# data[].attributes.body
My professional perspective is from the role of school counselor. I completed my education at Angelo State University obtaining a degree for Professional School Counseling.

This legal guide will serve as a resource for other school counselors in the school district in helping them understand the current legal requirements in working with students who are suicidal in response to being bullied.

I chose this topic because many stories in the news report on a suicide foreshadowed by an incident of bullying. It is important to understand the effects that bullying can have on an individual. This is an issue that can possibly be prevented with effective resources.

# data[].attributes.body
As counselors we should be aware of changing laws and regulation. When students and/or teachers report to us, knowing the current law will help us navigate how to obtain the best help for the student. All educators are required to take training in identifying suicidal behaviors and how/when to report (19 TAC § 153.1013). Remaining aware of the legal and ethical standards allows counselors to help not only students, but teachers and staff members as well.

There have been many cases across the state where school districts have been taken to court by parents alleging that their child had been bullied and the school counselor was aware of the situation and did nothing. Following the laws and policies set by the state and school district will allow counselors to fulfill their duties in the best possible way, avoiding legal complications that could arise.

Suicide Prevention Training, 19. Tex. Admin. Code § 153.1013

# data[].attributes.headline
3. American Counseling Association shares that the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act (S. 2661) has been approved.

# data[].attributes.subject
3. American Counseling Association shares that the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act (S. 2661) has been approved.

# data[].attributes.body
With combined efforts from the American Counseling Association, an easy-to-use three-digit National Suicide Prevention Hotline has been approved. The National Suicide Hotline Designation Act (S. 2661) was approved and is part of a public health effort to invest in suicide prevention. Counselors can use this as a resource for prevention measures.

American Counseling Association. (2019, December 13). National Suicide Hotline Designation Act (S. 2661) approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. https://www.counseling.org/news/aca-blogs/aca-government-affairs-blog/aca-government-affairs-blog/2019/12/13/national-suicide-hotline-designation-act-(s.-2661)-approved-by-the-senate-committee-on-commerce-science-and-transportation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Your voices have been heard and the American Counseling Association's (ACA) Government Relations Team would like to thank the dedicated counselors and advocates that continue to work on behalf of suicide prevention. Today, ACA is happy to report that our combined efforts on suicide prevention have made substantial progress and the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act (S. 2661) was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO), designates 9-8-8 as the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline.

It couldn't be more needed or urgent. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) reported in 2017 that over 47,000 Americans died by suicide[1] and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ranks suicide as the second leading cause of death among children and young adults, ages 10 to 24.[2] According to the CDC, suicide increased in 49 of the 50 states from 1999 to 2016.[3] In particular, we know that marginalized or traumatized populations are the most impacted proportionally, including the LGBTQ community, foster youth, and Veterans. This legislation acknowledges these inequities and proposes a short, simple, and accessible hotline as part of a growing public health effort to invest in prevention.

Senator Gardner introduced the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act (S.2661) in partnership with Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Jack Reed (D-RI). Prior to S.2661, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess the need for and the impact of an easy-to-use three-digit National Suicide Prevention Hotline. The FCC released their report this August with an affirmative recommendation, finding that a national hotline would reduce fatalities across the United States.

S.2661 was introduced this October with the overwhelming support of the ACA community. The National Suicide Hotline Designation Act allows states to collect fees, such as those collected for the national 911 emergency hotline, and requires Congressional oversight to ensure successful outcomes and equitable access.

More on this exciting development and legislation can be found HERE.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Suicide Hotline Designation Act (S. 2661) approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your voices have been heard and the American Counseling Association's (ACA) Government Relations Team would like to thank the dedicated counselors and advocates that continue to work on behalf of suicide prevention. Today, ACA is happy to report that our combined efforts on suicide prevention have made substantial progress and the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act (S.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses a wrongful death lawsuit from the parent of an 8-year-old boy who was allegedly severely bullied, and in response  committed suicide.
・The student's parents were not notified about several incidents.
・Parents claim administrators failed to notify them that their son had been attacked, nor rendered aid when needed.
・Upon returning to school, the student was again bullied in the same restroom. It was the same day he committed suicide.

The court says the administration team failed to take the situation seriously. Preventative measures could have been taken such as supervising the restrooms.

