Senate takes up broad foster-care bill; amendments added on NDAs, liability and child protections

The Senate considered a comprehensive substitute for Senate Bill 43, a multi-part foster-care bill that the sponsor said aims to address placements, legal representation for older youth, and system capacity for children with severe behavioral challenges. Senators debated multiple floor amendments, and several were adopted before the chamber returned to the substitute.

Sponsor’s description: The sponsor, identified as the senator from Callaway, said the bill has three main components: (1) provide placement options for children with severe behavioral challenges so they are not housed in hotels, businesses or hospitals; (2) create a right to counsel so older youth (the sponsor described age 14 and older) can receive appointed legal representation aimed at accelerating permanency; and (3) a pilot to create a Child and Family Representation office under the Supreme Court to support circuits with resources, training and funding for children's representation. The sponsor said the state is currently spending millions to place children out-of-state and that roughly 200 children were being housed in settings such as hotels.

Amendment on nondisclosure agreements (NDAs): Senator Stone offered an amendment (labeled as his Senate Bill 590, “Trey’s law”) aimed at clarifying state law so nondisclosure agreements could not be used to bar evidence or silence survivors in civil childhood-sex-abuse cases. Stone described survivors’ harm when settlement confidentiality prevents victims from speaking; he said NDAs are “being misused in civil courts to silence victims of child ****** abuse and trafficking.” The amendment language the chamber considered states: "a nondisclosure agreement by any party to a childhood ****** abuse action shall not be judicially enforceable in a dispute involving childhood ****** abuse allegations or claims and shall be void." The amendment attracted broad, bipartisan floor discussion and supporters framed it as a child-protection and public-safety measure.

Amendment to the amendment (victim choice): Senator McCreery offered an amendment to Stone’s amendment that added language allowing a survivor to choose to have a nondisclosure agreement enforced: "...unless the victim of childhood ****** abuse chooses to have the nondisclosure agreement enforced in disputes or claims." McCreery said the change respects survivors’ choices. Stone and others raised concerns that allowing a victim later to opt to enforce an NDA could create perverse incentives or pressure on minors and suggested careful drafting to avoid unintended retroactive or statute-of-limitations consequences.

Liability and sovereign-immunity language: Another senator (the nineteenth) offered an amendment striking language in the substitute that would extend sovereign-immunity protections to non-state providers working with children. That amendment removed section(s) that would have limited liability for non-state entities delivering intensive placements. The senator argued accountability is necessary and cautioned against broadly removing recourse for harmed children. The amendment to remove the sovereign-immunity extension was adopted.

Other amendments: The chamber adopted multiple additional amendments including (a) changing criminal code language so conduct with a minor in certain caregiver relationships covers 17-year-olds (amendment to change statutory age references to 18 for specific offenses), and (b) a technical amendment removing or adjusting statutory cross-references. The sponsor agreed to some amendments and accepted one change as friendly; several amendments were debated and adopted by voice vote after floor discussion.

Support and concerns: Supporters described the bill as an effort to reduce costly out‑of‑state placements (the sponsor said state spending on out‑of‑state placements exceeded $10 million in FY24 for roughly 100 children and had already reached over $13 million in FY25 through Feb. 24). Speakers emphasized the need to place children in appropriate, trauma‑informed settings and to ensure legal representation to push for permanency. Opponents or questioners raised concerns about liability protections for providers, retroactivity and statute‑of‑limitations interactions with NDA language, the transfer of guardian‑ad‑litem roles to counsel for youth ages 14 and older, and definitional clarity for "diminished capacity." Senators sought legal review and technical fixes before final passage.

Floor outcome and next steps: The transcript shows adoption of several amendments and votes by voice. The sponsor and other senators repeatedly indicated continuing discussions and off-floor work to refine liability and definitional language; the bill was not finally adopted on the floor during the excerpted sequence (the transcript shows amendments adopted and the substitute under ongoing consideration). Several senators said they would continue to work with the sponsor and other stakeholders to resolve outstanding legal and implementation questions.

Key factual points established on the floor, per sponsor’s statements: - Approximately 200 children in state care are currently housed in hotels, hospitals or businesses because appropriate placements are unavailable. - Out‑of‑state placement costs: about $10,000,000 in FY2024 (for roughly 100 children) and over $13,000,000 in FY2025 through Feb. 24 (sponsor’s floor numbers). - The sponsor reported the children-in-state-care average fiscal cost at roughly $30,000 per child per year (source cited to departmental data in floor remarks).