Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative & Military Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (14)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1570
· 5 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “1 to HB 1570 by which it passed be expunged. Thank you. We have a motion…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING TESTING IN CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1775
Act 756
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “like to present house bill 1775 if you will”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; TO AMEND THE … | Vaught | Notification that HB1775 is now Act 756 |
|
HB1716
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…standing that representative walmack is also not presenting house bill 1716 representative hodges in the audience anywhere representati…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE GOAL OF A CASE IN A DEPENDENCY-NEGLECT ACTION WHEN … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HR1074
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HR1074 K. Moore TO RECOGNIZE THAT ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF CHILDREN IS…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE THAT ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF CHILDREN IS A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM; TO … | K. Moore | READ AND ADOPTED. |
|
HB1639
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1639 McCollum TO CREATE THE BEST INTEREST ARKANSAS CHILDREN ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE BEST INTEREST ARKANSAS CHILDREN ACT OF 2023; AND TO AMEND THE LAW … | McCollum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1709
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1709 Scott TO CREATE THE CORRECTIONAL POSTNATAL AND EARLY CHILDH…”
|
TO CREATE THE CORRECTIONAL POSTNATAL AND EARLY CHILDHOOD ADVISORY BOARD; AND TO STUDY AND RESEARCH … | Scott | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…(50) YEARS OF Richardson SERVICE TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. HB1754 G. Hodges TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EX…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS IMPOSED ON A JUVENILE OR … | G. Hodges | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1762
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VENILE OR THE PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR CUSTODIAN OF A JUVENILE. HB1762 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING NOTICE OF A CHILD MALT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING NOTICE OF A CHILD MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION FOR ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, … | McAlindon | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1767
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENDERS; AND TO ESTABLISH THE CHILD ABUSE PROTECTION LAW. HB1767 Rye TO RECOGNIZE ARKANSAS MUSICIANS; AND TO AMEND THE MUSIC…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE ARKANSAS MUSICIANS; AND TO AMEND THE MUSICIANS HONORED ON ARKANSAS MUSIC APPRECIATION DAY. | Rye | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1811
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1811 Hudson TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO FILE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO FILE A MOTION WHEN IT RECOMMENDS A … | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HR1016
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HR1016 Haak TO RECOGNIZE THE SILOAM SPRINGS PANTHERS AND LADY PANT…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE THE SILOAM SPRINGS PANTHERS AND LADY PANTHERS CHEER TEAM FOR WINNING THE 2022 … | Haak | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HR1020
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CHEERLEADERS ASSOCIATION HIGH SCHOOL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. HR1020 C. Cooper TO RECOGNIZE THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF THE ARKANSAS…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF THE ARKANSAS 4-H PROGRAM ON OUR YOUTH AND TO … | C. Cooper | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HR1062
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…R AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE AT THE TIME OF THE JUVENILE'S BIRTH. HR1062 R. Scott TO RECOGNIZE CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES FOR FIFTY…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES FOR FIFTY (50) YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE STATE OF … | R. Scott Richardson | READ AND ADOPTED. |
|
SB408
Act 639
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB408 C. Penzo TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ADOPTION; AND TO…”
|
TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND CERTAIN ADOPTION LAWS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB408 is now Act 639 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
0:00
is there anyone in the audience signed up to speak for or against the resolution would you like to close for your
Speaker 1
0:08
resolution i am close for my resolution thank you very much committee and
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
0:12
madam chair thank you representative woldridge we have a motion do pass is there any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye opposed no congratulations your resolution has past representative Richardson thank you committee now we will hear house
resolution 1074 by representative Moore if you'll
identify yourself you are recognized good
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
0:50
morning Kendra Moore district 23 thank you madam chairman and I'm honored to bring you House Resolution 1074 to recognize April 11th as Children's Advocacy Center Day.
Representative Fight and Representative Vought have been the sponsors of Children's Advocacy Centers in the past, and I'm honored to join them to present this resolution. Child Advocacy Centers play a significant role in the service and protection of Arkansas children. There are 30 Children Advocacy Centers here in Arkansas, and in 2022, they served over 10,000 families. These centers act as advocates for our children during their most difficult times.
And I would appreciate your support of this resolution in recognition of children's advocacy centers. Are there any questions by committee? Representative Shepard,
Chair
Unverified
1:43
you're recognized for question motion at the proper time thank you any questions
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:50
is there anyone in the audience signed up to speak for or against the resolution would you like to close for your
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:59
resolution i am closed for my resolution thank you
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:02
representative shepherd you're recognized thank you we have a motion do
pass any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye opposed no congratulations your resolution has passed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. Representative Painter, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
2:26
make a motion. Explain your motion, please. Motion that Amendment
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:31
1 to HB 1570 by which it passed be expunged. Thank you. We have a motion to expunge the amendment which has already been adopted for House Bill 1570.
Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Thank you for that motion.
And now we will go to Representative Brown and hear House Bill 1570. And you do have
another amendment, correct? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee. Representative Brown, if you'll give us just a second, let us get
that amendment. We'll deal with the amendment first.
Okay. Committee does not have it yet. That's
Speaker 25
3:12
fine. I just wanted to know. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 34
3:40
Okay, thank you. Representative Brown, you may proceed with your amendment.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
3:51
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Carolyn
Speaker 37
3:56
Brown, I'm here today to speak on House Bill
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
4:02
1570 and to present an amendment. Following our discussion and committee the other day,
I realized that there's still a lot of concern, so I believe that I have stripped out everything that was concerning to the people on the committee, and I will be putting that in interim study. So the title or the subtitle, Subtitle now completely removes any mention of obtaining medical records. There's nothing in this bill now that requires medical records.
And although there's no prohibition in Arkansas law for people to receive medical records or to receive a second opinion, it seems that some of these statutes are all over the place, and we kind of need to look at it and see what we can do to clarify things so that when parents and attorneys are needing this information, it's just a little bit easier to access and access in a way that protects children and families. So with that said, basically this is just a cleanup bill.
The main thing that remains is that in Section 1, on page 2, about lines 14 through 22, all it does is add a little more general language to describe the types of conditions that parents are, I guess, alleged offenders, the conditions that someone who is charged with being an offender, I've
used a little more general terms to describe the conditions and then listed these things that I had before as examples
of those types of conditions. Okay. Representative Brown,
Speaker 42
6:05
are you speaking on the amendment or on the bill?
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
6:10
Um, I guess I'm speaking on both. Okay, well, we need to address the amendment first, please. Okay. All right, I've spoken about that. I took out the controversial things.
I took out everything about court orders and getting records, all of that. I'm just cleaning up my original bill. So are you ready for
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
6:34
questions on your amendment? Yes. Okay. Are there any questions by committee on the
amendment? Representative Painter, you're recognized. I'll just make a motion at the
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
6:42
proper time for the amendment. Okay. Any other
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
6:48
questions? Anyone here to speak for or against the amendment? Would you like to close for your amendment? I'm closed. Representative Painter.
Motion do pass on the amendment. We have a motion do pass on the amendment to House Bill
1570. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
7:11
Thank you. Now you may proceed with House Bill 1570. So the only change that remains to Quincy's law is that I have used more
general language to describe the conditions that might, that could be, I'm trying to think of the word, a different diagnosis.
So similar symptoms could be caused from abuse or could be caused by a medical or genetic condition. So when those conditions exist, parents need to know that they're allowed to get a second opinion. And then these conditions, Ricketts, Ehlers-Danlos, osteogenesis imperfecta, vitamin D deficiency, and vitamin K deficiency are all just examples. So are you ready for questions?