Walsh, M. (2020, December 30). Federal Appeals Court Lets Lawsuit Proceeed Against Educators in Student's Suicide. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/federal-appeals-court-lets-lawsuit-proceed-against-educators-in-students-suicide/2020/12

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A federal appeals court has allowed a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of an 8-year-old Cincinnati boy who committed suicide after alleged severe bullying at school to proceed against two school administrators.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, rejected a request by the former principal and assistant principal to throw out state-law claims that they acted recklessly in handling persistent bullying of Carson Elementary School student Gabriel Taye and allegedly failing to inform his parents about several incidents.

Taye hung himself with a necktie in his bedroom on Jan. 26, 2017, two days after a student had knocked him unconscious in a school bathroom in the most serious of a pattern of bullying incidents.

The lawsuit by the parents, Cornelia Reynolds and Benyam Tate, alleges that then-Principal Ruthenia Jackson and then-Assistant Principal Jeffrey McKenzie did not tell Taye's mother that a student had attacked him in the school bathroom. The suit also alleges that McKenzie stood over Taye but did not aid him or call 911, as district policy required when a student was unconscious for longer than a minute.

A school nurse called Taye's mother and said he had fainted, court papers say. Taye stayed home from school the next day, then was bullied again in the school bathroom when he returned the following day, the same day he committed suicide.

The 6th Circuit court, in its Dec. 29 decision in Meyers v. Cincinnati Board of Education, said the parents have sufficiently alleged that Jackson and McKenzie "failed to call 911 when Taye was unconscious for seven minutes after being knocked to the floor in the bathroom."

"They reported false information about the number of 'bullying instances' that occurred as required by Ohio law, and ultimately, prevented Taye's parents from fully understanding Taye's horrifying experience at Carson Elementary until it was too late," the 6th Circuit panel added. "This court finds their behavior, as alleged, to be egregious and clearly reckless, thus barring them from the shield of government immunity."

Federal and State Claims

Taye's parents, as well as the boy's estate, sued the Cincinnati school system along with some other individual defendants on federal civil-rights claims as well as state torts such as wrongful death, intentional infliction of serious emotional distress, and others.

Jackson and McKenzie sought to have the suit dismissed on the basis of state governmental immunity. In court papers, the two administrators deny that there was bullying at Carson Elementary and that Taye's suicide was not forseeable.

A federal district court rejected their motion to dismiss. The Cincinnati Board of Education and other defendants have raised similar defenses to the lawsuit's federal claims, but those were not at issue in this appeal.

The 6th Circuit's opinion describes in detail the pattern of bullying faced by Taye since he was in 1st grade and the alleged failures by school administrators to respond adequately or keep his parents informed.

The administrators "could have asked teachers to supervise the student bathrooms or limited the number of students allowed to use the bathroom at one time," the court said. "Instead, Jackson and McKenzie allowed the boys' bathroom to remain unsupervised. Jackson and McKenzie's behavior shows their failure to take this situation seriously and exemplifies the very definition of recklessness: they consciously disregarded the known or obvious risk of harm that students would engage in violent behavior in the unsupervised bathroom, and that disregard was unreasonable in light of the attack that took place there."

As to the administrators' argument that Taye's suicide was not foreseeable, the 6th Circuit panel said that assertion was undercut by a 2017 decision of their court. In that decision, Tumminello v. Father Ryan High School, a different 6th Circuit panel had written that "if a school is aware of a student being bullied but does nothing to prevent the bullying, it is reasonably foreseeable that the victim of the bullying might resort to self-harm, even suicide."

In Taye's case, the 6th Circuit said Jackson and McKenzie "knew the full extent to which Taye was subjected to aggression and violence by his classmates. ... [T]hey knew Taye was harassed and bullied at school and that a risk of bullying is suicide, and yet they utterly failed to take reasonable steps to protect Taye from that risk."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Appeals Court Lets Lawsuit Proceed Against Educators in Student's Suicide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court has allowed a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of an 8-year-old Cincinnati boy who committed suicide after alleged severe bullying at school to proceed against two school administrators. A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses cases which involve a school or district's role in school safety. Many severe issues including bullying and suicide are now being debated as to who should be held responsible.
・Allegedly administrators knew about two previous attempts of a student trying to commit suicide. The mother states there was meager intervention and prevention training for the school staff.
・Several cases similar to this one are being filed against schools and/or districts for their alleged liability. The outcomes will help inform educators where the line is drawn for legal responsibilities.

Campisi, J. (2019, February 20). To what extent are districts, schools liable for students' safety? K-12 Dive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/to-what-extent-are-districts-schools-liable-for-students-safety/547823/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While a school's primary goal is to educate students, another priority is providing a safe environment. It's a responsibility enforced in federal, state and local laws, but ultimately, students can - and do - get hurt. And when they do, many blame the school or district.

