclusion services alike, and to have better resources to proactively help children BEFORE they reach the point where restraint or isolation might be necessary. For the sake of NH students, please oppose HB1688.

I oppose this bill because I think it weakens protections that exist to keep children safe. It allows restraint for minor risks instead of true emergencies.

This bill lowers the standard for when physical restraint can be used in schools and treatment facilities and weakens protections that exist to keep children safe. As a public school teacher of 40 years and trained in disciplinary and restraint techniques, I understand the importance of using restraint and seclusion judiciously and only when necessary. Does it really make sense that there are bills that allow or require parental permission and input about a book that an educator or librarian has chosen, but the same parents may not know if and when their child is forcibly removed from class?

I oppose this bill that would lower the standard for when physical restraint can be used in schools and treatment facilities and weakens protections that exist to keep children safe. NH should stick with proven methods to handle these situation and should not expand harmful practices.

Honorable Representatives, This bill is dangerous, especially in this current time where we still are seeing people with disabilities being abused, and little oversight over that. We need to see bills that expand upon the training providers get in de-escalation, not an expansion of their right to physically restrain. Restraints and isolation are a last option only used when all other viable options have been exhausted. As a former residential worker, and current mental health counselor who works with people with disabilities, I can attest to the need for other interventions to be used. Going to extreme measures so quickly teaches the person to be reactive and have more behavioral issues in the long run.

This bill is quite frankly disgusting to see in the 21st century. This bill lowers the standards for which physical restraint can be used in schools and treatments facilities, as well as weakening protections that exist to keep children safe. It allows the use of restraints for minor risks instead of true emergencies and changes the definition of "seclusion" in a way that could meat parents are not notified when their child is forcibly removed from class. New Hampshire should be invested in proven supports and techniques, not expanding and encouraging harmful practices.

My children go to school in Derry, and I do want the whole town to decide what my children do or don’t do in school. As a resident please oppose this. No one should be touching my children This is in acceptable. And disgusting.