[{"_1":2,"_105":-5,"_106":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85,95],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6289887,"mediaKeyId","2531894-bc36081d1ebb6b77fb2a0e1acfc84a6d","parentId",2531894,"title","Committee backs resolution asking that federal family‑planning grants allow use for adoption supports","audioSeconds",322,"startMs",2408000,"endMs",2730000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531894-bc36081d1ebb6b77fb2a0e1acfc84a6d&start=2408&end=2730","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6289887/Idaho/Committee-backs-resolution-asking-that-federal-familyplanning-grants-allow-use-for-adoption-supports","mediaUrl","author","Idaho Legislature","date","2025-03-10T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Concurrent Resolution 105, introduced by Senator Julie Van Orden, asks that if federal family‑planning or family‑health grant programs are made available to states, Idaho should be able to use such funds for adoption education, birth‑mother supports and related adoption expenses. The House Health and Welfare Committee voted to send the resolution to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation.

Senator Van Orden told the committee the resolution does not request federal funds but asks that, if the federal government offers grants in these areas, Idaho be allowed to use them for adoption‑related supports. \"If grants come … in the health and welfare space that has to do with, maybe family planning or family promotion of some kind or health grants become available … Idaho would like to see provisions put in there so that those funds may be used for adoption expenses,\" she said.

Terry Marcroft, identifying himself as representing an organization called Unplanned Good, testified in support. Marcroft urged the committee to view adoption education and birth‑mother supports as a way to increase adoption rates and to channel federal dollars toward building capacity in Idaho. In his remarks he stated, \"Each year, nearly 3000000 American women face unplanned pregnancies, but less than 1 percent choose adoption,\" and argued increasing awareness and supports would expand adoption as an option.

Opponents on the committee argued the state should avoid reliance on federal funds and prefer private‑sector or nonprofit approaches. Representative Levitt moved to hold the resolution and argued that private nonprofits could be leveraged instead of using federal tax dollars. Several other members echoed fiscal caution and recommended local nonprofit action rather than expanding the state's acceptance of federal grants.

After debate the committee approved sending SCR 105 to the House floor with a due‑pass recommendation. The committee chair called the voice vote and recorded that he voted aye; several members asked to be recorded. Committee minutes show members asked to be recorded include Representatives Thompson, Taylor, Bergoglund, Raeser and Levitt.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","House Standing Committees Health and Welfare March 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Concurrent Resolution 105 asks that, if federal family‑planning or family‑health grants become available to states, Idaho be able to use the funds for adoption education, birth‑mother supports and adoption expenses.","taxTitle","2025 Legislative Sessions, Idaho","taxId",77671,"location","Idaho","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6289892,"Committee holds bill that would require health‑district board representatives to be elected officials",211,54000,265000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531894-bc36081d1ebb6b77fb2a0e1acfc84a6d&start=54&end=265","/articles/6289892/Idaho/Committee-holds-bill-that-would-require-healthdistrict-board-representatives-to-be-elected-officials","House Health and Welfare Committee members heard testimony on House Bill 366 on a proposal from Representative Doug Pickett to require that people serving as representatives on district health boards be elected officials rather than county employees or other appointees. The bill sponsor said the change is intended to increase public accountability; committee members voted to hold the bill in committee.

Representative Doug Pickett, District 27, told the committee the bill (an updated version of a prior draft labeled House Bill 241) came from county commissioners in his district. \"This bill is intended to ensure that representatives on district health boards are elected officials,\" Pickett said, adding that the statute's allowance for a physician to serve would remain. He said the updated text allows county commissions to appoint other elected officials where commissioners cannot serve, but would not leave physician representation out.

The bill's sponsor framed the change as a question of fiduciary duty: \"To what extent should an elected county commissioner delegate his or her authority outside of an elected capacity before he or she is eventually abrogating that duty?\" Pickett said.

Former state Representative Greg Furch, who said he was testifying only for himself, told the committee that a 2021 law (Senate Bill 1060) already requires county commissioners to approve or reject district health‑board mandates within seven days. \"What Senate Bill 1060 did is require that any mandate of a health district be rubber stamped by the county commissioners in that jurisdiction within 7 days,\" Furch said. He warned that the bill would remove flexibility for counties that appoint subject‑matter experts and said it could replace existing citizen members (he said three members on his board would be replaced under the proposal).

Committee members pressed on practical details. Representative McCann asked why an elected official with no public‑health background should replace a registered nurse or other expert; Representative Rubell asked how a provision in the draft that gives a county that provides the largest share of funding priority to appoint a seat would operate in multi‑county districts such as Central District Health (Ada County typically provides the most funds). Representative Rubell also asked about a change in the draft that would require a two‑thirds vote to remove members; Pickett and others said that provision arose from discussion among counties but that they could not point to a specific incident that prompted it.

Committee debate also included concerns about separation of powers and qualifications. Representative Kaler moved to hold the bill in committee, noting concerns about commissioners sitting on multiple governing bodies and that subject‑matter expertise matters. Representative Furman offered a substitute motion to send the bill to the floor with a do‑pass recommendation; an amended substitute to send to amending order was also moved and lost on roll call. After additional debate the committee voted to hold House Bill 366 in committee. The roll call on the motion to hold was 13 yes, 2 no; the committee clerk announced \"Roll call shows 13 a's, 2 nay's, motion is as passed. House Bill 3 66 will be held in committee.\"

The bill would change how county seats on district health boards are filled, preserve statutory physician membership, and add an option for certain elected officials to fill seats when commissioners do not. Supporters framed the bill as increasing elected accountability; opponents and some members cautioned it could reduce technical expertise on boards and questioned whether existing statutory checks (notably the 7‑day requirement enacted in 2021) already provide the accountability Pickett described.

