Bipartisanship Across the Nation: A Review of State Child Welfare Legislation

The discussion that follows is structured to track the path of a typical case through the child welfare process, from reporting of neglect or abuse through permanency and case closure. The discussion also covers systemic issues, namely system oversight, workforce, special populations, and religious freedom. Finally, tabulations show the number of bills introduced by topic and by party. Numbers in (bold) indicate enacted bills.

Key takeaways:

• Although the vast majority of bills introduced over the past two years were partisan, the two parties share interests, and opportunities for bipartisan agreement exist. These include:
  • codifying the Indian Child Welfare Act in state policy;
  • improving system oversight;
  • narrowing the definition of neglect;
  • improving the reliability and quality of reporting and investigating;
  • improving prevention and family preservation services;
  • strengthening financial support to kinship and adoptive families; and
  • addressing workforce issues.
• The types of bills and the level of attention to mandatory reporting suggest overall dissatisfaction with the front end of the continuum, the point at which families are first identified by child welfare agencies. And while neither party has expressed significant interest in eliminating mandatory reporting, there is bipartisan support for more reporter training and for expanding the types of professionals who are required to report.
• Parental rights and protections may be an area where rhetoric overshadows some common ground. On the one hand, parental rights appears to be largely a Republican-leaning issue due to the numbers and types of bills introduced, but areas of agreement around protecting parental rights are possible. For example, a state’s definition of neglect relates to parental rights, and bipartisan support exists for narrowing the definition in ways that balance the mutual interests of child safety and parental rights. However, there are clear divides when it comes to when and why to terminate parental rights, with Republicans more in favor than Democrats of expediting and promoting adoption. At the same time, legislators from both parties agree that agencies should be cautious about removing children from their homes and that, in most cases, agencies should provide services to preserve and strengthen families before separating children from their parents.
• Republicans and Democrats both have strong interest in improving system oversight based on a shared understanding that current accountability measures and structures are insufficient. Strategies that have bipartisan support include those that establish oversight bodies, implement structural changes, and call for studies and data.
• Financial and other supports for relatives caring for children (kinship care) is an area where new investments may be amenable to Democrats and Republicans. Similarly, support exists for investing in services for youth, particularly behavioral health services.

Detailed Analysis

Front-End Issues

Policy governing the front end of the child welfare continuum includes defining what constitutes child neglect and abuse; who should be required to report maltreatment; protecting the rights of alleged perpetrators; and preventing unnecessary child removals through the provision of family services and ensuring that child welfare agencies have made reasonable efforts to preserve families.

Defining Child Abuse and Neglect

• Legislators in 24 states introduced 41 bills in this category and passed nine.
• Legislators paid a great deal of attention to defining what constitutes child neglect. In large measure, Republicans and Democrats seemed to agree that definitions of neglect were too broad and sought ways to ensure children’s safety without unduly interfering with parents’ child rearing rights. Legislation focused on limiting cases of neglect to those presenting a risk of serious harm to the child, and carving out exceptions for prenatal substance exposure, parents’ marijuana use, domestic violence situations, poverty, and allowing children to engage in age-appropriate independent activities (free range parenting). Other bills would expand the definition of neglect to include prenatal substance exposure, failure to supervise children, verbal abuse, and human trafficking. Aside from neglect, a clear partisan divide is evident with respect to treatment of gender-affirming care, with some Republicans wanting to see it included in the definition of child abuse, while Democrats sought to protect families from laws in other states that would authorize removal for allowing a child to undergo gender-affirming care.
• Nine bills passed, two of which were bipartisan. All the enacted bills limit the scope of child neglect definitions in some way, either by narrowing the definitions themselves or by creating exceptions. None of the bills seeking to expand the definition of neglect was passed. This pattern suggests a bipartisan interest in ensuring that only those parental behaviors posing some risk to children’s safety and well-being are the focus of child protective interventions.

Neglect Definition	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Narrow definition	7 (2)	8 (3)	3
Widen definition	1	5	2
Free range parenting	1	6 (1)	3 (1)
Other exceptions	3 (1)	0	2 (1)
Total	12 (3)	19 (4)	10 (2)

Mandatory reporting

• Legislators in 33 states introduced 59 bills in this category and passed 14.
• Increasing the number of professionals required to report suspected child maltreatment had bipartisan support. Partisan priorities were evident in other areas, with Democrats supporting adding clergy as mandatory reporters and Republicans seeking to ban anonymous reports, prohibit agencies from accepting anonymous reports for investigation, or require reporter identification. There was bipartisan support for reporter training and penalizing willful failure to report. Democrats in a few states proposed to no longer require reporting of substance-exposed newborns or a pregnant woman’s substance use, while at least one Republican bill would give reporters the option to refer certain families to supportive community services rather than to the child welfare agency.
• Almost one-quarter of bills introduced in this area were passed, nearly half of which were bipartisan. Bipartisan bills supported better training of mandatory reporters; Republican bills emphasized holding reporters accountable for intentional false reports. Legislators passed only four of the 23 bills seeking to expand the list of mandatory reporters. These patterns suggest that lawmakers are more interested in improving the reliability of allegations than in increasing their numbers.

Mandatory Reporting	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Clergy as reporters	9 (1)	0	1
Other professions	3	5 (1)	5 (2)
False reports	0	4 (1)	3 (1)
Identification of reporters	1(1)	6 (2)	1
Failure to report	3 (1)	1	2
Reporter training	3	0	4 (3)
Reportable events	4	3 (1)	1
Total	23 (3)	19 (5)	17 (6)

Parental rights and rights of alleged perpetrators

• Legislators in 28 states introduced 54 bills in this category and passed 10.
• Republicans in 16 states introduced bills declaring parents’ fundamental right to raise their children without interference from the state absent a compelling state interest. Although Democrats generally did not join in these proposals, they were more receptive to measures that would ensure fairness to parents in child welfare cases, including safeguards around the use of medical opinions, interviews with children, allowing parents to select service providers, and for parents to receive investigative findings and evidentiary material. Both Republicans and Democrats introduced bills to provide alleged perpetrators with notice of rights and legal representation. Republicans in a few states filed bills to allow parents to lodge complaints and appeals of investigative findings.
• The bills passed in this category (10 out of 54) reflect strong Republican interest in protecting the rights of parents. The two bipartisan measures that were approved both concerned improving transparency and accountability for the benefit of families involved in child protective proceedings. Although Democrats showed interest in ensuring fairness to alleged perpetrators of child maltreatment, none of their bills was passed.

Parents’ Rights and Protections	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Declaration of Rights	1	16 (3)	1
Fairness to parents	4	10 (2)	5 (1)
Legal representation	2	4 (1)	1
Notice of rights	2	4 (1)	1 (1)
Complaints	0	3 (1)	0
Total	9	37 (8)	8 (2)

Investigations

• Legislators in eight states introduced 11 bills in this category and passed three.
• Legislators from both parties introduced bills seeking to improve the quality of investigations conducted by child welfare agencies, including the use of evidence-informed safety models, consultation with medical professionals, enhanced training of caseworkers, and requirements relating to physicians who conduct child abuse assessments.
• The three enacted bills require the use of an evidence-informed safety assessment model, treating parental cannabis usage the same as alcohol or legally prescribed drugs (with a focus on child safety), and referring possible victims for an examination.