Speaker 53
8:02
Yes, I am. Are there questions by the committee? Representative Wilder to recognize. Thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
8:07
you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative. So I'm trying to make sense of the amendment. I'm looking at the amendment. It says page 2, delete lines 7 through 13. So when I look at the bill, 11 through 13 was some of the concern that I had originally. So that was where it said that an alleged offender could, regardless of whether the alleged victim had been taken into custody or not, request the records. So I don't see what replaces that.
Speaker 57
8:33
So who requests the records now, or what's that process
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
8:36
look like? I've left all that out. There's no stipulation in the legislation about requesting records. Follow-up? So what's the point of the legislation then if
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
8:44
no one can request the records? The whole point of the legislation initially was to tell parents
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
8:50
they could get a second opinion, particularly under these conditions. One more follow-up? You're recognized. So can they still do that? Yes. Who gets the records?
There's no stipulation in my legislation about the records. None. None whatsoever. So that anyone can still get
them? Where does the records go then? My legislation doesn't change anything that's currently in law. Okay. Thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
9:26
you. Representative Payne, are you recognized for a question?
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
9:30
Thank you, Madam Chair. So does those records then, do they just sit out there? Kind of follow up on Representative Woolridge's question,
or do those go to the parent or provider or to the victim?
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
9:41
Where do they go? My legislation does not deal with the records. That is why
I'm going to go to interim study because parents are not prohibited from getting records. Judges can steal court order records. That can all take place. It just seems to be kind of a confusing combination of laws, and nobody, you know, there's a lot of attorneys without a lot of experience that don't know that they can do these things.
And so I'm going to, we're going to go into an interim study and see what we can do to clean this up and make it a little clearer what role DHS plays, what role the judge plays, what role the parents play, and how to proceed with this in a more methodical way. representative do you recognize for a
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
10:27
question thank you madam chair um thank you represent brown for your hard work on this and for talking to people i have a quick question as far
as we had lots of folks that were in here the other day with concerns from the children advocacy center have you spoken with them and where are they on this bill at this point i have not spoken with
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
10:45
them but this is already legislation that was on the record and i have i've taken everything out that they were concerned about. I re-listened to their testimony, and there's nothing in here. I mean, Quincy's Law is Quincy's Law. I just cleaned up some of the language to provide a little more general language to describe the conditions and then used what was in the original Quincy's Law as examples of what those conditions are.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
11:17
are there any other questions by committee representative woldridge you're recognized thank you madam
chair i have a question of the chair um as a freshman i guess i don't understand the process of what we're trying to accomplish here
will this need to pass a committee if there's no changes to then go to interim study or what are we what are we trying to accomplish well
that was my question next to you representative brown is did i hear you say early on that you are
wanting this as amended to go now to interim study no i don't want it as amended to go to interim study
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
11:50
i want the amendment is just cleanup language on quincy's law the way it was and then all this discussion about records and court orders and uh all of that that's going to go to interim study i just wanted to have some cleanup language in quincy's law so it's it's your desire
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
12:09
you're bringing this bill as normal to be voted on and voted out of committee into the house is your desire yes please
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
12:16
just for cleanup language that's all this bill will deal with now thank you
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
12:22
representative fight you're recognized okay i'm i'm very confused and i realize i was a few minutes late i was getting from retirement committee you keep saying interim study it's it's going to interim study or it's not going to interim
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
12:37
part written all i want to do today is process some cleanup language on quincy's law and then i will i've been told i do not have to present the interim study in this committee today i do not have to do that i can do it later so i'm going to do it later when we're all not all not so jammed up with other things
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
12:56
because it's my understanding that you took out anything that dealt with getting records at all That's incorrect.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
13:01
That's gone. That's not an issue anymore. Not for this legislation. Are there any other questions by committee?
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
13:10
It's just some cleanup language. Is there anyone signed
up to speak for this bill? Against? Would you like to close for your bill?
I'm closed. What's the will of the committee? motion to pass we have a motion do pass by
representative Mayberry all in favor say aye opposed no I'm sorry representative
Brown your bill has failed thank you next let's see is representative McCollum here anywhere did he come in while I was okay
um it's my understanding that representative walmack is also not presenting house bill 1716 representative hodges in the audience anywhere representative representative rye is he still over
Speaker 75
14:14
there okay representative vought would you
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
14:16
like to present house bill 1775 if you will
identify yourself then you will be recognized thank you
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
14:27
madam chair dm bought district 87 still getting used to the new number
and i'm sitting on the ground so i've got to fix this maybe i can't fix it thank you madam chair for allowing me to go ahead and present my bill house bill 1775 is, I think, a pretty amazing bill. We're going to allow state employees that actually take in foster children to be able to use 40 hours of their sick days to help care for foster children.
Right now they can't use those sick days to do that, and if you know anything about foster care, the first 48 hours is pretty stringent, and there's a lot of things that need to be done in that first 48 hours, So they'll be able to use sick days to be able to do that first 48 hours. And if you look on page two, it gives you a list of things that they can use it for and who can receive it and who can't. So that bonding with the child for the adjustment purposes, these are things that can be used for.
Attending school placement meetings related to changes due to foster care placement. attending individualized educational program meetings related to, due to the foster care placement, attending required court hearings, and attending required case planning activities. These cannot, so they either use them for this and they don't carry over to the next year. So there's no carryover.
If they don't use those hours in that year, then it starts back over the next year. And I guess the employee that is available for catastrophic leave for maternity purposes for the placement of an infant under one years of age, the foster care leave, with pay that is granted under this section, that is unused, again, shall not carry over to the next calendar year. So I think it's a pretty great bill for us to do for our state employees,
especially if they're willing to help us with foster children. This is a way that they can use their hours that benefit them the most. I'm closed. Are
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
16:54
there any questions by committee? Excuse me. Representative Fott, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is, is this 40 days of sick leave per foster child? because we know that many families take a child and then maybe three or four months later they have a different placement and then a couple of months later they have a different placement. So does it start over each time as they have a new foster child?
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
17:15
No, ma'am. And it's 40 hours, not 40 days. So they don't get 40 days. They only get 40 hours. I'm sorry. I
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
17:21
said days. I meant hours. Do the hours start over with each child? No, ma'am.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
17:24
It does not. It's a total. So it's just a total. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. I like it. Representative
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
17:35
Stemel, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there already something in code where they are allowed to use this for adoption as well? Do we know that for a fact or not?
Speaker 88
17:46
I don't know. I'm looking at somebody behind me trying to see if they know. I think they're coming with me. I think it's, yeah. sorry madam chair i wasn't
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
18:00
expecting that question or i would have had the answer they're looking can we go
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
18:06
we can wait on that okay you okay if we come back to that and
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
18:09
move on and come back to your question yes yes madam chair thank you representative do you
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
18:18
recognize for a question thank you madam chair um just quick question to make sure i understand And the 40 hours is part of the sick leave that they already have. It's just allowing
them to use it in this manner. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Representative Wooldridge, she got your question? Okay. Are there any other questions by
Speaker 24
18:42
committee? Anybody want to sing or dance for us? They're still looking. Representative Carr.
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
18:50
Yes. We can continue without that question. I don't want to hold a committee here. Sure. Okay.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
18:59
Yes, Madam Chair. Maybe she can address it in her closing if they get there in time. Or maybe they can just come now to the table. Yes, please. I'm sorry that I didn't know the
Speaker 103
19:13
answer. That's okay. Just have your guest recognize herself, please. Good morning. Kristen Harper, the Division of Children and Family Services. Specific to the catastrophic leave, there is current law that allows the placement of an adoptive child in the home of the employee.
