Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR López
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 02/27/2025
SHORT TITLE Behavioral Health for Abused Children
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 489
ANALYST Chilton
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
CYFD
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) Office of Family Representation and Advocacy (OFRA)
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
Health Care Authority (HCA)
Department of Health (DOH)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Bill 489
Senate Bill 489 (SB489) amends Section 32A-6A-15, part of the Children’s Code, which grants
children of 14 years of age or older the right to consent to mental and behavioral health treatment
without the consent of the child’s legal guardian. SB489 adds a new section outlining that a child
who has been determined to be abused or neglected and who is under the jurisdiction of the
children’s court can be compelled to participate in court-ordered behavioral health services.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There is no appropriation in Senate Bill 489. Aside from a possible increase in use of behavioral
health care, there are no fiscal implications identified.
Senate Bill 489 – Page 2
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The Department of Health (DOH) points out that:
Child maltreatment is a major contributing factor to mental health issues such as anxiety,
depression, substance use disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that at least one in seven
children in the U.S. has experienced abuse or neglect in the past year, though this figure
may be underreported (https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/data.html).
Addressing behavioral health needs in youth who have experienced maltreatment can
help mitigate long-term mental health consequences and improve overall well-being …
Nearly 50 percent of children involved in child welfare investigations display significant
emotional or behavioral issues, and between 50 percent and 70 percent of youth in the
juvenile justice system have mental health disorders, with 60 percent meeting the criteria
for a substance-use disorder (https://soarworks.samhsa.gov/article/social-service-
systemschild-welfare-childrens-behavioral-health-and-juvenile-justice). Coordinating
care across systems, such as child welfare, behavioral health, and juvenile justice, can
strengthen support for youth and improve long-term outcomes and SB489 would likely
provide the Children’s Court additional tools to support this goal.”
On the other hand, the Health Care Authority (HCA) suggests caution in ordering behavioral
health treatment in these situations:
Court ordered treatment may impact outcomes. Court-mandated treatments imply a dual
role for therapy providers not only in caring for, but also of having control over,
involuntary clients. The impact of legal coercion on the therapeutic relationship and
feelings of stigma is widely regarded as negative and detrimental for treatment outcomes.
While mandated therapy provides external motivation to attend treatment, voluntary
clients are normally believed to be intrinsically motivated. The bill highlights the need for
safeguards to ensure that court-ordered treatment is trauma-informed, evidence-based,
and does not disproportionately rely on punitive measures. Additionally, balancing the
rights of minors to consent to their own treatment (a protection granted to youth aged 14
and older under current law) with the need for intervention in cases of severe risk
requires careful judicial consideration.
HCA is also concerned that court-ordered treatment for these youth might cause additional
impact on a stressed and under-resourced health system.
The Office of Family Representation and Advocacy (OFRA), too, expresses reservations about
court-ordered behavioral health treatment:
It is a concern that if this bill is enacted, youth who have been adjudicated as abused or
neglected, through no fault of their own, would have less autonomy over their own
behavioral health services or treatment than youth who are not in state custody.
While well-intentioned, it is uncertain that youth who have been court-ordered to engage
in behavioral health services or treatment will actually benefit from such services if they
do not want to participate and feel that they are being forced to do so.
Further, youth who are ordered to participate in behavioral health services or treatment
against their wishes may see the court’s imposition as punitive, as though they are being
punished for the parents’ behavior that resulted in their being in custody. This could have Senate Bill 489 – Page 3
the effect of making them less willing to engage in the court process or to inform the
court as to their positions and wishes in the matter. This could in turn deprive the court of
important information it should have when making decisions about the case and family.
The Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) notes that “If enacted, [its] Protective
Services workers and attorneys would be responsible for addressing hearings related to court-
ordered treatment.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) expresses concern that the bill’s provision may
conflict with Section A of the same statute, which gives a person over 14 the right to consent (or
presumably refuse) behavioral health care. AOC also points out that the bill does not
differentiate between outpatient and inpatient care and might lead to internment in a residential
treatment center against the minor’s wishes and in conflict with Section 32A-6A-22 NMSA
1978, entitled Involuntary Residential Treatment.
AOC also points out that there is no information in the bill as to requirements for a court hearing
on this matter.
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
HCA states that “Consideration should be given to data tracking and reporting requirements to
evaluate the effectiveness of mandated treatment on behavioral health outcomes for adjudicated
youth.”
LAC/rl /SL2