Investigations	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Total	4 (1)	4 (1)	3 (1)

Family Services

• Legislators in 17 states introduced 23 bills in this category and passed six.
• After an assessment or investigation of child maltreatment allegations, agencies are required in most cases to make reasonable efforts to avoid removing children from their homes. Republicans sponsored bills to require a program of mandatory intact family services, establish a Department of Family Stabilization and Preservation, and create a mobile crisis response program. A Democratic bill proposed replacing “reasonable efforts” with “active efforts,” while two bipartisan bills would establish a Children and Youth Multisystem Care Coordinator and a program of intensive family preservation services, respectively. Also included in this category are bills relating to child maltreatment prevention and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).
• Four out of the six bills passed were bipartisan, two of which seek to improve the public response to ACEs. In addition to the bills on ACEs, three measures created oversight bodies to prevent child abuse or to coordinate services to children in crisis.

Family Services	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Prevention	5	4 (1)	2 (1)
Family preservation	1	5 (1)	2 (1)
ACEs	2	0	2 (2)
Total	8	9 (2)	6 (4)

Substance Abuse

• Legislators in nine states introduced nine bills in this category and passed three.
• The bills relate to substance abuse during pregnancy, drug testing, and treatment. Republicans introduced bills dealing with services for pregnant and postpartum women who use drugs or alcohol and the creation of a specialty court program. Legislators from both parties filed bills relating to drug testing of parents subject to court-ordered treatment plans.
• Legislators passed the drug court bill and two bills on drug testing.

Substance Abuse	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Substance use during pregnancy	0	3	1 (1)
Testing	1	2 (1)	0
Treatment	0	2 (1)	0
Total	1	7 (2)	1 (1)

Child Removal

• Legislators in 11 states introduced 17 bills in this category and passed four.
• The bills seek to improve policy around child removals by imposing conditions on removal decisions, increasing oversight, or clarifying circumstances under which children can be removed from their home. Although there is only one bipartisan bill in this category, legislators from both parties recognize the potential for trauma to children and families associated with child removal. Democrats in two states proposed measures to ensure that removals are free from racial bias. Both Democrats and Republicans filed bills to strengthen court oversight over removal decisions and to require consideration of the harm caused by separating a child from his or her family. Republicans in two states would require a warrant for child removal.
• Bills passed in this area seek to improve court oversight over removal decisions, eliminate bias, and provide alternatives to child removal.

Child Removal	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Total	7 (1)	9 (2)	1 (1)

Out of Home Care

Once children have been removed from their home and enter foster care, their health and well-being become the responsibility of the government. For this reason, a great deal of legislation was introduced relating to children and youths in foster care, to foster parents, and to relative caregivers.

Foster Children and Youth

• Legislators in 30 states introduced 79 bills in this category and passed 24.
• Lawmakers introduced more legislation in this category than any other, much of it bipartisan. Legislators from both parties sought to increase the quality and availability of services to children in foster care or formerly in care, including behavioral health services, legal representation, housing, and education assistance. Democrats in several states filed bills to protect foster youths’ federal benefits from being used to offset the cost of care. Democrats introduced bills to create universal basic income programs for former foster youth. Legislators from both parties introduced measures relating to the extension of foster care, independent living, monitoring of youth in care, promoting youth voice, preventing inappropriate placements, and ensuring safe reunification from care.
• Enacted measures in this area skewed bipartisan and Democratic, with emphasis on behavioral health services, legal representation, housing assistance, protection of benefits, and independent living.

Foster Children and Youth	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Services	5 (2)	4 (2)	14 (6)
Foster youth benefits	6 (1)	2	1 (1)
Cash assistance	6	0	0
Bill of Rights	6 (1)	1	2
Independent living	7 (2)	2	2 (2)
Monitoring	5 (1)	0	1
Youth voice	1 (1)	1	3 (2)
Prevent bad placements	2	2	0
Safe reunification	1 (1)	3 (1)	0
Other	0	2 (1)	0
Total	39 (9)	17 (4)	23 (11)

 Foster Parents

• Legislators in 21 states introduced 35 bills in this category and passed six.
• There was bipartisan support for creating and enforcing bills of rights for foster parents, removing barriers to licensure, enhancing financial and other supports, and improving recruitment and retention. Republicans would expand foster parents’ rights to participate in court proceedings and protect foster parents from adverse agency actions.
• Foster parental bills of rights received broad bipartisan support. The only bills to pass in this category were bipartisan.

Foster Parents	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Bills of Rights	4	1	5 (5)
Licensure	2	2	1
Payment and other supports	1	2	4 (1)
Recruitment	2	0	1
Court proceedings	0	3	0
Other	5	2	0
Total	14	10	11 (6)

 Kinship Care

• Legislators in 21 states introduced 33 bills in this category and passed 13.
• Lawmakers from both parties introduced bills to create or enhance programs of financial assistance, including guardianship assistance, for relative caregivers. Likewise, Democrats and Republicans proposed measures to improve identification and engagement of extended family members and to create or modify programs of temporary informal placement of children with relatives as an alternative to foster care (relative diversion). At least three Republican bills would limit or repeal preferential consideration of relatives as placement resources.
• The number of enactments in this area indicates continued interest on the part of legislators in identifying, engaging, and supporting relative caregivers. Legislators from both parties supported enhancing access to kinship guardianship and improving family finding and engagement.

Kinship Care	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Financial support	5 (2)	2 (1)	7 (3)
Family finding	5 (3)	3 (1)	0
Relative diversion	1	2 (2)	1
Relative caregiver rights	1	5 (1)	1
Total	12 (5)	12 (5)	9 (3)

 TPR and Adoption

Termination of Parental Rights

• Legislators in 17 states introduced 30 bills in this category and passed nine.
• Bills concerning Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) were divided into those that would make it easier or more difficult. In general, more Republicans than Democrats sponsored bills to facilitate the TPR process by expanding the list of grounds for TPR, expediting the court process, and requiring agencies to file TPR petitions under certain circumstances, among other things. Democrats were more likely to propose limiting grounds for TPR, particularly parental incarceration, although Republicans opposed TPR based on a child’s immunization status.
• The few enactments in this category reflect bipartisan support for expediting and expanding grounds for TPR. Two of the three bills that restrict TPR both prohibit termination of parental rights based on a parent’s decision not to vaccinate a child.

Termination of Parental Rights	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Expand TPR	5 (1)	12 (4)	4 (1)
Limit TPR	5	3 (2)	1 (1)
Total	10 (1)	15 (6)	5 (2)

Adoption

• Legislators in 21 states introduced 34 bills in this category and passed 10.
• Republicans’ support for expediting the permanency process through TPR carried over to adoption. They supported bills that would waive home studies, eliminate waiting periods, streamline court procedures, dispense with pre-adoption reports, facilitate adoption by foster parents, and provide financial assistance to adoptive families. Bills to authorize post-adoption contact agreements originated from both parties. Only Democrats sponsored bills to remove restrictions on who can adopt.
• Most of the enacted legislation in this area concerned expediting the adoption process, which appears to be a bigger priority for Republicans than Democrats.