Now, there is another bill, Senate Bill 426, that is running that will clarify that is for under one year of age, and that allows for the catastrophic leave up to 12 weeks. Are there any other questions by committee? is there anyone signed up to
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
19:43
speak for or against this bill would you like to close for your bill
i'm closed and i'd appreciate a due pass representative carr you're recognized i'll make a motion do pass we have a motion do pass is there
any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye opposed no congratulations your bill is passed Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. And thank you, Committee, for your patience there. Okay. Has Representative Rye come in and I missed him? No? Okay. Then Representative Furman, are you ready to present Senate Bill 408? If you will identify
yourself, then you will be recognized. thank you madam
Speaker 110
20:34
chair tony firman district 82 this is uh senator penzo's bill and he is in
education running another bill i have uh known about this bill for about five minutes so uh he has a witness prepared to testify so with your permission i'd
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
20:49
like to call up jp triple to
Jp Tribble
Unverified
20:57
the table. Yes, just have him recognize himself, please. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you. My name is JP Tribble.
I am an adoption and family formation attorney here in Little Rock. So Senator Penzo's bill is essentially a cleanup bill. I'll go over the broad strokes of that and
then I'm available to answer specific questions if the committee has any. First of all, for the adult adoptions, the bill does two things. It removes the withdrawal period for an adult adoptee and their spouse to consent to that adult's adoption, and it removes the requirement for an adult adoptee to list their own assets in the petition. For minors, the bill removes the
six-month waiting period to finalize the adoption if it is a private adoption of a child who is six months or younger so effectively a recently born child it also gives birth parents the option to allow their information to be disclosed in the health history and genetic social history currently the law requires that information to be non-identifying and this will allow the person who's disclosing the information whether they want to be identified or not and the reason for
that is in a lot of open adoptions it's actually a misdemeanor at this point for any person to disclose their identity in an adoption and this will allow in an open adoption where the parties know their identities as well to disclose that in court pleadings. The bill also removes the requirement to check the putative father registry in two very specific instances where it is not necessary. One of those would be, for example, in an out-of-state adoption where the child is
born out of state, the adoption finalizes in Arkansas, but, for example, Arizona requires a termination of parental rights to occur there. So the case goes to court in that state. parental rights are terminated, the child then comes to Arkansas for the finalization hearing here, which is the best interest portion. If the parental rights have already been terminated, there's no reason to check the punitive father registry. And the other case would be where
there's what's called a second place adoption, second placement, which is where there is an adoption that has occurred in the past. So in other words, there's a court order that says who the parents are, there would be no putative father in that instance. If those people are consenting to a further adoption, the registry is not required to be consulted. The last thing it does is appeals a section that effectively was appealed and rendered null and void in an act in
1995 because it conflicts with the law that was passed at that time so with that I'd be happy to entertain any more specific questions are there questions by committee you must have done an expert job is there anyone here signed up to
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
24:20
speak for this bill against this bill? Are you ready to close for your bill? I'm closed and I'll make a motion do pass.
We have a motion do pass by Representative Furman. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor
Speaker 44
24:38
say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations. You have passed Senate Bill 408.
Speaker 118
24:43
Thank you, committee and Senator Penzo. Thanks to you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
24:52
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Hudson, are you ready to run House Bill 1811?
If you will recognize yourself and have your guests, we will take up your
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
25:17
amendment first. Am I on? Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Vivian Flowers is here. She's my co-sponsor on this bill. We have an amendment for you today that I think is getting passed out on HB 1811. This just sets out a little bit more specificity as to when a foster family is entitled to have
counsel with them in the course of sort of this process of transferring a foster child from one temporary placement to another. And then the second part of the amendment is just making that same language match up in another part of the bill. Are there any questions on the amendment? Anyone here
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
26:05
to speak for or against the amendment?
the amendment. What's the will of the committee? Yes. Thank
you. We have a motion do pass on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations. You passed your amendment and are recognized
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
26:28
to present House Bill 1811. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, 1811 is a bill that sets out a new procedure for how transfers of foster children from either one foster home to another or other temporary placement should work.
We've got a number of people who are here who want to testify on this, but here's where this bill came from, from Representative Flowers and I. Representative Flowers and I were approached between this session and last by a foster parent who had experienced some significant issues within the system. And what we discovered after talking to that one foster parent is that these issues are being repeated over and over again in various parts of the state, so it's not limited to a single county or a single caseworker or DHS attorney. What we found is that foster parents
often find themselves in a situation in which the child that they've been fostering for a long-term period, months and months, sometimes even years, is suddenly picked up by DHS and transferred out of their home, either to another temporary placement or to an adoptive couple without notice. In some cases, this has resulted in the child being taken from the home without their medication or without their clothes. And in some cases, we've had situations in which the foster family had been open to adoption, had been assessed and approved for adoption,
but still had this child taken from their home, again, without notice. perhaps more alarming though were some of the discussions we had with foster families in which they told us that they had sought legal counsel in order to help them navigate what is i'm sure everyone in here agrees is a confusing system and had been retaliated against for doing so and so what we wanted to do with this bill is ensure that foster families knew that they had right to counsel they had a right to counsel they had access to counsel and couldn't be
retaliated against and given the fact that right now our statute doesn't really clarify that we felt that at least having a new part of the code explaining what those rights are and when they kick in would be helpful to ensure that the rights of the foster families are protected and what is a difficult system to navigate the bill also creates some requirements for notice and in a hearing in certain cases for non-emergency temporary placements. So non-emergency placements
from one foster home to another foster home in those situations. This would not be a motion and a hearing in a situation in which a foster child is being transferred back to their parents. This would only be from one temporary placement to another. The reason for that, again, is just to ensure that we aren't compounding trauma on the foster child by taking them from a long-term placement suddenly without any notice and moving them to another, often with strangers, and to ensure that as far as the transition goes in terms of foster children who may have
medication or disabilities and require a little bit of a heads up for that foster family handoff to occur so that the child's needs can be cared for without any interruption. And Representative Flowers may have some more to ask or add, but I'm happy to answer any questions. And I know we have a few families here who want to speak. Are there
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
29:52
any questions by committee? Representative Payne, are you recognized for
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
29:55
a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. So you mentioned in your testimony issues with DHS from different counties.
Can you kind of specify what kind of issues that you're having or
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
30:05
that you've heard? Sure. And I think that some of the families who came to speak will speak to their own experiences and give you more detail. But, again, we've heard of issues where a foster child was moved without any notice to the foster family. In a couple of cases that we've heard where the caseworker came really without warning on weekends at night, there was one situation in which a foster mother was out of town on a business trip and was called while she was standing in the middle of an airport
and told that they were taking her child right then without any sort of notice at all that that was happening or that it was even being contemplated. And that really seems to be the biggest problem that we're seeing, just that there's no notice at all. And in the code as it is now, there is a requirement that the foster families get notice, but it's not happening, or in some cases it's happening so informally that it doesn't really constitute a true notice. where somebody says, oh, we're going to, you know, we're going to come and take this child.
And it's not in writing, and it
Speaker 133
31:07
doesn't give any sort of time frame or timeline
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
31:11
for when that's going to occur. Follow-up. How often does DHS then, based on your testimony, just show up without notice? I
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
31:21
mean, I think it would be difficult to quantify that. It's happening often enough that Senator Davis and then Representative Flowers and I have all heard multiple cases of it. We represent pretty diverse parts of the state, so it's certainly happening enough that enough of the foster families
are able to reach out to their representatives and senators because we know that not everyone knows how to do that, right? So it's happening enough with enough frequency that we're seeing this as an ongoing issue. I also spoke to a couple of attorneys who regularly do represent foster families and who have told me that in their own
Speaker 129
31:57
practices they're seeing this more and more. One more follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
32:02
Just to make sure I heard you correct, there's already in law that they have to, DHS is they, have to give foster families, parents, a notice when they're coming to get that child, correct?