Getting scraped up during recess, for instance, isn't new. Neither is getting made fun of by a classmate. Some medical experts call falls and broken bones " inevitable ," and some scholars cite teasing as an " important preparation for life ." But more severe issues, including sexual harassment, cyberbullying and school shootings are increasingly penetrating classrooms, spurring legal disputes over who's responsible.

"School safety is moving from the schoolhouse to the court of public opinion and the law," said school safety consultant Kenneth Trump. "But every case is unique - the legal issues vary, the allegations vary, and that's what makes it hard to pin it down to a handful of specific issues and put it in this neat little box."

Hundreds of lawsuits point the finger at schools or districts when students get injuried. Among the most recent was a suit against Broward County Public Schools and the county sheriff's office - both of which a federal judge said didn't have a legal duty to protect students - after the Parkland, Florida, shooting. These cases span different issues and reached varying verdicts, but they involve the same question: To what degree are these entities liable for students' safety?

Below, we've broken down a list of cases involving a school or district's role in student safety. Here's what happened and what they mean in the debate:

M.S.D. of Martinsville v. Rebecca Jackson

What happened: In March 2011, two students at West Martinsville Middle School in Indiana were injured in a shooting: One, who was shot twice in the stomach, was targeted by the shooter - a former student known to threaten and harass his peers -

Though the shooter threatened the victim several times - and threats were reported to teachers before the shooting - teachers didn't tell the administration, court documents say. Additionally, in the suit, the victim's mother said the district didn't protect her son because certain school entrances were left unlocked and monitors weren't properly warned about the shooter being a threat, among other alleged safety breaches.

While the district argued the suit should be dismissed because it couldn't have reasonably prevented the shooting, an appeals court disagreed.

What this means: This ruling shows schools or districts can be found liable if evidence proves the event could have reasonably been prevented, either because officials had reason to believe it would take place or if their response protocol wasn't sufficiently implemented.

Scarlett Lewis, et al. v. Newtown Board of Education and Town of Newtown

What happened: In one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.

In her decision, the judge said, "...Faculty and staff had to make split-second decisions ... and subjecting their decisions to scrutiny, aided by hindsight, would no less serve the public interest than subjecting a police officer's discretionary decisions to second guessing."

She added, "Emergencies, by their very nature, are sudden and often rapidly evolving events, and a response can never be 100% scripted and directed."

According to this ruling, school officials can have similar protections to police officers. Even if a school has a safety protocol, it's hard to force people to have scripted emergency responses without taking split-second judgment into account. And if someone gets hurt, it's not necessarily something for which a school or district is liable.

Sexual misconduct

Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School District

One day, the 9th-grader got her mother's permission to go to a friend's house after school, but she skipped last period. The 12th-grader raped her that afternoon. While the school day had ended when the rape happened, the girl's mom didn't know her daughter missed last period, and there were no special requirements for handling absences in her Individualized Education Program (IEP). Her mother sued the district for negligence, failing to monitor her daughter and notify her in a timely manner.

The district argued that because the rape didn't happen during school hours or on school grounds, it wasn't legally liable. But the Iowa Supreme Court ruled it could have been prevented.

What this means: This ruling doesn't imply a district or school is legally obligated to protect students outside of school hours or off school grounds in non-school activities. However, it does show that in certain cases, if evidence shows it either could have predicted or prevented such an incident from happening, they could be liable.

Shawnee Mathis, et al. v. Wayne County Board of Education, et al.

After the coach first heard about the incident, he allegedly didn't report it. One boy's parent later told the school, and the 8th-graders who were responsible were suspended for 10 days. The other boy's parent went to the school with concerns about what happened, but the suit alleges the principal didn't seem too troubled by it.

The boys continued to face harassment and were later pulled out of school. The school took some steps to prevent locker room misconduct, but in a disciplinary hearing, a committee of school officials chose not to suspend the 8th-graders for the rest of the basketball season, and the Wayne County Board of Education moved up their reinstatement date.

tudents and families who file suit often face many hurdles in proving a school or district is liable. According to the What this means: S Associated Press, districts in some states - including Virginia and Georgia - have "absolute immunity" from state-level lawsuits, while others, such as Florida, cap amounts schools must pay in damages. It's possible for a school to be held accountable, but it can be a high bar to hit.

Bullying/harassment

Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools

When the victim and her parents filed a harassment complaint with the school, the site's creator was suspended for five days for the so-called "hate website," which violated school bullying, harassment and intimidation policies. She sued, claiming her First Amendment rights were violated, because her site was private and was created outside of school.