Adoption	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Post-adoption contact	3	2 (2)	1
Financial assistance	1	8	1(1)
Expediting adoption process	0	4 (4)	4 (2)
Adoption by foster parents	0	3	1
Who can adopt	3 (1)	0	0
Other	0	3	0
Total	7 (1)	20 (6)	7 (3)

Systemic Issues

This category covers bills related to system oversight, the child welfare workforce, policy around special populations, and religious freedom.

System Oversight

• Legislators in 27 states introduced 56 bills in this category and passed 18.
• Legislators from both parties introduced many bills seeking to enhance the accountability of child welfare agencies by creating ombudsman and child advocate offices; establishing child welfare task forces and legislative committees; making organizational changes; and requiring studies, data, and reports. Three bills related to non-citizen children were also included in this category, each of which was passed.
• Although Democrats introduced the most legislation in this area, Republicans sponsored the majority of approved measures, including bills to create child welfare task forces, establish new administrative structures, and require reporting and analysis of child welfare data.

System Oversight	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Oversight bodies	10 (1)	7 (3)	8 (1)
Organizational changes	6	8 (5)	5
Studies, data and reports	2	3 (2)	4 (3)
Non-citizen children	2 (2)	0	1 (1)
Total	20 (3)	18 (10)	18 (5)

Workforce

• Legislators in 17 states introduced 28 bills in this category and passed three.
• Both Republicans and Democrats introduced bills relating to caseload standards for child welfare workers. Democrats proposed measures regarding worker training, while there was bipartisan interest in worker safety and discipline, staff turnover, and salaries.
• Despite the workforce crisis in child welfare, very few bills were passed in this area, all of which seek to limit the caseloads of front-line workers.

Workforce	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Caseloads	6 (1)	2	5 (2)
Training	6	0	0
Worker safety	1	1	1
Workers’ discipline	1	1	0
Staff turnover	0	0	2
Salaries	1	1	0
Total	15 (1)	5	8 (2)

LGBTQ and Race Equity

• Legislators in 15 states introduced 24 bills in this category and passed four.
• LGBTQ rights reflect a stark partisan divide, with Republican bills treating gender-affirming care as child abuse and Democratic bills prohibiting enforcement of another state’s law authorizing the removal of a child from a parent who allowed the administration of such care. One exception is a bipartisan bill that would provide foster youth with a right to gender-affirming care. Democrats also sponsored measures that would prohibit discrimination against resource parents on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, require resource families to demonstrate an understanding of LGBTQ issues, and require that foster parents receive implicit bias training. This category also includes Democratic and bipartisan bills to study and recommend solutions to racial disproportionality in the child welfare system.
• None of the bills seeking to either protect or penalize gender-affirming care was passed; the two bills on racial disproportionality came from one state, Illinois.

LGBTQ and Race Equity	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Gender-affirming care	4	9	1
Discrimination	4(2)	0	0
Racial disproportionality	4 (1)	0	2 (1)
Total	12 (3)	9	3 (1)

Indian Child Welfare

• Legislators in 13 states introduced 22 bills in this category and passed nine.
• Legislation to codify state versions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in whole or in part received bipartisan support, as did measures to enhance oversight of ICWA compliance and to support foster placements of Native children.
• States enacted over 40% of the bills in this category, indicating strong bipartisan support for the protections afforded American Indian children and tribes under the ICWA.

Indian Child Welfare	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
ICWA	6 (2)	4 (2)	6 (3)
Oversight	1	0	3 (1)
Foster care	0	1	1 (1)
Total	7 (2)	5 (2)	10 (5)

Religious Freedom

• Legislators in 10 states introduced 11 bills in this category and passed one.
• Republicans introduced legislation to prohibit discrimination against providers of foster care or adoption services on the basis of religious beliefs, while Democrats proposed repealing statutes that protect private child welfare agencies from having to provide services that conflict with religious beliefs.
• Bills in this area did not gain much traction, with the passage of only one Republican bill.

Religious Freedom	Democrat	Republican	Bipartisan
Protection of religious beliefs	2	5 (1)	0
Repeal of religious protections	4	0	0
Totals	6	5 (1)	0

Conclusion

This review is unique in two respects. First, it is not limited to enacted legislation, but instead casts a much wider net that includes all introduced bills deemed significant from an ideological or substantive perspective. Second, it identifies bills by party sponsorship. In an era of increasing polarization, it is useful to understand the extent to which such polarization is appearing in state child welfare policy. This review found sharp disagreement on certain topics, such as religious freedom and LGBTQ rights, but robust bipartisan support for child welfare policy. State lawmakers remain deeply interested in and active on child welfare issues.

Front-End Issues

Enacted bills are noted in bold.

Neglect Definition

• Narrowed definition of neglect:
  • Arizona (R) replaces “unreasonable risk of harm” with “substantial risk of harm” in its definition of neglect.
  • Arkansas (R) requires that “failure to protect” results in serious bodily injury.
  • California (D) limits the definition of general neglect to circumstances where the child is at substantial risk of serious harm.
  • Connecticut (B) limits definition of neglect to situations that present “obvious danger” to the child.
  • Illinois (B) removes from the definition of “neglected child” any newborn whose blood, urine, or meconium contains any amount of a controlled substance.
  • Illinois (D) provides that a child shall not be considered neglected solely because a parent repeatedly used a controlled substance.
  • Illinois (D) modifies definition of “injurious to the welfare” to require a showing of likelihood of moderate or severe harm and created a presumption in favor or returning a child to a parent who experienced domestic violence.
  • Kentucky (R) raises the standard of proof of abuse or neglect from preponderance to clear and convincing and removed neglect as a ground for TPR.
  • Maryland (D) provides that parental use of marijuana does not qualify as neglect except in certain circumstances.
  • Maryland (D) establishes a rebuttable presumption that neglect does not include certain behaviors on the part of a victim of domestic violence.
  • Minnesota (D) provides that prenatal substance exposure does not by itself constitute neglect.
  • Montana (R) provides that a parent’s inability to control a child’s behavior does not constitute neglect and that psychological abuse or neglect must be identified as such by a licensed health care professional.
  • Montana (R) (vetoed) provides that substance abuse by a parent, disorderly living conditions, other factors related to economic status, or a child’s obesity do not alone constitute harm to child.
  • Nebraska (R) amends the definition of abuse or neglect to add that it must be obvious to a reasonable person.
  • Texas (R) stipulates that a parent’s refusal to administer psychotropic medication to a child does not constitute neglect.
  • Vermont (B) defines risk of harm as when a child will likely suffer serious physical harm or sexual abuse; it removes failure to supervise from the definition.
  • Virginia (D) provides that a child shall not be considered abused or neglected based on a parent’s use of marijuana.
  • Virginia (R) decrees that raising a child in a manner consistent with the child’s biological sex shall not be considered abuse or neglect.

• Widened definition of neglect:
  • Michigan (R) adds “threatened harm” to its definition of neglect.
  • Minnesota (R) makes failure to provide a language-rich environment a form of neglect.
  • Missouri (D) creates the criminal offense of failing to supervise a child.
  • New Jersey (B) expands the definition of child abuse and neglect to include actions and inactions by persons other than the parent or guardian.
  • New Mexico (R) adds prenatal substance exposure to the definition of abuse or neglect.
  • Oregon (B) adds verbal abuse to its definition.
  • South Dakota (R) adds exposure to marijuana to its definition of abuse and neglect.
  • South Dakota (R) modifies the definition of abused or neglected child to include a child subject to human trafficking.

