Texas House Bill HB4451

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/17/09
• Voted on by House: 4/29/09
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/21/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/26/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/31/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to continuity of care services or mental health commitment proceedings for youth with mental illness or mental retardation who are transferred, discharged, or paroled from the Texas Youth Commission.

Impact

One significant aspect of the bill is its requirement for the Texas Youth Commission to facilitate the discharge of youths based on their mental health assessments. This includes provisions for referral to appropriate mental health authorities if necessary. The bill aims to prevent gaps in care that can occur when these individuals transition back into society, which is crucial for their rehabilitation and avoiding recidivism. By establishing a system to identify youths in need of such services, the bill seeks to streamline the process for accessing necessary support.

Summary

House Bill 4451 addresses the need for continuity of care services for youth with mental illness or mental retardation who are discharged, paroled, or transferred from the Texas Youth Commission. The bill amends specific sections of the Human Resources Code to ensure that these individuals receive the necessary mental health services post-release. The legislation acknowledges the unique challenges faced by youths with mental health issues and emphasizes the importance of ongoing support and treatment during their transition back into the community.

Contention

While the bill may have widespread support for addressing the mental health needs of youths, it may also raise concerns regarding resource allocation and the ability of local mental health authorities to handle the increased demand for services. Critics could argue that without sufficient funding and staffing, the bill's intent may not be fully realized, potentially limiting its effectiveness. Additionally, the balance between rehabilitation and the responsibilities of state agencies may come under scrutiny, particularly regarding how effectively these services can be delivered in practice.