Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Abuse Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee concurs in bill creating central registry for substantiated child-abuse reports with reporting requirements
Summary
The committee adopted two amendments to Senate Bill 468—one clarifying evidence definitions and another requiring annual reporting by DPHHS—and concurred in the bill as twice amended; a proposal to extend the expungement waiting period to five years failed.
Vice Chair Buttry moved to concur in Senate Bill 468, described by committee staff, Ms. Allen, as an act providing for a statewide central registry for substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect, and establishing expungement procedures and definitions. The committee considered three amendments: 468.2.1 (sponsor-presented changes to definitions), 468.2.2 (reporting requirements), and 468.2.3 (an expungement-timing change moved by Representative Close).
Amendment 468.2.1 revised the definitions used in the bill. Ms. Allen explained the amendment replaces prior language and defines "substantiated" to mean the department has investigated and determined by a preponderance of the evidence that abuse or neglect occurred; it also revises "unfounded" and "unsubstantiated" definitions. The committee adopted 468.2.1 by voice vote.
Amendment 468.2.2 added reporting requirements. As explained by Ms. Allen, the amendment requires the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) to report annually by Sept. 1 to the Children, Families, Health and Human Services Interim Committee "in accordance with 5 11 2 10" on the total number of individuals in the registry; the number of expungement requests granted, denied, and added during the past calendar year; whether requests were first-time or subsequent; and the reasoning for denials. The committee adopted 468.2.2 by voice vote.
Representative Close moved amendment 468.2.3 to allow expungement applications after five years (instead of the bill's subject period). Miss Grossman had testified in support of a longer waiting period, according to Close's remarks. Amendment 468.2.3 failed on a roll call: the transcript records the committee vote as 9 Aye, 12 Nay. After that defeat, the committee voted by voice to concur in Senate Bill 468 as twice amended; proxies were recorded and the committee declared the concurrence.
The record shows the committee focused on definitional standards (preponderance of evidence) and transparency through annual reporting by DPHHS; the committee declined to adopt the longer expungement timeline proposed by amendment 468.2.3.
