Clinician initiation of emergency detention of a minor and providing a penalty.
Impact
The bill enhances existing laws governing emergency detentions by expanding the range of professionals able to initiate detentions. Under current law, only certain law enforcement personnel or individuals authorized to take a juvenile into custody could initiate such actions. By allowing qualified clinicians to serve as initiators, the bill potentially reduces the burden on law enforcement and enables a more clinically informed approach to mental health crises among young individuals. However, the bill also retains strict accountability measures, requiring that clinician decisions are subject to county department approval—thereby integrating professional judgment within a structured oversight framework.
Summary
Assembly Bill 114 introduces a framework for counties in Wisconsin (excluding Milwaukee County) to permit certain trained medical and behavioral health clinicians to initiate emergency detentions of minors. This legislative effort aims to address the need for a more accessible pathway to emergency custody for minors who may pose a danger to themselves or others due to mental health crises. The bill outlines a process whereby authorized clinicians can take action based on specific criteria and evaluations. This marks a significant shift in the state’s approach to mental health emergencies involving minors, who traditionally have not had such a direct pathway available outside law enforcement officers.
Conclusion
Overall, Assembly Bill 114 recognizes the urgent need for a responsive and empathetic approach to mental health crises among minors. By empowering clinicians to take an active role in emergency detention, Wisconsin could provide a model for other states grappling with similar issues. However, careful implementation with robust training and oversight will be necessary to address concerns about accountability and the welfare of minors in these critical situations.
Contention
Despite its potential benefits, AB114 may face scrutiny regarding the implications of allowing non-law enforcement individuals to take custody of minors. Critics may express concerns about the adequacy of training provided to clinicians, the potential for misuse of this authority, and how this aligns with existing child welfare codes. The requirement for counties to set up training programs for clinicians introduces a layer of variability in the implementation and effectiveness of this law across different counties. Additionally, the efficiencies gained in emergency responses could vary greatly, raising questions about equity in mental health care access across the state.
Regulating and addressing PFAS, extending the time limit for emergency rule procedures, providing an exemption from rule-making procedures and emergency rule procedures, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)
Licensure of dental therapists; extending the time limit for emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; and granting rule-making authority. (FE)
Licensure of dental therapists; extending the time limit for emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; and granting rule-making authority. (FE)
Reading instruction in public schools and private schools participating in parental choice programs, an early literacy assessment and intervention program, providing an exemption from rule-making procedures, and granting rule-making authority. (FE)
Reading instruction in public schools and private schools participating in parental choice programs, an early literacy assessment and intervention program, providing an exemption from rule-making procedures, and granting rule-making authority. (FE)
Video recording of surgical procedures, providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty. (FE)
Prohibits healthcare entities from interfering with a patient's right to choose to obtain a clinician-administered drug from their provider or pharmacy of choice.