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
32:16
There is a part that does require a notice, but the notice is not being given properly, and it's not giving enough of a lead time as far as how long that foster family has. So technically speaking, a DHS caseworker could knock on your door, say I'm taking the foster child, and that
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
32:33
would be notice. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized for
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
32:35
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative. I have to excuse my ignorance on this. So I assume the reason why they're removing children from one home and not giving them proper notice is fear of, like, abduction, you know, taking the children out of state or something like that.
um so i guess you know my concern is is that an issue that if we give them too long of a notice they may find some ways to remove the child take the child out of state or something like that i'm at that i guess i assume and maybe i'm wrong in the assumption that the reason why they're not giving proper notice is because they don't want something like that to happen since a lot of children abduction
sometimes are by family members and i would consider this foster family
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
33:17
to be a family member? I have no information that would reflect that that's an issue. This does have a
carve-out that says that no notice is required in exigent circumstances or situations in which they believe that the child may be in danger. For the most part, and you'll hear from foster families here who've been fostering for years, who've had open homes for 10, 20 years, and so there's obviously very little risk of a flight. And again, I mean, the concern is that in these situations. I mean, you know, you're going to have, you could have situations where somebody would do that, but you would have that situation as the system is now. The bigger concern is that
we do know that we have kids who are being transferred from one house to another with no explanation, no reason, often without clothes, often without medication. And these are children who are already going through an ongoing trauma. And so we're trying to figure out a way to kind of quell that trauma as much as we can, because we know that inconsistency and lack of routine are two things that really affect children, especially small children. Gotcha. Can I have a follow-up
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
34:22
as well? You recognize? And once again, excuse my ignorance on this. Why would one of these transfers happen?
I didn't hear that in your opening, and I'm just not as familiar with the system. So could you kind of give me some examples of why they may remove a child from one foster home and move
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
34:38
them to the next? And some of the, I think some of the families will speak to that as well. I mean, that's part of the problem. Some of the reasons for transfer have been really arbitrary. And right now there's not really any requirement that DHS provide any sort of explanation. The bill does provide that they file a motion that does provide an explanation. You know, this child is going to be moved from this home, and here are some reasons why this move is important.
Because the reality is if the child is in a safe foster home and that foster family is doing everything that they're supposed to, there's really little to no justification for moving that child unless there's some exigent circumstance or the family for some reason needs to have the child moved and placed elsewhere. Okay. Thank you. Representative Wooldridge, you recognize
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
35:22
for a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. Almost verbatim, the questions I was going to ask Representative Pilkington
asked, but I guess my question to you would be maybe more directed towards DHS,
but my understanding is there is a shortage of foster homes, so I can't imagine why DHS would look for an arbitrary reason to move a child that was in a good home. Again, I guess excuse my ignorance as well, but I can't really wrap my mind around why that would take place. So I guess my question would be, for DHS, is there a shortage, and can you speak to any issues that you are aware of that would have caused this legislation or why these transfers would be taking place?
So we'll call DHS to the table if you don't mind.
Speaker 150
36:05
just recognize yourself i know you know the drill yes ma'am good morning all i'm mr martin
Speaker 152
36:14
i'm dhs deputy secretary i'm also dcfs director and to answer your question um i would we always need more foster parents we are aware of some concerns around movements but the law does require that dhs give 14 days notice not only for non-emergency removals not only to foster parents but as well as ad litems the parent and the court we acknowledge that that sometimes doesn't happen but i will also
say that placements are the biggest challenge for our dhs workers and there isn't a re like they struggle with placements every day there are not there should not be i mean i'm sure with 4 000 children it's probably happened before but i can't imagine a situation where where a worker is just moving without any notification of the court team or the foster parent and if that were to happen that would be a situation if they did not have justifiable reason like a maltreatment report concerns about the safety of the child um that that that would be a disciplinary issue for
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
37:15
a caseworker you recognize i just want one follow-up thank you madam chair and that was going to be my follow-up is what action is taken on behalf of dhs or by dhs if if you're truly found that no notice was given or a child was moved improperly yeah i
Speaker 153
37:31
mean it's disciplinary issues i mean it is an issue that we have talked about with staff numerous times
Speaker 152
37:36
but usually it's not just an art like i've never seen a case where a worker was just like i don't like these foster parents i'm going out and i'm moving in them to another placement placements are hard um there
have been situations where the local team agrees whether the continuation of the placement is appropriate for some reason but if a worker just was like i don't like this foster parent i'm moving to another foster parent without justifiable reason that would be a reason for discipline and should be raised up the ladder. Are there any other questions by committee?
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
38:09
Sorry, I couldn't tell that you were just looking at me with that. Representative
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
38:13
Fite, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm a little bit confused, and again, I was in another committee running a bill,
so I didn't get to hear your introduction, and I apologize for that. But if the law already requires 14 days' notice, why are we doing another law requiring 14 days' notice? Yeah, and again, part
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
38:29
of the problem is this isn't happening. And the other problem is that there's no right to have any sort of justification or explanation. The final problem is that the foster families are being retaliated against for seeking counsel to advise them on these issues. And to me, that's one of the biggest problems that we have right now. There are families here who will testify to the fact that they have been told that one of the reasons that the child is going to be removed and not –
and they're not going to be considered for adoption anymore because they sought legal counsel in the proceedings. And those types of things really alarm me. So we just want to make sure that we are providing a guideline so we have consistent results. It's not all on DHS. We've also had foster families report that there's inconsistencies among judges, and so this provides them some guidance and some structure to how the proceedings should run as well. Any other questions? Representative Shepard,
Chair
Unverified
39:24
do you recognize? Motion at the proper time.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
39:28
Okay. Are there any other questions by committee? Okay. We do have several signed up to speak on the bill. And please forgive me and correct me if I pronounce your name wrong. First, we'll hear from Gloria Pecco. Oh, that's a D. Thank you. I'm sorry. My time in the classroom has been limited lately, so I haven't
been reading other people's handwriting much. please identify yourself and you'll be
Chair
Unverified
39:59
recognized completely understandable hi my name is Gloria
Pedro um I have been a foster parent for four years and I am the constituent who brought this to representative Hudson and representative Flowers attention um today I'm going to tell you what happened I'm not going to tell you a story because it's not made up I didn't write it down I am telling you my experience and for those of you who said that you were ignorant to this and had questions, that's very fair. And I would be open to answering questions about my experience doing this. So the first thing that happened to me was I decided I wanted to be a
licensed foster parent. I've always wanted to do it since I was in high school. I just have a calling, as some people say. It's on my heart to do it. And I went through DHS directly by myself. I did not find any of the organizations around the state at the time who helped license. They didn't suit me. So I independently went to the website. I clicked the button. I filled out the paperwork. And the process that normally takes people anywhere from six to eight months, I got done in four because I was determined.
I'm a very determined person. and so um in december of 2019 after my family and friends threw me a wonderful foster shower i uh opened my home and within 24 hours i got my first placement call and then another and then another so i can tell you the need is gross and it's immediate um my last research showed that for every one foster home slash bed, there are three children who need it.
