In our reading of SB712/TEC 37.0023, the new Law does not prohibit any of the physical intervention methods or restraining holds taught by HWC (or our competitors).

The Law’s primary focus is on aversive therapies and methods and floor restraining “devices”, but it does cover some painful or dangerous physical control methods, as well. It prohibits any method creating pain with pressure points, restricts breathing, applies pressure to the neck or torso or limits the student’s ability to communicate, none of which applies to HWC.

Re: Aversive techniques or methods:

The Bill specifically prohibits aversive conditioning techniques and methods, which are used to diminish the recurrence of targeted problematic behaviors; typically by using low levels of electrical stimulation or some other unpleasant sensory stimulation in association with the targeted behavior(s).

Re: “Devices”:

The Law also prohibits the use of “devices, materials or objects” for
immobilizing all 4 extremities in a prone or supine floor holding configuration.
Note: If you are a HWC client-school and you are using our Patented “PRT® Tripod Stands™, continue using them. While it may be a device, it is not a floor-restraining or immobilizing device. It is a safety device to eliminate chest compression during a PRT in its prone holding configuration by making it easier and more comfortable to perform.

Re: Physical restraining holds (that do not restrict breathing, apply pressure etc.):

The Law does not reference:
• physical (“hands-on”) prone floor holding methods
• physical supine floor holding methods
• takedowns which may be necessary to get a student safely to the floor.

In summary, unless you are using aversive conditioning methods with your students or restraining holds that restrict breathing or have the other prohibited features, this law should have no impact on your classroom.

The above in a newsletter format.

Note: Any other reading of the law puts the law into conflict with Texas self-defense and defense of others laws.  It also runs into conflict with a school’s duty of care and duty to train for foreseeable events.  Failure to train, failure to provide a safe environment conducive to learning and abridgement of the right to defense of self and others come with their own legal (ethical and moral) ramifications.  Above is our position.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this document is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing written or spoken constitutes legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Feel free to consult with the State’s AG or your school’s attorney.