Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Caregiver Background Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee moves bill to add felonies to caregiver disqualifications, adds judicial review language
Summary
Senators advanced House Bill 131, which would amend statute 29‑17‑5 to add specified felony convictions that disqualify caregiver applicants, permit an 'unreasonable risk' standard, and add language on judicial review; proponents cited rising abuse reports and opponents raised data‑security concerns about background check transfers.
House Bill 131, presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee, would amend Section 29‑17‑5 to expand the grounds that disqualify an applicant from caregiver roles, add an "unreasonable risk" standard for disqualification, and provide explicit judicial‑review language for applicants denied under the statute.
Sponsor remarks summarized the bill’s changes and listed the felony convictions newly added in the bill text: human trafficking; assault of a peace officer; identity theft; and cruelty to animals. The sponsor also described the bill as building on prior work to strengthen background checks administered through the division of health improvement.
Alex Castillo Smith, deputy cabinet secretary for the Health Care Authority, told the committee that severe abuse investigations and exploitations have increased and that New Mexico has fewer disqualifying convictions in current law than other states. ‘‘There has been a 117% increase in severe abuse and exploitation since fiscal year ’22,’’ he said, arguing that the bill seeks to address gaps that allowed a person charged with child abuse to remain a paid caregiver for another vulnerable child in one recent case.
Committee members questioned the bill’s judicial‑review language and whether a separate appeals statute needed explicit cross‑reference. Mark Reynolds, general counsel for the Division of Health Improvement, and later the Health Care Authority, said applicants retain their statutory right to appeal administrative decisions and noted that Supreme Court procedural rules (cited as Rule 1074 in committee exchange) apply when a statutory right to appeal exists.
One opponent, Jake Smith of the Governed a Change Project, urged the committee to conduct oversight and asked about a reported data breach involving the Department of Health’s background‑check database. Smith said he had reported the breach in January 2024 and that the system had exposed personal information for people undergoing background checks; he asked for accountability and oversight of the transfer of responsibilities to the Health Care Authority.
After brief discussion the committee moved the bill forward. The committee chair announced a do‑pass recommendation after no member objected to the motion.