So there is a drastic need for foster parents, and I can tell you firsthand that there are people who have quit fostering or who will no longer consider fostering because of what has happened to me. And I am here to tell you that what has happened to me is real, and it is happening at the wide scale. I am not an anomaly. So I opened my home. I said yes to a 10 week old baby boy his name was Micah and that was my pride and joy and when I got the first phone call and they said you know can you take them I thought oh my god this is the call
right you've been waiting for this but like they're gonna give me a baby what and then 15 minutes later they said well see he's got a sister and she's two and she's in another foster home and we want to keep them together and I thought two under two first time parent and I called my mom and I said mom the only reason I have not to do this is because there's two of them and she said well it sounds like you've already made up your mind so I said yes and I went home and I pulled out baby clothes and diapers and all of the things and hours later the social worker came and placed
the tiniest cutest little baby in my arms and that was that we were off um the tears the crying all of that you would expect I think on night two I was crying and he was crying and we called my mom crying and my mom came back because what do I know but we were instantly bonded in that moment he was mine and I was his but obviously he was not my biological child and so going through this I met his biological parents and we became very close they called me baby mama they were my baby mama and baby daddy there were three of us at doctor's appointments we regularly facetimed
they knew if they had any questions about either of the kids, they could call. At one point, we had to make an ER trip in the middle of the night, and I called them, and they met us there. And my daughter called me, Mommy, and her other mother, Mama. There was never a question. We were all family. And both of these parents were struggling with addiction, and as we know, that is a severe health crisis that happens in our state. They were not able to retain custody of their children. and so we had gone through this case for a year and mom was actually in rehab when the judge
decided to actually go ahead and do TPR not order it but actually enact it and the it actually had to be a two-part hearing due to time so the second day mom was not there dad was not present I'm not sure if he was just in jail or not there but TPR was done and I knew that the bio parents were going to be calling to check on the kids because it was a weekly thing that we had established and so I asked DHS who is going to tell her that her rights have been terminated how is this going
to work what do I do when she calls and they said oh well that's a question for parent council call parent council so I did and parent council informed me that it was Friday and it was around four o'clock so she wasn't going to be making that call and I just didn't need to say anything and I said well we had court today and they know we had court today they were present yesterday so when they call to talk to their children this weekend and they ask me what happened in court what am I supposed to say because I'm not going to lie to them they've lost custody of their children
and they don't know it think about right now you're sitting here your children are no longer yours and no one has told you the disrespect I was not going to be party to it so they said well you can do it I'm not a DHS employee I'm not a psychologist I am a human being who loves the children that they bore so I called them
I video chatted with them over Facebook and I was crying and I told them I needed to speak to both of them and I looked them in their face through that camera and told them that they had lost the rights to their children and I heard that mother break. I heard her cry. I saw that father scream and drop the phone and hyperventilate. I stayed on the phone and listened to them sob as their world crashed and no one but me could be bothered to tell them.
After that, no one at DHS could get a hold of them for weeks because they had gone on a bender as addicts often do under times of great stress. I'm also licensed as an adoptive home when I went through the process I licensed myself for both in the off chance that a child who had been with me long term would need a home I could continue to provide that I never said oh I want to go adopt a child I'm going to go steal a baby it was if the need is there I will be attached and I will step up I'd before TPR happened I'd had multiple people at DHS ask me if this goes to TPR would you be willing to adopt these children
I said yes, without hesitation. I mean, they're already my kids. They've been here for over a year. Why would I say no? So after TPR happened, I was told that was the plan. I had an adoption specialist come into my home, and I was surprised she was there. She was asking me all sorts of questions, and I said, well, what are we doing? And she said, if you don't want to adopt these children, I need to know right now because I was under the impression that you do. And I said, oh, I absolutely want to adopt them. I just didn't know we were there already. And she said, yes, this matter should be resolved in about six to eight weeks.
I'm 98% sure that this should go off without a hitch. 98%. 2% will get you every time. DHS, as my understanding, when a child comes into care, is supposed to do what's called a nexus-lexus search. They're supposed to look for any and all family members, regardless of whether or not they believe that family member will take the child, just to alert them to the situation and let them know, and to reach out to them again around TPR. Now, keep in mind, TPR has already happened, and I've gotten mixed answers from caseworkers and caseworker supervisors
about if this has happened or not. I've been told yes, I've been told no, I've been told do it again. The judge ordered it several times. So when I'm being approached by an adoption specialist in my home asking me to adopt my children who've been there for, at this point, almost a year and a half, I assume that that search has been done because why else would you be talking to me? You know what happens when you assume. I found out that my children had a distant relative, and I mean distant as in a second cousin once removed
who'd never met my children and never even breathed the same air as them, who was interested in having them. And she said that she came forward when my daughter, who was placed into care seven months before my son, first came into custody. She lives in Colorado, and she said that she flew down and went to the hearing and said, Judge, I'm here. I want this child. But when parents work their services, part of that is visitation with the child. So they couldn't send the child to Colorado and give the parents their entitled visitation.
So they said thanks, but no. And according to her, she was told not to call and check on this child, not to do anything. And DHS would call her. So that's what she did for over a year. Now, I'm a very determined person, but I'm also a person with a lot of common sense. If there is a child that I care about, my sister's child, a sibling, a friend's child, and they're in a precarious situation and their future isn't determined, if someone told me, oh, don't worry about it, we got it,
I'm sorry, what? The last thing I would do is not check on them for over a year. and so now we're in this situation where there is a distant family member who technically did what she was told even though she had no proof that this is what she was told and she wants the children that I've taken care of for a year and a half who she's never met who she does not know wants to take them away from everything they know to be with her because they're family so DHS said well they'll have to fill out ICPC paperwork which is the type of paperwork that's
done when you're talking about moving a child from one county to another or one state to another. And they said, most people don't even do the ICPC paperwork. They're not going to finish it. She finished it. Oh, well, she'll have to go through a home study, and a lot of people don't want to do that. She did it. Oh, well, she won't pass the home study. Yes, she did. She encountered significant health issues. At one point, she lost the ability to walk, had trouble seeing. DHS still thought she was valid placement for two children under the age of three. I was told we would both get consideration. They would decide what was best for the child.
Fair, right? Uncomfortable, maybe don't like it, but given the situation, reasonable. So I waited, and I waited, and I waited, and I found out that this person who's now been doing video visitations for 30 minutes once or twice a week with my infant and toddler, that's the Center for Relationship, was going to be given a consideration hearing, so I was told. They would do disclosure, which is where they go over the child's entire file and history, as far as DHS
knows it, and they would ask questions. And supposedly, I was going to get a disclosure meeting as well, and then DHS would make the decision. So once I found out about her disclosure meeting, I said, oh, okay, when's mine? I was told I wasn't getting a disclosure meeting, because I didn't need one because they'd already decided. Feel free, any of you, to explain to me how you could have a meeting to make a decision when the decision's already been made and how you don't need another meeting to make a decision.
If you don't have the meeting, how do you know what to do? It was at this point that I sought legal counsel at the advice of several staff members on DHS. I was told it was unofficial. I was told not to use their names. I was told, hey, I never told you this, but you need to get a lawyer. So I did. Got a great lawyer. She's fantastic. Charges a few hundred dollars an hour. I got a real lawyer, you guys.