• “Free Range Parenting” exception to neglect: States in this subcategory clarified that allowing a child to engage in age-appropriate independent activities, such as walking to school or playing outdoors, does not constitute neglect. These included Republican bills in Connecticut, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and South Carolina; bipartisan bills in Colorado, Connecticut, and Nevada; and a Democratic bill in Virginia.
• Other exceptions to neglect: California (D), Illinois (D), and Kentucky (B) excepted from neglect definitions the failure to provide necessities due to poverty. Vermont (B) excepted inadequate housing from the definition. The District of Columbia (D) removed the spiritual treatment exception to medical neglect.

Mandatory Reporting

• Clergy as mandatory reporters: Democrats in Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Utah, and Washington state introduced bills that would require clergy to report suspected child maltreatment under certain circumstances, while a bill in Massachusetts was introduced with bipartisan sponsorship.

• Other professionals: Both Democrats and Republicans in many states proposed adding other professions and occupations to the list of mandatory reporters:
  • Democrats: Missouri (animal control officers), Nevada (art therapists and doulas), and New York (staff of homeless shelters and youth-serving organizations).
  • Republicans: Arkansas (school employees), Connecticut (reproductive health care providers), Kansas (high school activities association members), Missouri (veterinarians), and New York (college personnel and summer day camp staff).
  • Bipartisan: Connecticut (youth camp staff), Indiana (coaches and athletic facility staff), Minnesota (youth recreation workers), New York (summer day camps, college employees, pharmacists), and Virginia (practitioners of behavior analysis).
• False reports: Bills to create or enhance penalties for intentional false reporting were introduced in Idaho (B), Mississippi (R), Montana (R), New Jersey (B), and Vermont (B). A Republican bill in Arkansas proposed a study of the impact of false reports on families. In Montana, a Republican bill would make repeated false allegations of child abuse by one parent against the other a form of psychological child abuse.
• Identification of reporters: Bills to ban anonymous reports, to prohibit agencies from accepting them for investigation, or to require reporter identification were introduced in Arkansas (R), California (D), Colorado (R), Montana (R), New Hampshire (B), and Texas (R). Republican bills in Arizona and Mississippi would require disclosure of the reporter’s identity to the alleged perpetrator in the case of false reports.
• Failure to report: Bills related to penalties for failure to report were introduced in California (D), Connecticut (B), Indiana (B), Maryland (R), Pennsylvania (D), and Rhode Island (D).
• Reporter training: Bills to require or enhance training of mandated reporters were introduced in Colorado (B), Illinois (D), Massachusetts (B), Michigan (B), New York (D), North Dakota (B), and Oregon (D).
• Reportable events: A few bills would change or clarify the types of events that are reportable to state or local agencies. Illinois (D) removed a requirement for reporting of substance-exposed newborns to a state attorney. Massachusetts (D) would delete the requirement to report infants born with drug dependence unless there was cause to believe the mother will continue to use drugs. Two Texas bills (D) and (B) would no longer require health care providers to report a pregnant woman’s substance use. A Republican bill in Utah would only require reporting of “heinous” child abuse or neglect. In Louisiana, a Republican bill would require reporting of sex trafficking. A Republican bill in Texas would give reporters the option to refer certain families to supportive community services rather than to the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). Finally, a Democratic bill in New Jersey would require the child abuse hotline to provide information on resources available to victims and families.

Parents’ Rights and Protections

The bills in this category concern parents’ fundamental rights, fairness to parents in the processing of child welfare cases, notice of rights, legal representation, and complaints and appeals.

• Declarations of parents’ rights: Republicans in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming introduced bills declaring parents’ fundamental rights to raise their children without interference from the state, absent a compelling state interest. Similar bills were introduced in Rhode Island (B) and Vermont (D) (prohibits using a person’s disability to restrict parental rights).
• Fairness to parents in child welfare case processing: Legislators from both parties introduced bills to level the playing field in child welfare cases. Bills in Arkansas (R), Illinois (D), Mississippi (R), and Texas (B and R) would provide parents with certain protections and rights whenever a substantiation of child maltreatment was based on an opinion of a medical professional. Bills in New Hampshire (B) and Texas (D) would allow a parent to choose his or her own service provider under a service plan. Bills in Indiana (B), New Jersey (R), New York (D), and Vermont (B) would impose conditions on interviews with children, such as requiring parental consent or videotaping. Parents would be entitled to receive evidentiary material and findings of child abuse investigations under bills introduced in Montana (B), New York (D), Oklahoma (R), and Texas (R). A Republican bill in Texas would make the criminal code rules on admissibility of evidence applicable to child welfare proceedings. Another Texas bill (R) would create a rebuttable presumption in court proceedings that it is in a child’s best interest to be in the custody of a parent. A Republican bill in Utah would declare public policy on parents’ rights and required court findings regarding parents’ contact with their children in foster care. A Republican bill in Arizona would prohibit use of team decision-making meetings, declare them unconstitutional, and replace them with “peer review teams.”
• Legal representation: Republican bills in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah would provide or expand the rights of parents to legal representation in child welfare cases. Similar bills were introduced in Vermont (D) and Washington (B). A bill in Maine (D) would establish a pilot program to provide legal representation to families during a child maltreatment investigation.
• Notice of rights: Lawmakers in Idaho (R), Missouri (D and R), Montana (R), New York (D), and Texas (R) introduced bills requiring that alleged perpetrators be notified of their rights. A bipartisan bill in Texas puts accountability measures in place to ensure that transparency is afforded to families under investigation.
• Complaints and Appeals: Bills in Montana (R) would allow an aggrieved parent to file a complaint with the county attorney or the child and family ombudsman. A Republican bill in New Hampshire would create a private right of action against the Division for Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), while an Oklahoma bill (R) would allow for appeal of investigative findings to the director of the Department of Human Services (OKDHS).

Investigations

This category includes bills that seek to regulate the investigatory process.

• Arizona (R) requires use of an evidence-informed safety assessment model.
• California (D) requires that a parent’s use of cannabis be treated the same as use of alcohol or legally prescribed drugs during investigations.
• Iowa (R) specifies requirements relating to physicians who conduct child abuse assessments.
• Kansas (B)—two bills, one passed—requires a referral of a suspected victim of child abuse or neglect for an examination as part of an investigation and creates a program to provide training and payment for such examinations
• New York (D) requires social services districts to establish programs of differential response upon authorization by the state Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS)
• New York (D) requires investigation of all reports made by health care professionals and law enforcement.
• Oregon (R) requires reports involving a child in care be investigated by the state Department of Justice.
• Pennsylvania (B) requires establishment of a multidisciplinary medical team to consult with county child welfare agencies in investigations.
• Texas (D) requires development of a training program to improve the quality of investigations.
• Texas (R) allows an investigation to commence even if the victim is temporarily hospitalized and thus not in imminent danger

Family Services

• Prevention:
  • Home visitation: Arizona (D) and (R) would fund the Healthy Families program, while Arkansas (R) and Nebraska (D) would create home visiting programs.
• Other prevention initiatives:
  • Arizona (R) requires child abuse prevention education in public schools.
  • Arkansas (R) creates the Blue Ribbon Task Force to End Child Abuse.
  • Kentucky (B) creates the State Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board.
  • Maine (D) requires that the statewide child abuse and neglect prevention plan be funded to provide access to services, develop resources for family stabilization, and require outcome data.
  • New York (D) would provide alternative living arrangements for children who are at risk of abuse.
  • Pennsylvania (B) adds a statement of purpose to laws governing child welfare to emphasize prevention and family preservation.
  • West Virginia (D) requires the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) to designate social workers to provide preventive services to elementary and middle school students.

