Oceanside Debates Pupil, Parent Rights : Education: Controversy swirls over practice of excusing students from school for confidential medical appointments, without the knowledge of their parents.

By JONATHAN GAW

Jan. 29, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

A policy that excuses students from school for confidential medical appointments has divided Oceanside Unified parents, with one camp carrying the flag for students’ privacy and the other touting parents’ right to exert authority over their children.

The proposal debated Tuesday night before more than 250 parents, students and teachers would put into words the informal district practice of releasing students for confidential medical appointments without the knowledge of their parents.

Both Poway and Vista Unified school districts have banned the practice within the past year.

“Our interpretation of the law is that we are required to grant excused absences for doctor’s appointments and that we will not notify parents against the students’ will,” Dan Armstrong, administrative assistant for Oceanside Unified, said. “We will protect the student’s confidentiality or privacy if the student demands it.

“The thinking behind the law is to provide for students who need care--for instance a student who is coming from a home where he or she is being abused by the parent and the parent might block the student from getting medical attention.”

A legal opinion obtained by the school district said the district “faces possible litigation if it fails to release students for confidential medical services without parent/guardian consent,” but goes on to say that “that conclusion is not without doubt.”

Parents in favor of allowing the school to excuse students say the policy protects children’s privacy.

“It reaches a segment of our population that is otherwise unprotected,” said Janet Bledsoe Lacy, a family law attorney and Oceanside parent of two.

Students who feel that they cannot talk to their parents about issues such as AIDS and pregnancy should have access to medical attention without their parents’ consent, Lacy said.

The current policy also benefits children from abusive families, “where the parents are the very cause of the child needing the medical care,” Lacy said.

“The whole basis of this code is the right of privacy for students that is pervasive over the right of the parent to know every move that their child makes,” Lacy said.

Other parents, however, say it’s a matter of parents retaining authority over their children.

“This is not about taking rights away from kids, this is simply about having the school district not support them on the choices they make concerning confidential medical services during school hours,” said Cheryl Masson, the parent who has been leading the effort to change the policy.

“When the school tells me my child is in school, that’s where I want my child to be,” said the mother of six, four of whom attend school in the district.

School board member Dean Szabo said the current policy puts the schools in the position of helping students deceive their parents.

“Parents should never be left in the dark about their students and certainly the school board should never be active in keeping the parents out of the process of decisions on their child’s life,” Szabo said.

Lacy and some school officials complain that Christian fundamentalism, not concern over parental authority, lies at the heart of the proposed ban.

“A private agenda is involved here . . . There is a (Christian) fundamentalist movement within the school board to try and legitimize certain religious and fundamentalist beliefs regarding sex and teen-agers and family planning,” Lacy said.

“The real fear of some of these people is that somehow this code is going to encourage or assist teen-agers in having sex.”

Armstrong agreed that Christian fundamentalism permeates the whole issue.

“Certainly, this issue is high on the agenda of, if you will, the Christian activists’ agenda, and certainly, if it is high on the Christian agenda, it is high on the civil rights activists’ agenda as well,” Armstrong said.

Masson denied that religious beliefs drive her efforts to change the school policy.

“They seem to think that it’s about abortion or my religious beliefs, but that’s not what it’s about,” Masson said.

But, in a letter to the school board co-written by Masson, she cited a questionnaire distributed in 1990 by a local church that included the issue of releasing students from school without parental consent. Three of the Oceanside board members responded, saying they would not approve of such a policy, Masson wrote.

The issue of releasing students from school had also appeared on questionnaires distributed by the National Assn. of Christian Educators and the California Pro-Life Council in 1990.

No matter what decision the board makes, Armstrong said, the school district might face litigation from one or both sides.

“This is one of those where there really is no escape from the possibility of litigation, regardless of what practice you want to pursue,” Armstrong said.

If the school district releases a child without their parents’ permission, the district could face a lawsuit from a parent saying their rights as parents have been abridged. If Oceanside decides not to release a student for a confidential medical appointment, that student could sue the district for invasion of privacy.