A foster parent who had the nerve to spend her own money on a lawyer. So we filed a motion to intervene, which is to let the judge know, hey, we would like to become party to this case so that I can have legal representation so that I can have a say in what's going on because foster parents aren't considered party to these cases. So we're not allowed to speak in court. It's not required. If they call on us, great, but if they don't call on us, we're not allowed to have representation. We're not entitled to paperwork
because we're just glorified babysitters. I mean, that's what I've been doing for a year and a half, right? I mean, I paid a couple hundred dollars for a lawyer, but I'm not their mother. That's what I kept being told. so my lawyer intervened on my behalf as best she could started asking questions ran up against wall against wall because well your client isn't a party to the case so we can't discuss this with you and we can't discuss that with you going to court hey judge we're not a party to the case but we'd like to be can we speak well you can't actually speak because you're not a party to the case but how do you become a party to the case without speaking my lawyer is doing her absolute
damnedest. And so while this is going on, I'm told that I'm supposed to be helping come up with a transition plan for my children to go move in with this woman who they've talked to on video chat a couple of times. And I said, okay, fine. I will continue to do that because it's in the best interest of my children. But I'm also still going to pursue adopting them because you came into my house and said I could, and I already have a license. I'd plan to take them to the zoo with these new family members, to do a photo shoot with my family and theirs,
let them know these are people we love and who care about you. Because after all, it's not their fault either. They did what they were told. They're a victim in this too. So I was given a rough estimate of when they might come down for Colorado for this transition. Meanwhile, my lawyer is still working. I get a call from the adoption specialist one day asking if I'll be home that evening because she wants to talk to me about the plan to move the kids. I say, yeah, sure. We decide on six o'clock. I have my mother come and my best friend come to
tend to the children so that I can focus entirely on this meeting. I sit down at the coffee table and I meet with her. And she tells me immediately, she's not there to meet with me. She's there to take my children. Because I'm hostile, adversarial, and a flight risk. Whatever do you mean? I'm working with this new family. I've set up stuff to do to hang out. I'm encouraging my kids to have positive connections. I've done video chats on my own spare time. I have gone to every therapy
appointment, every doctor's appointment. I am in this. These are my kids. Why would I ever do anything to harm them? Well, you got a lawyer, Ms. Pedro, and that's a hostile act. How else are we supposed to take that? That's what was told to me. And the question Mr. Pilkington had was also asked of me. Well, how do we know that you're not going to move out of the county and try to run off with these children and kidnap them? Well, you see, I've spent several hundred, if not thousands
of dollars on a lawyer who has my address and is duty bound to report me for committing a felony. So I would say maybe, just maybe. I'm not going anywhere. Also, I have two small children. Who packs up and leaves with two small children? Have you ever made it to the grocery store on time with two small children? But I'm going to move. Oh, okay. There was no paperwork. There was no court order. There was no police officer. I had no way of verifying what she told me.
But she told me she was there to take my children. so I stood up and I almost fell down my knees were wobbling I called my best friend and my mother into the room and I choked back tears and I looked them in the face and I told them they're here to take the kids right now they could not believe it I had to sit down so that I did not pass out and they immediately said what do you need they said you go spend time with the kids we'll pack them up and I looked my mother in the face and I said no I am their mother
I know what things they need and don't need. You don't know that. You go spend time with the kids. You keep them calm. I will pack their things. Call my sisters. Get them here now. I sent a text to my friends telling them that DHS was taking my kids, and if they wanted to say goodbye, they needed to come right now. Friends walked off the job, and when I say walked off, I mean they didn't speak to their bosses. They walked out of their jobs and got into their car. They were fixing dinner for their kids and left the stove on and said, honey, go get the stove. I've got to get to Gloria's. They sped from hot springs, people all
over the state because they loved my kids. They had matching shoes with my kids. They had birthdays with my kids. They had video chats with my kids. They loved these children. And more importantly, they were concerned. So these women, these beautiful, strong, amazing women descended on my house like locusts. And they sat there and they played with the kids and they cried and they told them goodbye and they sat in the living room as I held my babies and I told them that if I could
lay down my life to stop them from what they were about to go through I would but I could not and they looked at me as I told my new three-year-old to do her best to take care of her infant brother and that I would do everything in my power to work this out my son was sick he had medicine that I hadn't even gotten a chance to pick up because the pharmacy had just called it in a few hours beforehand. I told the adoption specialist this. I was told, don't pack huge bags because they've got to get on an airplane.
Pack small bags. They left without the majority of their stuff. Later, after my children had been taken, actually I'm going to back up. This adoption specialist had the nerve to ask my mother to put my children in the car, and that broke my mother. I saw my mother break, so I put my children in the car because I'm a good daughter, and I'm not going to have anything bad happen to my mom, and I'm an even better mom, and I'm not going to have my children scared, so I kissed them, and I put them in the car, and I walked back to my apartment,
and I fell through the door, and I screamed in agony. I heard the same song and the same sound that came out of that mother's throat when she lost her children came out of me. My sister doesn't even call it a scream. She says, I never want to hear you make that sound again. I fell to the floor and had to be carried to my couch where I proceeded to keep screaming because my children had been ripped away. My attorney immediately showed up and she was on the phone with the
children's attorney who had no knowledge that they had just been moved and also claimed she could do nothing to stop it. So the court proceedings dragged on, but now I'm at a disadvantage because the children have been moved. So the judge is forced with, do I move them back? What happens? Well, she's a distant relative and that's that. So we had to appeal and go through court after court. And I got less and less details because I was no longer the foster parent on the
case. She was. So I was no longer entitled to updates or case documents or even to be in court about the case. Ms. Pedro, I don't want to cut you off, but
Speaker 22
59:49
I would like to make you aware that we have eight others signed up to speak. Okay. I can end it
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
59:58
there. Well, I also would like to know if you're open
Chair
Unverified
1:00:01
for questions from the community. Yes, absolutely. The reason I wanted to take my time and when I told you what happened is because I know that it addressed a lot of the questions you have about how this happens and does anyone know? And the answer is sometimes. How do you go up the
ladder when the ladder is the one that came crashing down on you? And who do you tell? Do you say, hey, I want to talk to your boss because you took my kids? When they show up without paperwork, what do you do? Because you're already considered hostile. Because you got a lawyer. So
Speaker 53
1:00:35
who has questions? Are there any questions from committee for this witness? Representative boulders
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:00:40
you recognize thank you madam chair and first of all god bless you for fostering children i think foster parents ought to get to go straight to heaven if that is able um i guess
my question would be when you signed up to be a foster parent were you fostering to adopt these children or just foster temporary placement so there's
Chair
Unverified
1:00:57
actually no such thing as foster to adopt because dhs their goal is always going to be reunification with the parent so you can license to foster and adopt but not there's no like automatic path to foster and adopt so
Speaker 175
1:01:07
i'm licensed to do both and i did do that originally when i signed up follow up you're recognized
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:01:15
thank you madam chair so your story is heartbreaking and i feel for you i couldn't imagine being in
that situation but i think that i'm struggling i understand that it's a terrible situation and for them to be removed is a terrible situation but if that was part of the dhs policy and then this address is no notice given but you talked about in your testimony that you they were trying to get you to meet with them for a transition plan so obviously there would have been some notice in that are you upset that they were taken and placed with a relative that lived out of state or are you upset about the process so i was never
Chair
Unverified
1:01:49
given actual notice like written down this is the day
that they're moving here's your 10-day notice i was told this could happen just like she could fill out the paperwork she could she could i was never actually told this is happening because i was supposed to have a meeting for consideration as was she the decision was supposed to be made they're staying or
Speaker 175
1:02:06
they're going and then a transition one more follow-up recognized
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:02:10
thank you madam chair so would it be safe to say
and again god bless you because i couldn't imagine the scenario you're in but when they asked for this transition meeting i would think you would have to think that there's a high probability that this is going to take place well they asked for
Speaker 174
1:02:27
one for her they never asked for one for me and so that's when I
Chair
Unverified
1:02:31
got my lawyer to say hey I'm supposed to be getting a meeting I'm not getting a meeting can you at least get me a meeting so that I can be considered and that's when I
was told they didn't need to meet with me because they'd already considered me and my question was well how can
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:02:47
you consider me if you didn't have the consideration meeting are there any other questions
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:02:51
from committee representative fight you recognize thank you madam chair and I'm so sorry for this very tragic situation and again and God bless you for being a foster parent.