"foreseeable " that the website would "create a substantial disruption in the school, " therefore allowing the school to control the student's speech.

Wyke v. Polk County School Board

What happened: The mother of Shawn Wyke, a 13-year-old who died by suicide, sued her son's district in Polk County, Florida, alleging administrators knew he tried to commit suicide twice at school before his death. When the dean of students found out about Wyke's first attempt, he called the student into his office and read Bible verses, according to court documents. He thought they made Wyke feel better and that he did all he could that day.

Wyke's mother sued the school board, the vice principal and the principal, alleging there was inadequate intervention and prevention training for school employees that contributed to her son's wrongful death. A district court ruled the district could be found liable due to a failure to notify Wyke's parents about what happened, and their knowledge of his two attempts made the incident foreseeable.

What this means: Hundreds of students die by suicide each year, and many parents or guardians argue schools could have done more to prevent this. But in the past, courts often haven't deemed schools and districts liable for student suicides unless it was clear officials knew a student was suicidal and did nothing, or if they intentionally made things worse.

However, the sampling of cases to examine is relatively limited. Since this suit was filed, several schools and/or districts are facing legal action for their alleged liability in similar incidents. The outcomes of those cases will reveal a lot about where the line is drawn for schools' and districts' legal responsibilities.

Brewington v. Philadelphia School District

More than a year later, the boy's mother sued the elementary school and the Philadelphia School District, alleging the lack of padding on the gym walls was dangerous and constituted negligence. The school argued it was immune from the suit, but in a December 2018 ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected this claim.

The court said this incident qualified as an exception to the immunity provision, giving the boy's mom a right to sue. According to the "" if an agency doesn't put adequate safety features in place for normal or reasonable use of property, it can be sued. In this case, the court found, the lack of padding could constitute negligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To what extent are districts, schools liable for students' safety?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While a school's primary goal is to educate students, another priority is providing a safe environment. It's a responsibility enforced in federal, state and local laws, but ultimately, students can - and do - get hurt. And when they do, many blame the school or district.

# data[].attributes.body
Constitutional Law
The powers not delegated to the United States are  reserved to the States, or the People (U.S. Const. amend. X). There are no federal laws discussing suicide so each school district is responsible for creating policies which prohibit acts of bullying that can lead to further actions, such as suicide.

U.S. const. amend X

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3-12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
ATTEST,
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate
Amendments 11-27
The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendments 11-27
Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.
Back to Main Bill of Rights Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

# data[].attributes.headline
7. Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Youth Suicide, Tex. Educ. Code § 38.351

# data[].attributes.subject
7. Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Youth Suicide, Tex. Educ. Code § 38.351

# data[].attributes.body
Statutory Law
Each school district must implement practices for suicide prevention, intervention, and postvention (Tex. Educ. Code § 38.351).

Mental health, Substance Abuse, and Youth Suicide, Tex. Educ. Code § 38.351

# data[].attributes.headline
8. Suicide Prevention Training, Texas Administrative Code, Title 19 § 153.1013

# data[].attributes.subject
8. Suicide Prevention Training, Texas Administrative Code, Title 19 § 153.1013

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative Law
All school districts and charter schools shall provide training on suicide prevention for all school educators. School districts are required to keep records of educators who have completed the training for suicide prevention. Charter schools are encouraged to do the same. (19 TAC § 153.1013)

Suicide Prevention Training, 19. Tex. Admin. Code § 153.1013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) All school districts and open-enrollment charter schools shall provide suicide prevention training as required by the Texas Education Code (TEC), §21.451(d), to all new school district and open-enrollment charter school educators as a part of new employee orientation during the 2016-2017 school year. (b) Each subsequent school year, school districts and open-enrollment charter schools shall provide suicide prevention training as required by the TEC, §21.451(d), to all new school district and open-enrollment charter school educators as a part of new employee orientation. (c) All school districts and open-enrollment charter schools shall provide suicide prevention training as required by the TEC, §21.451(d), to all currently employed school district and open-enrollment charter school educators on or by September 30, 2016. (d) Suicide prevention training that is required by the TEC, §21.451(d), and was provided to existing educators by a school district or open-enrollment charter school on or after September 1, 2013, may be used to meet the requirements of this section if the training program is on the recommended best practice-based list maintained by the Department of State Health Services (DSHS), in coordination with the Texas Education Agency (TEA), or is an online program that meets the TEA guidelines for independent review. (e) In accordance with the Health and Safety Code, §161.325, school districts shall maintain records that include the name of each educator who participated in the suicide prevention training. (f) Open-enrollment charter schools are encouraged to maintain suicide prevention training records that include the name of each educator who participated in the suicide prevention training.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) All school districts and open-enrollment charter schools shall provide suicide prevention training as required by the Texas Education Code (TEC), §21.451(d), to all new school district and open-enrollment charter school educators as a part of new employee orientation during the 2016-2017 school year.