• Family Preservation:
  • Illinois (D) changes all references in law from “reasonable efforts” to “active efforts” and defines “active efforts.”
  • Illinois (R) requires DCFS to develop a plan to phase in mandatory intact family services for at-risk families.
  • Iowa (R) establishes a Department of Family Stabilization and Preservation to provide services to families in crisis.
  • Kentucky (R) establishes a mobile crisis response program and a Youth Behavioral Health Crisis Advisory Board.
  • Montana (R) (vetoed) provides that reasonable efforts include actively assisting parents to find and use community resources, including housing, financial, transportation, mental health, substance abuse and other services.
  • Texas (R) requires that reasonable efforts made by DFPS be described with specificity in certain court orders and petitions, including TPR orders.
  • Washington (B) requires the governor to maintain a Children and Youth Multisystem Care Coordinator to serve as a state lead on addressing complex cases of children in crisis.
  • Wisconsin (B) creates and funds a program of intensive family preservation services.

• Adverse Childhood Experiences:
  • Idaho (B) encourages the state to promote interventions and practices to identify and treat trauma resulting from ACEs.
  • New Hampshire (B) directs the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to establish a pilot program for children who have experienced ACEs.
  • New Jersey (D) establishes an Office of Resilience in the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to coordinate statewide initiatives regarding ACEs.
  • Texas (D) requires DFPS to develop a request for information to assist in developing an inventory of programs and services that address ACEs.

Substance Abuse

• Substance use during pregnancy:
  • Arizona (R) (vetoed) requires the Department of Child Safety (DCS) to refer a pregnant woman reported for using drugs or alcohol to Medicaid for treatment and stipulates that participation in treatment is a mitigating factor in cases of alleged neglect.
  • New York (R) modifies the definition of “children at risk” to include substance-exposed newborns and requires creation of a program of services and monitoring for mothers who give birth to children at risk.
  • North Dakota (B) defines “alcohol misuse” and adds alcohol misuse to statute governing toxicology tests at childbirth.
  • Ohio (R) addresses parental custody of substance-exposed infants.
• Drug testing: Montana (R) prohibits drug testing in treatment plans unless substance abuse contributes to child maltreatment. Tennessee (D) requires DCS to include monthly drug testing in permanency plans. Washington (R) requires six months of random drug and alcohol testing before returning a child home; it also requires casework supervision to continue for five years post-reunification in certain cases.
• Treatment: Arkansas (R) creates a specialty court program for families involved in dependency and neglect proceedings that are affected by substance use or mental health disorders. West Virginia (R) requires courts to verify that parents are successfully fulfilling substance abuse treatment obligations before reunifying a child.

Child Removal

• Arizona (R) requires DCS to consider providing emergency assistance to rectify non-life-threatening neglect before removing a child.
• Connecticut (D) prohibits removal of a child from the home in the absence of parental notification and a determination that child abuse or neglect has occurred.
• Georgia (R) requires courts to inquire about services provided to a family before ordering a child into the custody of the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS).
• Hawaii (D) distinguishes between “immediate harm” and “imminent harm” and authorizes removal when child is subject to the former.
• Illinois (D) creates the Bias-Free Child Removal Pilot Program.
• Massachusetts (D) strengthens judicial oversight over child removals without a court order and requires DCF to issue public reports on such removals.
• Massachusetts (D) authorizes DCF to develop a bias-free child review team to review emergency removals.
• Massachusetts (D) requires courts to consider potential trauma to child and family in making removal decisions.
• Montana (R) provides for a review of removal decisions by a child protection team.
• Montana (R) requires court and agency consideration of the harm caused by child removal in child maltreatment cases.
• Montana (R) (vetoed) requires a warrant for removal of a child except in cases of likely sexual or physical abuse.
• New Mexico (R) requests the Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) to establish a task force to improve removal and reunification policies and practices.
• New Mexico (R) requires CYFD to monitor the homes from which children are removed, both during and after placement.
• New York (R) protects a parent against child removal if he or she reports domestic violence.
• Texas (B) requires that affidavits in support of ex parte removal orders describe why specified alternatives to removal would not protect the child; it also provides for agreed orders for removal of the alleged perpetrator of the abuse.
• Texas (D) specifies actions that DFPS must take before it can remove a child placed with a relative caregiver.
• Utah (R) requires a caseworker to obtain a warrant before entering a private premises under certain circumstances and requires recording of child removals.