We need more like you. My question is, was this ordered by the removal of the children and placement with the relative? Was that ordered by the court or ordered by DHS? I believe DHS made that determination and had the court sign off on it, but we never
Chair
Unverified
1:03:12
actually went to court to discuss it for the judge to say, oh, I've heard from both sides and this is what I want to do, which my understanding is that's why that language is in the
Speaker 175
1:03:22
bill, that you actually have to go to court follow-up please you're recognized yes uh since the person
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:03:32
lived in another state was there another court involved besides an arkansas court no when you do it's um icpc
Chair
Unverified
1:03:37
i'm not exactly sure what the acronym stands for but it has to do with when you're looking at moving a child from one county to another or one state to another um in this case all of this was done through the arkansas court system even though obviously the colorado dhs staff had to go and perform the home study and whatnot because she was not here any other
Speaker 53
1:03:58
questions by committee for this witness representative will do you recognize i guess
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:04:04
i'd have one follow-up question um are the children doing good in their new placement i don't know
Speaker 187
1:04:09
not allowed to talk to them okay seeing no others
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:04:14
thank you for your testimony next representative painter you recognize thank you madam chair i'd
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:04:22
like to make the motion that we limit comments and concerns to five minutes uh for each everybody else we still got a lot of bills to go over and so not to cut anybody off but just want to kind of get that time limit so
five minutes for each person we have
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:04:39
left thank you that's a proper motion and non-debatable all in favor say aye aye oppose no the ayes have it so going forward for or against everyone will have five minutes at the end of the table and we will hear from brian welch next who's here to speak against the bill
if you'll recognize yourself sir you'll be i mean yes identify
Brian Welch
Unverified
1:05:07
yourself, you'll be recognized. Sorry. Yes. Good morning. My name is Brian Welch. I'm the executive director for the Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel. I represent about 68 attorneys who represent the parents from whom custody is removed in dependency neglect cases. First, I would like to thank Representative Hudson and Flowers and Senator Davis for meeting with us this morning to talk about this bill. They are aware of our concerns, but I just wanted to share those with the entire committee so that you understand kind of where we're coming from.
I'm not going to get into all of the notice issues. That's more of a DCFS issue. We don't have a whole lot to do with that. Our concern with this bill is a couple of things. One, first and foremost, as drafted, when this bill mentions a temporary placement, we do have what's called a trial home placement process where kids that are in foster care are returned to their parents, but the custody is not returned. The custody still remains with the department on a temporary trial placement to see if the services and progress that the parents have
made are sufficient to provide a safe environment for the children. Under this bill, we would not be able to do this without going to court. And in some of our smaller counties, this could take up two maybe three months depending on the cycle of the hearings when it was filed how many other things are on the docket if they get to it if they don't uh etc etc and our parents would then also be reliant on the department to file that on their behalf because the department would be the
one seeking the placement not parent council so from our perspective that that's that's going to hinder some reunification efforts. The longer these children stay out of home, the more likely it is that they go to termination. The number one indicator for reunification is how visitations go. Number two is usually how a trial placement goes. If the trial placement is successful, reunification usually occurs right at the end of that trial placement or in the middle of the
trauma placement if it's going really well so to hinder our ability to do that is is problematic the second thing I would like to mention is I have great admiration for people who foster I appreciate all the foster parents that we have in Arkansas I especially appreciate those foster parents who take the time to incorporate our clients into that life to make sure as the the young woman who just testified, that they're interacting with the parent as well, because
that provides our parents with a resource that they might not have had when these cases first opened, a support system that they don't currently have in their regular life. And so those people are very important. However, I have to be honest, there is problems at times with foster parents. foster parents and i apologize for the terminology i'm about to use but it's it's it's accurate there's a term foster parent sabotage we have a lot of foster parents who want to adopt children
that's the reason why they get involved with the system is they feel like they need to adopt these kids out of the circumstances they're in to give them a better life i appreciate that perspective But at times, it tends to lead them to do things to slow down reunification or to outright prohibit reunification. And under this bill, this would give foster parents the ability to stop reunification efforts without going to court,
which would delay permanency placement of these children back into the home. and research is clear in this area these kids do better first when they're not removed from the home at all if we can keep them in the home and keep services placed that's when they do the best and then if we can return them to family members their long-term outlooks are better than if they remain in foster care or get adopted that's just the research on this subject foster parents do a wonderful job but it and again i hate i hate to say it this way but they're not their kids
these kids are their parents kids until termination happens up until that point everything we do as a system should be to try to help that family to repair this family and put those kids back in a better situation than we found them but still as a family unit and then if we can't do that that's when a foster parent should step in and take over i think this bill is going to create more problems in that area than we already experience and for every foster parent that's sitting back here that will testify to a bad experience they've
had with the department we could probably march in just as many parents that have had bad experience with foster parents and again i'm not casting aspersions on anybody that's just the reality of the situation and i thank you you're five minutes you're five minutes are up are you
Speaker 138
1:10:23
open for questions i am anything anybody wants to ask are there questions for this witness by committee thank you for
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:10:35
your testimony appreciate it next we'll hear from christian de
Speaker 197
1:10:42
clore de clue hi my name is christian de clue i go by chrissy i've been a foster parent
since 2014 we started with immerse arkansas as a host home and we saw a very big problem just talking to the teenagers that had aged out. And so we said, hey, we're going to go ahead and start with DHS to see if we can stop that problem. We're not here to adopt a bunch of kids, but we're going to go ahead and open as a foster and adoptive home to see if we can meet some needs and hopefully instead of taking them from their families, but show them what a different life could be like and then give them back to their families. That was our main goal. Today, I've got a lot of cases
and a lot of examples of where kids were removed from our home with no notice. And instead of talking about all of those because we have so many examples, I'm only going to talk about one. Her name was Neva, and she died. I need you guys to understand that she is a sibling group, and we did try to keep them together when they were placed in our home in September of 2018. sorry in 2018 her rights had already been terminated so had her brothers and we tried
to keep them together the goal was for them to be adopted together whether that was in our home or they were going on the heart gallery it became very apparent very quickly that her brother was not a good placement for us but we continued to try because even if they're going to be adopted together in another home we can we can deal with a little bit for a little while he did not do well in our home and so after seven months he moved on she was in our home for 11 months and they started a pre-adoptive visit kind of a thing she had done a total known them for a total of 14
days when I took her to the doctor because she was constipated and it turned out to be a Wilms tumor that had metastasized to her lungs nine days later while in the hospital while I have contacted the adoptive home and said hey come do visits here because you know this is kind of a big deal this is a good bonding experience I had let the department know nine days later while she is still in the hospital DHS called me didn't come and talk to me called me and said hey you're dismissed from the department you're done and you can no longer see her I said can you give
me 15 minutes my husband's at home with the kids and they would like to come and say goodbye she died three months later we begged the department the doctors begged the department said hey can you just let us stay here but we had no leg to stand on we are not a party to the case we are just babysitters we're not allowed to get a lawyer we're not allowed to get any notice we were called that day
and said you're done we did not get to hold her hand when she died the department needs a checks and balances system this is not a rogue caseworker i worked all the way up and this is not a single time that it happened when dhs is looking at me i have text messages and emails saying this is no big deal kids get over cancer all the time and I sent them the screenshots from the test saying no really
this is stage four she's not going to live they said it's okay she needs to bond with them the department needs a checks and balances system to have someone else to be able to come in and say hey like what someone else has already said there's already a law that says this why aren't We following it, I don't know, but that's, I have a beautiful speech, but I don't know what if it's five minutes worth. So that's my cliff notes.
