Legal considerations are important in universal screening for several reasons:

1. Privacy and Confidentiality: Universal screening often involves collecting sensitive personal information from individuals, such as health records or demographic data. Legal frameworks, such as data protection and privacy laws, ensure that individuals' information is collected, stored, and used in a manner that respects their privacy rights and maintains confidentiality.

2. Informed Consent: Legal requirements mandate obtaining informed consent from individuals before conducting any screening procedures. This ensures that individuals are fully aware of the purpose, potential benefits, and risks of the screening, and they have the right to make an informed decision about their participation.

3. Non-discrimination: Universal screening should not lead to discrimination or bias against certain individuals or groups. Legal considerations, such as anti-discrimination laws, protect individuals from being treated unfairly based on their characteristics, such as race, gender, disability, or other protected attributes.

4. Ethical and Legal Standards: Universal screening should adhere to ethical and legal standards, ensuring that the screening process is conducted in a fair, just, and equitable manner. Compliance with legal requirements helps prevent potential harm, ensure accountability, and maintain public trust in the screening program.

5. Liability and Legal Responsibility: Legal considerations help define the responsibilities and liabilities of the parties involved in universal screening, including the organizations or institutions conducting the screening, the professionals administering the tests, and the individuals being screened. Clear legal guidelines and protocols can help mitigate legal risks and protect the rights of all parties involved.

By incorporating legal considerations into universal screening programs, it is possible to protect individuals' rights, maintain privacy and confidentiality, ensure fairness and non-discrimination, and comply with legal and ethical standards. This ultimately enhances the effectiveness and legitimacy of the screening process.

Policy Lawyer Considerations

During a consultation with a policy lawyer at the Oregon School Boards Association, the lawyer offered several considerations for districts regarding liability and laws related to suicide universal screenings in school districts:

1. Liability: The lawyer stated that unless the district acted in a way that was clearly out of bounds or failed to follow their own policies and procedures, they would not be generally liable for a student's suicide. However, claims could arise in the form of discrimination or negligence if the district failed to respond appropriately or follow up on known risks. Negligence claims often involve the district's failure to follow its processes correctly after being made aware of bullying or harassment, which ultimately led to the student's suicide. Parents may argue that the district should have taken action or at least followed their own procedures and notified them. While there may not be specific court decisions in Oregon, similar cases exist nationwide.

2. Laws and claims: The lawyer mentioned that while there may not be specific claims related to a student's suicide, there have been court cases where districts were aware of bullying or harassment, failed to follow procedures, and the student ultimately died by suicide. The parents in such cases argue that the district should have taken action or at least followed their own policies and notified them.

3. Opt-outs and parent communication: Parents/Guardians must be informed of the Universal Screening at least 2 weeks prior to screening. Parents must be sent a physical letter via mail. Learn more about the relevant laws here: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_336.216. Open communication with parents is vital, especially where controversy may arise. Parental rights and student confidentiality should be respected while fulfilling legal obligations and promoting open dialogue. There could be potential liability regarding the opt-out process and parent communication. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), parents have the right to access their child's education records. However, state laws may grant minors, particularly those aged 14 and older, the right to access certain types of care without parental permission. The specific age requirements may vary depending on the type of care, such as counseling or reproductive health. In the realm of suicide prevention and transgender student issues, districts may face liability if they fail to share or disclose relevant information as required by state or federal laws. While federal law grants minors the right to access certain care without parental permission, state laws may vary. For suicide prevention screenings, the district may need to inform parents, but if there are privacy concerns, such as in cases involving transgender students, sharing information without consent could result in claims against the district.

   Regarding a scenario where universal screening identifies students at high risk, the obligations to notify parents can vary. Under FERPA, once a student turns 18, the rights transfer to them, and the school wouldn't have an obligation to notify parents. If a 17-year-old student is at high risk, the district would not be required to inform the parent unless requested. However, if there is bullying or harassment involved, Oregon's Carson's Law may come into play, which could introduce additional obligations for notification. The nuances and exceptions in the law can complicate the decision-making process. If reporting to parents could harm the student, there may be situations where the district's obligation to share information is limited. Read ORS 339.356 District policy on harassment, intimidation, and bullying required here.

4. Data collection: When collecting data through surveys that cover sensitive topics, including suicidal ideation, parental opt-out options must be provided under federal law. However, as long as individual information is not shared or made identifiable, the district would likely comply with privacy regulations. It is essential to have strict confidentiality procedures in place to prevent the release of personally identifiable information.

Overall, it is important to consider the specific legal requirements, and district policies, and consult legal experts for advice tailored to individual circumstances. It was advised to review district policies related to parental rights, opt-outs, and data collection to ensure compliance with relevant laws.

The Oregon School Boards Association provides legal advice to member districts, including guidance on liability concerns. Districts can consult with their legal department or attorneys to address specific questions or seek further clarification on liability and related issues. Hayley Purcell, the Chief Legal at the Oregon School Boards Association, has presented on suicide prevention to administrators and may be a valuable resource to provide insights.