• give permission for child to receive SBHC services, and for staff to consult with and provide records to other health care and mental health providers
• not give permission for SBHC services (but this is a farce as you will see below)
• give permission for SBHC staff to release child's medical records to the school administration

The item that really raises alarms for CFJ (and should for all of you reading this) is the small print at the bottom, stating all the conditions under which the State can provide "health care" without parental consent. The small print begins with, "Parental consent is not required for, and shall not bar children, regardless of age, from the following services: Any person regardless of age may consent to. . ." The services are listed below:

• Venereal disease examination and treatment. The law supporting this service is NMSA 24-1-9, which states: Capacity to consent to examination and treatment for a sexually transmitted disease. Any person regardless of age has the capacity to consent to an examination and treatment by a licensed physician for any sexually transmitted disease.
• Examination and diagnosis for pregnancy. NMSA 24-1-13 states: Pregnancy; capacity to consent to examination and diagnosis. Any person, regardless of age, has the capacity to consent to an examination and diagnosis by a licensed physician for pregnancy.
• Family Planning services should be readily accessible to all who want and need them. NMSA 24-8-5 states: Prohibition against imposition of standards and requirements as prerequisites for receipt of requested family planning services. Neither the state, its local governmental units nor any health facility furnishing family planning services shall subject any person to any standard or requirement as a prerequisite to the receipt of any requested family planning service except for:
  • a requirement of referral to a physician when the requested family planning service is something other than information about family planning or nonprescription items;
  • any requirement imposed by law or regulation as a prerequisite to the receipt of a family planning service; or
  • payment for the service when payment is required in the ordinary course of providing the particular service to the person involved.
• Individual or group psychotherapy or any other forms of verbal therapy, including substance abuse services that does not include aversive stimuli or substantial deprivations. This does not include electro convulsive therapy or psychotropic medications. Initial psychotherapy assessment and early intervention services will not extend beyond a two week period for children under 14 years of age without parental consent. NMSA 32A-6-14, their stated "legal support" for this major infringement on parental rights, is a law that is no longer in force - it has been repealed.
• Emergency treatment may be given when a parent or guardian cannot be reached. NMSA 24-10-2 states: Consent for emergency attention by person in loco parentis. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, in cases of emergency in which a minor is in need of immediate hospitalization, medical attention or surgery and the parents of the minor cannot be located for the purpose of consenting thereto, after reasonable efforts have been made under the circumstances, consent for the emergency attention may be given by any person standing in loco parentis to the minor.

The main players in SBHC planning for New Mexico are: the New Mexico Department of Health, Envision New Mexico, The University of New Mexico, and the New Mexico Department of Human Services. They have produced a very informative and very disturbing document entitled: School-Based Health Center/Medicaid Program Guidelines for the Management of Depression. It begins by quoting from a 2002 New Mexico study authored by NM Human Services Department, the NM Department of Health, Presbyterian Salud!, Lovelace Community Health Plan, and Cimarron Health Plan. (Note that three of the authors are medical insurers and one is a NM Department already cited on this website for its role in trafficking American children.) The report claims that over 18,000 children ages 9-17 "have a severe emotional disturbance".

The document makes it clear at the outset that the purpose of its program, at least in the mental health area, is to take over the parents' roles. Right from the first paragraph, it again quotes from the study, stating that SBHCs "provide opportunities for access to services for children/adolescents who can or will not or who have parents who can or will not seek services in other ways." The document then states, "The SBHC/Medicaid Program Advisory Board recognized such an opportunity through the program and included coverage of ten behavioral health services." Make no mistake about it - this program is intended to provide mental health coverage to students through the schools whether parents like it or agree with it or not, and it is intended that Medicaid will be a big part of the vehicle used to accomplish this goal. On its surface, it appears that the system will provide needed services to sick children in spite of negligent parents, but we who have focused on the activities of this New Mexico system know otherwise.

Guidelines in the document refer to six additional documents, with references to antidepressant requirements and doses. An emphasis is placed on childhood depression, and the term "psychiatric comorbidity" is introduced, meaning co-occurring psychiatric disorders. In addition to depressive disorder, according to the document, a child should be evaluated for "posttraumatic stress, other anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, eating, and/or substance use disorders". In other words, with a little assessment work, a child can be pegged with multiple disorders, leading to more complex and frequent therapy and more medications, racking up that Medicaid bill big-time. Who pays for all of this Medicaid? You and me - the taxpayers. It all comes from the federal entitlement dole. Wow.

Now to page two of the document, the Depression Assessment and Treatment Flow Chart. Under the intake phase, the student shows up at the SBHC by either being referred or by being "self-referred". Notice Step 2: the student is given a Student Health Questionnaire, and the primary care physician for the student is contacted regarding the confidential services with student's consent. Note that no mention of parents is involved, and that the primary care provider is contacted regarding confidentiality. The questionnaire is then reviewed by a trained clinician. In other words, the trained clinician does not necessarily talk to the student, he/she simply reviews a piece of paper on which the student has checked certain answers to questions. According to the chart, the clinician uses the questionnaire to determine whether the student is a "depression risk". If so, more "depression screening" is performed and the "screen" (not the student in person) is interpreted by the behavioral health clinician. Not until after depression is indicated does the behavioral health provider ever directly interact with the student. There is also a loop that insures that the SBHC can "re-evaluate, as needed" ad infinitum. Just imagine what a cash cow for service providers this little deal is and will be when fully implemented.

The chart on page two states that the following conditions warrant notification of the parent: suicide, homicide, psychosis, and suspected child abuse/neglect. Apparently the reason the parents are notified in this case is because "legal mandates" will be followed. In other words, whereas it used to take a legitimate complaint to law enforcement or the Children, Youth, and Families Department of the State to question a child and impose "legal mandates" as a result, now they can do so with no triggering complaint at all whatsoever. This system completely breaks down the barriers of family privilege by fully accessing children without the parents' knowledge or consent, and possibly leading to removal of the child from a home with associated criminal charges. We at CFJ are all for exposing actual child abuse and neglect, but we have seen far too many instances (thousands of them) here in New Mexico in which the State made knowingly false charges for the motivation of usurping parental funds and federal entitlement funds. Additionally, we have a number of cases (scores of them) where persons within the State were actually trying to usurp the child, not just the money.

On page three, another flowchart alarmingly shows at least 4-6 weeks of psychotherapy by a Behavioral Health Provider below the block "Parent Not Informed". It also shows lower blocks from that path stating, "consider medication" and "continue . . . 6-12 months". In other words, you could have a child enrolled in a New Mexico public school who is receiving psychotherapy from a professional for up to a year, unbeknownst to you.

We have seen multiple family court cases such as this one involving the use of non-FDA-approved meds for a young child that we believe were the precursors to this program. We now believe that such cases of judicially-forced medications not approved by the FDA for children were for the purpose of building up a database of empirical evidence supporting the use of non-FDA-approved psychotropic drugs for the SBHC programs for children.