Out of Home Care

Foster Children and Youth

• Services to current and former foster youth
  • Behavioral health services: These services for foster children were the subject of bills introduced in several states. On the Democratic side, California proposed a five-year crisis continuum pilot program and Massachusetts called for improved access to behavioral health services for children in congregate care. A Republican bill in North Carolina called on the Department of Health and Human Services to increase the supply of treatment and residential settings for minors in need of behavioral and mental health services. Bills with bipartisan support included the following:
    • creation of a Holistic Mental Health Care for Youth in Care Task Force (Illinois);
    • expansion of treatment family care (Nebraska);
    • funding for expansion of behavioral health treatment and support for families in recovery (North Carolina);
    • a requirement for 24/7 access to psychological and behavioral health services for youth housed in congregate care facilities (Tennessee);
    • authorization for Resource and Assessment Centers to provide emergency initial care for children as they enter care and address placement disruptions (Washington).
• Legal representation: A California bill (D) requires a county to make best efforts to provide undocumented minors in foster care with access to immigration legal services. In Illinois, Democrats sponsored a bill for a Due Process for Youth Oversight Commission to oversee implementation of a youth’s right to counsel in abuse and neglect proceedings. A Democratic bill in Missouri creates an Office of Guardian Ad Litem. Two Texas bills, one Republican and the other bipartisan, outlines new duties for GALs representing children placed in residential treatment centers. A bipartisan bill in Montana establishes practice standards for counsel for children in child abuse and neglect proceedings.
• Trauma Assessment: A Republican bill in Florida would require trauma-focused screening of children removed from home. In North Carolina, a Republican bill directs DHHS to develop and identify trauma-informed assessment tools, while a bipartisan bill requires trauma assessments for children entering foster care.
• Housing: Two bipartisan measures, one in Colorado and the other in Virginia, proposes plans to provide housing assistance to protect former foster youth from the risk of homelessness.
• Education: Bipartisan bills in Florida, Maryland, and Rhode Island would create or fund tuition waiver programs.
• Protection of foster youths’ benefits: Bills in several states seek to prevent child welfare agencies from using foster youths’ benefits such as Social Security to offset the cost of care. These include a Republican bill in Arizona, a bipartisan bill in Hawaii, and Democratic bills in Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington. Two Democratic bills were introduced in Nebraska, one to require an examination of the state’s treatment of foster youths’ benefits, and the other to require screening of foster children for benefit eligibility. A Republican bill in Texas calls for increased transparency and reporting related to children’s benefits.
• Cash assistance: Democrats in Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and Washington introduced measures to provide cash assistance to older youth.
  • Arizona: $1,200 monthly stipend for foster youth aged 18-21.
  • Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York: universal basic income for transition-age youth.
  • Vermont: direct cash transfers to youths exiting foster care.
  • Washington: Evergreen Basic Income Pilot Program.
  • Washington: Post-Extended Foster Care Program (financial subsidies for young adults ages 21-25).
• Foster Youth Bills of Rights: Bills to create or expand bills of rights were introduced by Democrats in Nebraska, New Jersey (sibling bill of rights), New York (children in congregate care), Ohio, and Rhode Island (added right to educational advocate). Three bills were introduced in Kansas, one Republican, one Democrat and one bipartisan. A bipartisan bill was introduced in Florida.
• Extension of foster care and independent living: Democrats in California (vetoed), Illinois, Maine, and Oregon introduced bills relating to extension of foster care beyond the age of majority. Similar bills were introduced in Kansas (R) and Nevada (B). Bills relating to preparing youth for self-sufficiency, including provision of financial literacy services, were introduced in Florida (R), Illinois (D), Massachusetts (D), Minnesota (D), and Texas (B).
• Monitoring and oversight of youth in care: Bills in a number of states seek to improve monitoring and oversight of children in care. These include Democratic bills in Florida, Illinois (tracking psychotropic medications), Illinois (study of disparate lengths of stay in Cook County), Massachusetts, and South Carolina (tracking outcomes of youths who have aged out of care), and a bipartisan bill in Pennsylvania that would create an interbranch commission on the child welfare system to investigate the treatment of children in foster care and those adopted from care.
• Youth voice: A few bills seek to promote youths’ voices. An Arkansas bill (R) requires consideration of a youth’s preferences in placement and parenting time decision-making. A bipartisan bill in Illinois requires development of a survey to gather feedback from youths who are aging out of the system. Two bills, one in Kansas (B) and one in New York (D), propose creating youth advisory councils. A bipartisan bill in Minnesota proposes appointment of a foster youth ombudsperson.
• Preventing inappropriate placements: A Republican bill in North Carolina instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a plan to keep children in community-based settings to avoid inappropriate congregate care placements. Three bills in Texas address this issue:
  • adds to factors that must be considered by a court before ordering a congregate care placement (D);
  • prohibits placing children in hotels (D);
  • prohibits courts from ordering a child into temporary emergency care when a suitable placement is available (R).
• Safe reunification: A Democratic bill in California would prohibit a court from declining to offer reunification services when a minor or nonminor dependent parent is involved and would require use of a strengths-based approach to support such parents in providing a permanent home for the child. Massachusetts (R) would require DCF to develop a reunification policy based on evidence-based safety and risk assessments. A Republican bill in Tennessee would require DCS to conduct a home visit before notifying the court of its intention to approve a trial home visit for the child. Texas (R) would create a program of monetary assistance for a family reunified with a child formerly in foster care.
• Other: A Tennessee bill (R) prohibits an employee or agent of the state from providing, requesting, or facilitating the vaccination of a minor child who is in the custody of the state without prior written consent by a parent or legal guardian. A Massachusetts bill (R) directs DCF to require that the language spoken by the child must be the same language spoken in the foster family.

Foster Parents

• Foster parent bills of rights: Lawmakers introduced bills to establish foster parents’ bills of rights in Colorado (B), Indiana (B), Kansas (D), Kansas (B), Massachusetts (D), Mississippi (B), North Carolina (B), and Texas (D). Illinois (R) would create a private right of action for violations of foster parental rights. Rhode Island (D) would require documentation and publication of all violations of foster parental rights.
• Licensure: In Connecticut (B) and Massachusetts (D), bills would limit the types of disqualifying criminal convictions. A Republican bill in Indiana provides that the immunization status of an applicant would not affect eligibility for licensure. A Republican bill in Massachusetts would prohibit undocumented persons from becoming foster parents. Virginia (D) allows for approval of a kinship foster parent who has been convicted of possessing a controlled substance.
• Payment and other supports: Bills in Maine (B), Nebraska (R), and Texas (D) propose increased financial support, while bills in Georgia (B), Kansas (B), and West Virginia (R) would provide respite, child care, and a web-based communication tool, respectively, for foster parents. A bipartisan bill in Texas requires DFPS to facilitate caregivers’ access to a counseling and crisis management program 24 hours a day.
• Recruitment: The following bills sought to improve recruitment of foster parents:
  • Minnesota (D) requires use of targeted and data-driven recruitment strategies.
  • New Mexico (B) requires CYFD to recruit and retain Indian foster families.
  • New York (D) requires collection of data on youth in placement and efforts to recruit foster parents.
• Court proceedings: New Jersey (R) would bestow party status on foster parents in court proceedings; Ohio (R) would place restrictions on courts’ authority to approve placement changes without the foster parents’ consent and allows foster parents to participate in hearings; and a Republican bill in Oklahoma would expand on the rights of foster parents to participate in court proceedings.
• Other: Bills on other topics in the category include:
  • Georgia’s (D) concerns information sharing with foster parents and child-placing agencies.
  • Illinois’ (D) creates a financial safety net for community-based foster care organizations.
  • Massachusetts’ (D) would make foster parents public employees and confer collective bargaining rights.
  • New Jersey’s (D) would prohibit foster parents from home schooling children in their care.
  • Oklahoma’s (R) would prohibit OKDHS from taking any negative action against a foster parent for refusing a placement that creates safety concerns.
  • Texas’ (D) would require foster parents to be trained on the effects of trauma.
  • West Virginia’s (R) would require the creation of a matching database for use in placing children with foster families.

Kinship Care

• Financial support: Legislators in Arkansas (R), New Mexico (D), South Carolina (B), Texas (B and D), and Washington (D) introduced bills enhancing or expanding access to guardianship assistance. New or expanded programs of financial assistance were proposed in Arizona (D), Florida (B), Minnesota (B), and North Carolina (B). Democrats in Texas proposed allowing unlicensed relative caregivers the option of receiving foster care payments. Bills that would provide other, nonfinancial support services were introduced in Colorado (B), Maine (B), and West Virginia (R).
• Family finding and engagement: Democratic measures in California (two bills), Minnesota, Oregon, and Texas, as well as Republican bills in New Mexico and Virginia, seek to increase the use of kinship care through improved family-finding and engagement. A Republican bill in Iowa would create a kinship “firewall” by prohibiting a court from placing a child with a nonrelative, absent a specific finding that a relative is inappropriate.
• Relative diversion: A Republican bill in Georgia would add requirements regarding court orders for “temporary alternatives to foster care.” A bipartisan bill in South Carolina would create a program allowing temporary informal placement of children with relatives under specified conditions, including a safety plan. Republicans in Texas proposed placing conditions and restrictions on “parental child safety placements,” including time limits, provision for parent-child communication, use of state resources, and collection of data. Virginia (D) would create a Kinship as Foster Care Prevention Program.
• Relative caregiver rights: Bills in this subcategory include adding kin caregivers to the foster parent bill of rights (Georgia, R), allowing foster caregivers, including relatives, to intervene in court proceedings (Maryland, R), and requiring a legal advocate be appointed for caregivers to assist throughout the kinship legal guardianship process (New Jersey, B). Although not related to rights per se, a few bills would amend statutes giving relatives placement priority. Two Republican bills in Utah (one enacted) would limit preferential consideration of relatives in certain circumstances. An Ohio bill (R) would repeal relative placement preference in adoption. A Democratic bill in Minnesota would strengthen court oversight to ensure that relatives are given priority at various stages of the court process.

