Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permanency Kinship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear examples of kinship searches, expedited permanency and parental‑reinstatement options used in other states
Summary
The witness described statutory kinship-search requirements, placement-priority rules that can put foster parents on equal footing with relatives in some cases, expedited processes for older youth and reinstatement of parental rights in limited circumstances.
During testimony to the House Oversight Subcommittee on Child Welfare System on Jan. 30, Bradley Gilbreth described several statutory approaches other states have used to prioritize relatives, expedite permanency and allow for restoration of parental rights.
Gilbreth said states such as Arizona require a documented, timely relative search when a child enters care and file the results with the court so a judge can oversee the search. "Relative searches should happen on the front end," he said, adding that notice timelines and response windows (for example, 30–60 days) can be codified to ensure relatives are found and considered quickly.
On placement priority, Gilbreth described an Arizona law that gives certain long-term foster parents a status equal to relatives for young children who have lived with a foster family nearly their whole life; in those cases the judge weighs the foster family and blood relatives on equal footing to determine the child's best interest.
To improve permanency for older youth, the witness said states expedite home studies and other pre-adoptive requirements for adolescents with viable permanent placements and have created mechanisms to restore parental rights in targeted cases. He described restoration statutes that include conditions: the child is likely to age out without permanency, the parent has shown sufficient reform, the child agrees, and a trial home placement is used before reinstatement.
Committee members raised questions about licensing, kinship placements where the alleged abuser remains present, cross‑state relative placements and funding implications. The witness said some statutory models expressly require the agency to conduct robust searches, give relatives specified notice and file documentation with the court; he recommended drafting similar statutory language for Michigan if the committee wishes to pursue those reforms.
No formal bill was introduced during the hearing; members asked for statutory language and implementation details.