# data[].attributes.headline
9. Tumminello v. Father Ryan High School

# data[].attributes.subject
9. Tumminello v. Father Ryan High School

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Law
A mother alleges that her son committed suicide because of the harassment he experienced at school. The mother says the school did not enforce the schools anti-bullying policy. This case is based on the assumption that if the school does nothing to prevent bullying that they recognize is happening, it is reasonable predictable that the bullying could lead to self harm or even suicide (Tumminello v. Father Ryan High School, 2017).

Tumminello v. Father Ryan High School, Inc. 678 Fed. Appx. 281 (6th Cir, 2017). https://1-next-westlaw-com.easydb.angelo.edu/Document/I02ff3720e77c11e681b2a67ea2e2f62b/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad74036000001782edfd86fcb983c5b%3Fppcid%3D8d1686b0a8c9428d8f547d1f9f3c80db%26Nav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI02ff3720e77c11e681b2a67ea2e2f62b%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=8b0c738868b96876340601fb05ad3e28&list=ALL&rank=1&sessionScopeId=57ce931a0a68f36d602b731e0cb07d34611f22dd58fbe4d673cd8bbdbd5d703a&ppcid=8d1686b0a8c9428d8f547d1f9f3c80db&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
10. Crowley Independent School District, Student Handbook, Mental Health Support

# data[].attributes.subject
10. Crowley Independent School District, Student Handbook, Mental Health Support

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative Law
The district has implemented programs for suicide prevention, intervention, and postvention. The school counselor can provide information for resources in the area that help with services related to suicide. Procedures are also put into place in notifying parents. (CISD, 2020)

Crowley Independent School District (2020, August 27). Student Handbook, Mental Health Support (All Grade Levels). https://www.crowleyisdtx.org/cms/lib5/TX01917780/Centricity/Domain/507/1%20Crowley%20ISD%20Student%20Handbook%2020-21%20Updated.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Suicide prevention and response would be included in the A.9 Standard of the American School Counselor Association's Ethical Standards for School Counselors. This standard includes informing parents, reporting to appropriate authorities, and not releasing a students who is a potential danger to self (ASCA, 2016). When a student reports a circumstance, a counselor should be knowledgeable in following the standard which allows for the best assistance to the student.

American School Counselor Association. (2016). ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors. Alexandria, VA: Author

# data[].attributes.body
This report from Psychology Today looks at the complex relationships that can be found between bullying and suicide. While involvement in bullying can raise the risk of suicide, it is not the only factor. It is essential that schools provide effective prevention measures for suicide as well as showing every incidence of bullying is taken seriously.

Gorman, S. and Gorman, J.M. (2019, February 5). Does Bullying Cause Suicide? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/denying-the-grave/201902/does-bullying-cause-suicide

# data[].attributes.body
Remain aware of changing laws and policies related to suicide by attending webinars and training seminars often.

Take all reports seriously, no matter how small.

Crowley ISD has implemented programs for suicide prevention (CISD, 2020). Ensure good prevention measures are practiced in your school. Examples include guidance lessons and available resources to students.

Report incidents to parents in a timely manner. ASCA states parents should be notified if a student is at risk of harm to self (ASCA, 2016).

Provide reporting procedures to all staff on campus.

Make sure all staff on your campus are in compliance with training on suicide prevention. The Texas Administrative Code Title 19 § 153.1013 requires school districts to keep records of employees who have completed training.

The policy for Crowley ISD is that counselors have resources readily available to help students/families (CISD, 2020). These can be for prevention or postvention services.

American School Counselor Association. (2016). ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors. Alexandria, VA: Author

Crowley Independent School District (2020, August 27). Student Handbook, Mental Health Support (All Grade Levels). https://www.crowleyisdtx.org/cms/lib5/TX01917780/Centricity/Domain/507/1%20Crowley%20ISD%20Student%20Handbook%2020-21%20Updated.pdf

Suicide Prevention Training, 19. Tex. Adim. Code § 153.1013