The committee did not advance the bill; it will remain in committee for further work and possible amendment.","The House Health and Welfare Committee heard testimony on House Bill 366, which would require representatives on district health boards to be elected officials; the committee voted to hold the bill after debate about accountability, expertise and statutory protections already in place.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6289878,"Committee sends child‑welfare timeline bill to floor to speed permanency for foster children",241,4113000,4354000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531894-bc36081d1ebb6b77fb2a0e1acfc84a6d&start=4113&end=4354","/articles/6289878/Idaho/Committee-sends-childwelfare-timeline-bill-to-floor-to-speed-permanency-for-foster-children","The House Health and Welfare Committee voted to send Senate Bill 1090 to the House floor with a due‑pass recommendation. Sponsors said the bill changes timing provisions in the Child Protective Act to create more frequent court oversight and reduce the time children spend in unstable placements.

Representative Healy, presenting the bill, said it shortens the interval between review hearings from six months to two months in some places and adjusts custody timelines to speed case resolution. \"On page 9, line 23, that change allows for consideration of the bond the foster child has formed with the substitute caretaker,\" Healy said. She described other changes on \"page 1, lines 15 and 17\" and on pages 5 and 7 that alter custody timelines (as printed in the bill packet) with the stated goal of reducing case stagnation and moving children more quickly to reunification or permanent placement.

Senator Galloway introduced a constituent, Natalie Baum, who described her family's multi‑year experience fostering two boys and the delays that prolonged uncertainty for the children. Baum told the committee the trial to terminate parental rights was delayed by six months and subsequent legal maneuvers, and that the statutory framework limited the court's ability to prioritize the children's best interests despite a judge's concern. \"Children deserve safe permanent homes,\" Baum said, describing trauma and the emotional cost to foster families.

Department of Health and Welfare staff told the committee the proposal aims to reduce case backlog and produce faster resolution; Jared Larson, the department's legislative and regulatory affairs chief, said more frequent hearings are intended to produce quicker outcomes and may reduce long‑term workload and costs by resolving cases earlier.

Representative Wheeler moved the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation; the committee approved the motion on a voice vote. Sponsors and witnesses emphasized potential state savings from reduced foster‑care duration and the benefit of faster permanency for children.","Senate Bill 1090 would shorten review‑hearing intervals and alter custody timelines in the Child Protective Act to accelerate permanency for foster children; the committee adopted the bill and sent it to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation after sponsors and witnesses described intended benefits and personal stories from foster parents.",{"_33":96,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":97,"_41":98,"_43":99,"_45":100,"_47":101,"_49":50,"_51":102,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":103,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":104,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6289883,"Committee advances bill to restore combined termination and adoption hearings in most cases",222,3638000,3860000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531894-bc36081d1ebb6b77fb2a0e1acfc84a6d&start=3638&end=3860","/articles/6289883/Idaho/Committee-advances-bill-to-restore-combined-termination-and-adoption-hearings-in-most-cases","The House Health and Welfare Committee advanced Senate Bill 1021 to the amending order with a committee amendment that clarifies when termination and adoption hearings may be combined. Proponents said the change reinstates a practice that expedited placements prior to a court decision that altered the process.

Representative Raeser explained the bill and said that in 2020 the court had interpreted existing law to prevent combining termination and adoption hearings in some cases. \"In 2020 … the supreme court determined that because that was not in statute, it could not be done that way,\" Raeser told the committee. The bill reinstates combined hearings \"other than in certain carefully selected situations,\" allowing children to be placed with adoptive families more quickly in most cases.

Members adopted a committee amendment addressing a drafting ambiguity on page 3. The committee amendment replaces lines 35–36 with language stating, in part, that a \"consent to termination signed by the parent or parents of the child has been filed, and the termination is initiated by the department pertaining to a child who is in legal custody of the department.\" Representative Raeser and Department of Health and Welfare legislative staff said the change puts consented terminations involving children in Department custody on the same footing as other consented terminations.

Jared Larson, legislative and regulatory affairs chief at the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, told the committee the amendment makes clear the subsection applies to all consented terminations and preserves the department's ability to follow the 2020 practice when the department initiates termination for a child in its custody. \"This puts all … consented terminations on equal footing in Idaho law,\" Larson said.

The committee approved sending the bill to general orders with the committee amendment. The motion to send Senate Bill 1021 to the amending order with the committee amendment carried on voice vote.","Senate Bill 1021 would allow termination‑of‑parental‑rights hearings and adoption hearings to be held together in many cases, returning to a pre‑2020 practice that sponsors say speeds permanent placement for children. The committee sent the bill to the amending order with a committee amendment clarifying consent language.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee backs resolution asking that federal family‑planning grants allow use for adoption supports

Committee holds bill that would require health‑district board representatives to be elected officials

Committee sends child‑welfare timeline bill to floor to speed permanency for foster children

Committee advances bill to restore combined termination and adoption hearings in most cases