Family and Permanency

Termination of Parental Rights

• Widen Path to TPR: States in this subcategory include:
  • Alabama (D): Conviction of rape or incest is grounds for TPR if child is conceived.
  • Georgia (D) makes aggravated circumstances applicable to putative fathers.
  • Georgia (R) adds prenatal substance abuse and history of substance use to the list of aggravated circumstances.
  • Georgia (B) allows interested parties to intervene in dependency proceedings to expedite permanency.
  • Hawaii (D) expands the list of aggravated circumstances.
  • Mississippi (D) expedites TPR cases.
  • New Jersey (R) adds human trafficking to grounds for TPR.
  • New Mexico (R) provides for TPR when a child is conceived because of criminal sexual penetration.
  • North Carolina (R) revises court procedures to expedite child safety and permanency.
  • Oklahoma (R) expedites jury trials in TPR proceedings.
  • Oklahoma (R): A child born addicted to alcohol or illegal substance is grounds for TPR.
  • Oklahoma (R) requires that a child under 12 months be placed in a prospective permanent home within one year of adjudication.
  • Tennessee (B) adds to the list of offenses that are grounds for TPR.
  • Tennessee (B) requires filing for TPR if a child is in DCS custody for at least six months.
  • Tennessee (R) removes requirement for a neglect petition to have been filed for TPR to proceed.
  • Tennessee (R) authorizes TPR if the parent is in prison for six or more years.
  • Tennessee (B) requires DCS to file for TPR within 14 days of a severe child abuse finding. Allows DCS to file for TPR if parent has not made progress while the child is in care for six months.
  • Tennessee (R) requires DCS to file for TPR for parents’ substantial noncompliance with service plan.
  • Texas (R) adds criminal and online solicitation of a minor to grounds for TPR.
  • Texas (D): Court can consider TPR if the parent is the subject of a domestic violence protective order.
  • West Virginia (R) requires TPR filing when parent has had child removed by the child welfare agency on two separate occasions.

• Narrow Path to TPR:
  • Idaho (B) prohibits TPR based on a child’s immunization status.
  • Minnesota (D) clarifies that a health or safety risk must exist before reasonable efforts to prevent removal may not be required.
  • New Hampshire (R) prohibits TPR based on a parent’s decision not to vaccinate child.
  • Pennsylvania (D) provides that parental incarceration may not be grounds for TPR.
  • South Carolina (D) requires courts in TPR proceedings to consider whether a parent’s failure to visit a child is due to incarceration.
  • Texas (D) adds parental incarceration to its list of TPR exceptions.
  • Texas (D) changes standard of proof in TPR cases to beyond a reasonable doubt. Removes educational neglect and failure to comply with service plan as grounds for TPR. Provides that a positive test for marijuana is not grounds for TPR. Requires unanimous jury verdict for TPR.
  • Texas (R) prohibits a court from ordering TPR unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DFPS made reasonable efforts to return the child to his or her parent or that reasonable efforts were waived. Requires court orders to describe reasonable efforts with specificity.
  • Utah (R) requires courts in TPR proceedings to consider the child’s point of view and totality of the circumstances before finding that TPR is strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest.

Adoption

• Post-adoption contact agreements: Bills to authorize such agreements were introduced in Alabama (D), Arkansas (R), Montana (R), and North Carolina (B). California (D) (vetoed) proposed contact agreements with siblings, while Washington (D) required training for adoptive parents on the benefits of including biological relatives in children’s lives under open adoption agreements
• Financial assistance: Bills in this subcategory included Georgia (B) (tax credit); Indiana (R) (zero cost adoption fund); Mississippi (R) (adoption relief fund); Nevada (R) (adoption grant program); New Jersey (D) (extension of adoption subsidies to age 21); North Dakota (R) (adoption assistance program); Oregon (R) (grant programs); Oregon (R) (financial assistance); Texas (R) (adoption assistance program); and West Virginia (R) (attorneys’ fees).
• Expediting adoption process: Bills to remove barriers and streamline the adoption process included: Alabama (R) (modernize adoption code); Mississippi (R) (court may waive home study); New Hampshire (R) (waive home assessments); South Carolina (B) (eliminate waiting period); South Carolina (B) (waive pre-adoption reports); South Carolina (B) (revise court procedures to expedite adoption); Tennessee (B) (reduce waiting period between adoption petition and final order); and Texas (R) (prohibit maximum age limit for prospective adoptive parents).
• Adoption by foster parents: Bills to facilitate adoption by foster parents included Kansas (R) (specifies when foster parent should be considered for adoption and removes relative placement priority after child in care for more than a year); North Dakota (R) (waives certain licensing requirements for licensed foster parents); North Dakota (B) (gives foster parents placement priority); and Oklahoma (R) (placement priority)
• Who can adopt: Mississippi (D) would remove a prohibition against same-sex adoption; Nebraska (D) would remove restrictions based on marital status; and Nevada (D) would allow for adoption by one or more adults.
• Other: Other bills in this category related to providing information to prospective adoptive parents (North Carolina, R); removing maximum age limit for prospective adoptive parents (Texas, R); and allowing for financial assistance for special needs that present themselves after adoption (Texas, R).

