Committee reviews kinship licensing changes; author removes two costlier provisions after stakeholder debate

Vice Chair Anna Hansen presented House File 14‑24 to create kinship‑specific foster home approval standards and to streamline licensing and supports for relative caregivers. The bill, developed with a kinship licensing task force and national standards, sought to increase timeliness, provide clearer information about available resources to relative caregivers, and prioritize access to childcare for children placed with kin.

Hansen said the bill responds to a structural shift: over 60% of foster placements in Minnesota are with relative kin, and the licensing system should be more responsive. The DE3 version adopted at the hearing included language to update training, background study timelines, and required materials in the 20 most common languages (including ASL), plus an appropriation to support relative kin through licensure.

During debate Hansen moved two amendments removing sections she described as costly or requiring additional review. Amendment A4 removed a proposed exemption that would have exempted relative caregivers from a 60‑month MFIP limit while they care for a related foster child; Hansen cited state cost concerns and adopted A4. Amendment A5 removed a set of criminal‑history adjustments Hansen had proposed to align with federal flexibilities — changes that would have shortened some permanent bars and reduced a TPR (termination of parental rights) disqualification period — after members and opponents raised safety and implementation questions.

Supporters, including Kathy Duffy of QPI Minnesota and Christina Zizi of Ampersand Families, urged a kin‑specific approach to licensing and said relatives often provide better outcomes for children when supported. They said relatives face barriers like paperwork, limited free time, access to technology and mistrust of the system, and recommended clearer communications and expedited processes.

Opponents, including a coalition representative with law‑enforcement experience, warned against lowering barriers for certain criminal convictions and for shortening disqualification windows, arguing public safety risks. Hansen said she removed the more controversial/costly sections in the A4 and A5 amendments during the hearing to keep the remaining, less costly reforms moving forward.

The committee adopted DE3 and A4 and A5 (both removals) and laid the remainder of House File 14‑24 over for further work, including continued stakeholder negotiation and fiscal review.