Speaker 53
1:14:43
Thank you for your testimony. Are you open for questions? I am. Are there any questions for this witness by committee? Seeing none. Thank you for your
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:14:54
testimony. Oh, sorry. We have a light one to the table. Representative Duke, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say that we appreciate all that you
have done, and clearly you care a lot for kids, and wouldn't you agree that foster families do a great job in trying to support their kids? I have to end in a question, so I said it that way.
Speaker 197
1:15:14
I do agree, and my most recent case was 21 1⁄2 months long whenever I was able to help get their mom, their four kids back, because I had all four. Foster parents are overburdened. I had 12 kids over spring break. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next,
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:15:34
we'll hear from Reverend Jeremy, and I'm going to let you pronounce your last name.
Speaker 203
1:15:48
I think it's Press Grove. That's what I've gone with most of my life. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Yes, ma'am. I'm a Reverend Jeremy Pressgrove. I'm an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, which is a fancy way of saying pastor. I've served in that role for 10 years across the state in four counties, actually. And I would just say my experiences across the state have been working with foster families in my church and organizations that support foster families. It's been largely what we've heard today, that foster parents get little or no information.
They get kind of mistreated or kind of pushed down. There's some negative attitudes towards them from various organizations, and it's just not a good thing. And it's particularly not a good thing for kids to have to get moved. I guess I'm nervous. I talk in front of people for a living. This is my first time here, so apologies. Providing kids with long-term stability and placement and letting them stay in one place is the most important thing we can do to let them have a routine and to overcome whatever traumas
or difficulties have led them into foster care. So I really love the idea of we're going to keep them placed in one setting. And I really love giving foster parents the right to speak in court, that the foster parents are the ones that know these kids, that see them on a daily basis, and I'm sure that all the attorneys and all the workers at DHS and everyone does a fantastic job and wants what's in the best interest of the kids, but they're not there with them. So having foster parents have the right to be party to the case, to speak into court, and to share with the judge and everyone there
all the pertinent information, I think will give us the best outcomes possible because it will give us the most information and that we need to uplift foster parents and make them feel like they're truly a part of the case, that I've heard several foster parents, not just today, but over the last 10 years, address the idea that they get treated like babysitters. And that's unfortunate, and we need to do everything we can to protect them and stop them. So that is why I am here in support of the bill. And I will take questions.
Speaker 53
1:17:56
Are there any questions by committee for this witness?
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
1:18:00
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next we have Julie Adkins.
Julie Atkins
Unverified
1:18:13
If you'll recognize yourself, please. Sure. My name is Julie Atkins. I am, I've lived in central Arkansas for 20 years, and I'm an early childhood teacher. I have 20 years, 21 years experience in early childhood. I'm here to speak in support of HB 1811 as one who cares about young children,
one who has been a member of a church where we've had many, many foster parents. I've been a Sunday school teacher with children who are in foster care and have been very close with Ms. Pedro and her foster children. I wanted to say that before I say what I was going to say, after Ms. Pedro's experience that she spoke with you all about, she was immediately given another foster child, and shortly after that, another.
So she's continued to be a foster parent as well. But I just want to say, as one who has a degree in childhood education and lots of continuing ed, if the foster system's goal is to protect children and give them the best possible chance of a healthy life, then we need to pass legislation that prevents them from being unnecessarily removed from one home to another. According to studies conducted by Harvard and the Centers for Disease Control,
adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, can cause toxic stress to a child, which leads to a variety of developmental difficulties for children that can affect them even into adulthood. I hope I'm not telling you anything new, but all children who enter the foster system already have at least one ACE, and that is separation from their parent and likely others, including but not limited to physical abuse, neglect, exposure to violence and or drug and alcohol abuse. And some have
parents who are incarcerated. One ACE is detrimental to social, emotional, and neurodevelopment.
Agenda
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1570 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING TESTING IN CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE RIGHT TO MEDICAL RECORDS UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1639 McCollum TO CREATE THE BEST INTEREST ARKANSAS CHILDREN ACT OF 2023; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD IN DEPENDENCY-NEGLECT CASES.
HB1709 Scott TO CREATE THE CORRECTIONAL POSTNATAL AND EARLY CHILDHOOD ADVISORY BOARD; AND TO STUDY AND RESEARCH ISSUES RELATED TO INFANTS AND INCARCERATED MOTHERS.
HB1716 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE GOAL OF A CASE IN A DEPENDENCY- NEGLECT ACTION WHEN THE JUVENILE OR THE MOTHER TESTED POSITIVE FOR AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE AT THE TIME OF THE JUVENILE'S BIRTH.
HR1062 R. Scott Richardson TO RECOGNIZE CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES FOR FIFTY (50) YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
HB1754 G. Hodges TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS IMPOSED ON A JUVENILE OR THE PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR CUSTODIAN OF A JUVENILE.
HB1762 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING NOTICE OF A CHILD MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION FOR ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, OR SEXUAL EXPLOITATION INVOLVING CERTAIN ALLEGED OFFENDERS; AND TO ESTABLISH THE CHILD ABUSE PROTECTION LAW.
HB1767 Rye TO RECOGNIZE ARKANSAS MUSICIANS; AND TO AMEND THE MUSICIANS HONORED ON ARKANSAS MUSIC APPRECIATION DAY.
HB1775 Vaught TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNIFORM ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE POLICY ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SICK LEAVE; AND TO CREATE FOSTER CARE LEAVE.
HR1074 K. Moore TO RECOGNIZE THAT ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF CHILDREN IS A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM; TO COMMEND THE IMPORTANT WORK BEING DONE TO COMBAT THIS PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM; AND TO PROCLAIM APRIL 11, 2023, AS "CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER DAY".
SB408 C. Penzo TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND CERTAIN ADOPTION LAWS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN MINOR AND ADULT ADOPTIONS.
HB1811 Hudson TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO FILE A MOTION WHEN IT RECOMMENDS A NONEMERGENCY CHANGE IN A CHILD'S PLACEMENT FROM ONE FOSTER HOME TO ANOTHER AND FOR A HEARING TO BE HELD BEFORE THE CHANGE IN PLACEMENT OCCURS.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HR1016 Haak TO RECOGNIZE THE SILOAM SPRINGS PANTHERS AND LADY PANTHERS CHEER TEAM FOR WINNING THE 2022 CLASS 5A-6A CO-ED STATE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THE NATIONAL CHEERLEADERS ASSOCIATION HIGH SCHOOL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.
HR1020 C. Cooper TO RECOGNIZE THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF THE ARKANSAS 4-H PROGRAM ON OUR YOUTH AND TO PROCLAIM FEBRUARY 28, 2023, AS 4-H DAY.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGING, CHILDREN AND YOUTH, LEGISLATIVE & MILITARY AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 3, 2023 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 1
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 25
Speaker 34
Speaker 37
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 53
Speaker 57
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 75
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 24
Speaker 103
Speaker 110
Jp Tribble
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 118
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 133
Speaker 129
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Speaker 150
Speaker 152
Speaker 153
Speaker 22
Speaker 175
Speaker 174
Speaker 187
Brian Welch
Unverified
Speaker 138
Speaker 197
Speaker 203
Julie Atkins
Unverified