Systemic Issues

System Oversight

• Oversight Bodies: Bills in this subcategory related to ombudsman offices, task forces and committees, and child fatality review.
  • Ombuds Offices: Several states proposed creating or expanding the duties of ombudsman and child and family advocate offices to oversee the actions of agencies in individual cases, assist families in navigating the system, and make recommendations for policy changes.
    • Democrats: New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Vermont;
    • Republicans: Florida, Georgia, Kansas;
    • Bipartisan: California, Georgia, New Jersey, New Mexico (two bills), Ohio.
  • Task Forces and Committees: States also proposed creating or expanding the duties of task forces, legislative committees, and other forms of oversight mechanisms: Kansas (joint committee on child welfare system oversight) (B); Maine (Government Oversight Committee to monitor agency) (B); Massachusetts (interagency child welfare task force) (D); Minnesota (foster care and adoption legislative task force) (R); (Mississippi (task force on foster care and adoption) (R); Montana (task forces on court system and child protection system and child protection legislative review council) (R); and Tennessee (children’s program outcome recovery team) (D).
  • Child Fatality Review: Bills related to child fatality review were introduced by Democrats in California (vetoed) and Massachusetts and Republicans in Arizona (vetoed).
• Organizational Changes: Bills in several states proposed to create departments or units within existing departments, transfer child protection duties, reorganize agencies, or make similar changes. Bills in Arkansas (B) and Florida (R) would transfer certain child protection functions from law enforcement to their respective child welfare agencies. A Republican bill in West Virginia would transfer child welfare enforcement responsibilities to the state police. Bills in Minnesota (D) and Mississippi (R) proposed creating state-level child welfare departments. Massachusetts (D) would create a Children’s Cabinet within the governor’s office. Nebraska (D) proposed eliminating lead agencies. North Carolina (B) proposed regional supervision of county child welfare agencies. In New Mexico, a Republican bill would replace the director of CYFD with a governing board, while a Democratic bill would create a Child Welfare Innovation Center. Bipartisan bills in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah would create positions for medical specialists, nurses, and a medical director, respectively, within child welfare agencies. An Ohio bill (R) would create a Family Stability Commission within ODJFS, while a Republican bill in Louisiana proposed to establish the Partners in Protecting Children Subcommittee with the Children’s Cabinet. New Jersey (D) proposed a Safe Babies Court Team Program, to be funded with an IV-E waiver. Kansas (D) proposed requiring DCF to implement performance-based contracting. Finally, a Republican bill in North Carolina proposed creation of a statewide hotline within DHHS. Texas (R) transferred certain prevention and early intervention programs from DFPS to the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and required HHSC to administer family support services.
• Studies, Data, and Reports: Bills in this area included the following:
  • Arizona (R): Requirement for an independent analysis of hotline allegation data and determinations of need for CPS response.
  • Hawaii (D): Requirement for establishment of a program to design and recommend transformative changes to the child welfare system.
  • North Carolina (R): Directs the development of permanency policies and a study of the age of transition from foster care.
  • South Carolina (B): Requirement for regular reports to the Legislature on cases in which DSS failed to meet statutory timelines.
  • Texas (D): Requirement for external audit of DFPS investigative procedures.
  • Texas (B): Requirement for independent assessment of contract requirements, rules and oversight procedures relating to child-placing agencies, residential child care facilities, foster and adoptive homes, and relative caregiver homes.
  • Texas (B): Creation of an Interagency Child Protection Database containing information on reportable events from various state agencies.
  • Texas (B): Creation of a centralized, searchable interagency reportable conduct database.
  • Utah (R): Requirement for inclusion of data on in-home services, qualitative case reviews, and case process reviews in list of performance measures tracked and reported by child welfare agency.

• Noncitizen Children:
  • A Colorado bill (D) provides juvenile court jurisdiction over an unaccompanied child in the custody of federal office of refugee resettlement who has been subjected to abuse or neglect.
  • Utah (B) allows juvenile courts to enter an order with special findings regarding the abuse, neglect, or dependence of a noncitizen child.
  • Vermont (D) expands the jurisdiction of a state court that can, upon a petition, issue special findings to a noncitizen child who is dependent on the court.

Workforce

• Caseloads: Democrats introduced bills in New Jersey and New Mexico, as well as four bills in New York, to regulate worker caseloads. Republicans introduced similar bills in Kansas and Texas. Bipartisan bills were filed in Delaware, Maine, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. A bipartisan bill in Minnesota required a study and recommendations on the related issue of paperwork reduction.
• Worker training: Democrats filed bills in Maine (one on use of family team decision-making meetings and a second on professional development) and Minnesota (serving Indian children and families). Democrats in New York (two bills) and Texas introduced measures to require caseworkers be trained in cultural competency.
• Worker safety:
  • Alabama (R) amends definition of second-degree assault to include injury to DHR social worker.
  • New Jersey (D) requires the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) to implement policies and procedures to ensure worker safety.
  • Washington (B) prohibits requiring workers to interact with families with a history of violence unless accompanied by a second trained person.
• Worker discipline: Arizona (R) prohibits DCS employees from lying, concealing, or fabricating evidence in case files. South Carolina (D): requires termination of caseworkers who fail without good cause to make prescribed number of visits to children in foster care.
• Staff turnover: California (B) requires working group to examine negative effects of high turnover of foster family agency workers on foster children. Connecticut (B) requires DCF to submit report on caseworker retention and permanency outcomes.
• Salaries: Massachusetts (D) requires an increase in salaries paid to human services workers. West Virginia (R) requires a pay equity salary adjustment for caseworkers to improve workforce retention.

LGBTQ and Race Equity

• Gender-Affirming Care: With one exception, bills in this subcategory reflect a sharp partisan divide:
  • Republican: Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri (two bills), New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas (two bills), and Wyoming would treat gender-affirming care as child abuse.
  • Democrat: Minnesota and New Jersey would prohibit enforcement of another state’s law authorizing removal of a child from a parent who allowed the child to receive gender-affirming care. Pennsylvania would prohibit governmental action against parents of transgender children. A Texas bill would specify conditions and procedures for authorizing medical care for foster children that relate to intersex traits.
  • Bipartisan: A Massachusetts bill adds the right to gender-affirming care to the bill of rights for children in foster care.
• Discrimination: In California, one Democratic bill would prohibit child-placing agencies from declining to place a child because of a resource parent’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and another would require resource families to demonstrate an understanding of the needs of LGBTQ+ youth. Iowa (D) would require foster parents to receive implicit bias training. Texas (D) would prohibit that state from discriminating against foster care providers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Racial disproportionality: Legislators in Illinois introduced one bill (D) establishing the Advisory Commission on Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African American Children in Foster Care and a second bill (B) creating the Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare Task Force within DCFS. A bipartisan bill in Massachusetts required the Child Advocate to examine disproportionality regarding race, ethnicity, transgender status, etc. within the child welfare system. A second Massachusetts bill (D) required the Child Advocate to report on recommendations for reducing inequities in child-serving agencies and required agencies to prepare corrective action plans. A Minnesota bill (D) aims to prevent unnecessary removals of African-American children and establishes the African American Child Welfare Council. A Democratic bill in Nebraska requires a study of racial and ethnic disproportionality in the child welfare system.

Indian Child Welfare

• ICWA: Democrats introduced bills in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Nevada, and New Mexico. Republicans filed bills in Kansas, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. Bipartisan bills were introduced in Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (two bills).
• Oversight: Minnesota (D) requires that child welfare performance measures include ICWA compliance and provided funding for an ICWA compliance database. Another Minnesota bill (B) would create an Office of the Ombudsperson for American Indian Families. South Dakota (B) and Wyoming (B) would establish an Indian Child Welfare Task Force.
• Foster care: Minnesota (R) would provide additional reimbursement for out-of-home placements for Indian children, while Washington (B) would allow DCYF to issue a child-specific foster care license to an Indian child’s family.

Religious Freedom

• Protection of religious beliefs:
  • Republican bills in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, and South Carolina prohibit discrimination against providers of foster care or adoption services on the basis of religious beliefs.
  • Missouri (R) requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) and child-placing agencies to place a child in a home with a foster parent who has the same faith as the parents of the child, whenever practicable.
  • Missouri (D) prohibits a child-placing agency from discriminating against a family because of religion.
  • New Jersey (D) requires that a child’s religion not be changed due to foster or adoptive placement.

• Repeal of religious belief protections: Democrats in Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, and Texas proposed repeal of statutes that protect child welfare service providers from having to provide services that conflict with religious beliefs.