Committee hears updates to foster-care bill of rights emphasizing sibling contact, court findings and faster notice to youth

Sen. Sarah Gelser Blue, sponsors and witnesses told the House Committee on Early Childhood and Human Services on April 24 that Senate Bill 875 would revise Oregon's Foster Care Bill of Rights to clarify sibling contact, expedite notice to youth and reaffirm a suite of rights for children in Department of Human Services (ODHS) custody.

The bill would make the foster-care bill of rights explicit for all children in ODHS care, including youth in temporary lodging and out-of-state placements; require that if the court limits or prevents sibling contact it must enter written findings explaining the safety reasons; and shorten the timeline for providing the rights document from two months to seven days after placement.

Sen. Sarah Gelser Blue (Senate District 8), who introduced the measure, said much of the draft language came from youth themselves. "If a child has a right to have contact with their sibling, a right really is not something that can be decided by a foster parent or a biological parent or a caseworker," she said, describing the provision that gives courts explicit authority to enter orders limiting sibling contact and to put the reasons in writing.

Gelser Blue reviewed additions to the list of rights that the bill would place in statute: the right to be safe; the right to regularly attend school and have access to a free and appropriate public education (she said this would not prohibit homeschooling but is intended to preserve access to assessments and services); the right to an attorney who represents the child's interests and confidential communications with that attorney; the right to be present at court hearings (the bill removes a prior qualifier and, at the Oregon Judicial Department's request, specifies the child has an "absolute right" to attend); the right to transport personal effects in an appropriate luggage carrier rather than a trash bag; and the right to decline to attend religious events that do not align with the child's beliefs.

Sen. Gelser Blue said the sibling provisions are central: "I think the parts in it that are most important to me probably noted were knowing what's going on in your own life, being able to go to your court hearing, and absolutely the sibling relationships and that sibling contact." She also noted a prior Sibling Bill of Rights was added in earlier years and said the new language builds on that work.

The committee's discussion included concerns about the religious-participation clause. Sen. Kaden (Senate) said the clause as written, which applies to all ages, could have a chilling effect on resource parents and expressed a preference to limit the right by age (he suggested tying the ability to decline to a teenage age such as 14 or 15). He said many resource parents come from faith-based backgrounds and warned that placing an unrestricted statutory right could deter placements without a narrower age or rule-based approach.

Molly Miller, deputy director for child welfare at ODHS, told the committee that the agency must balance a child's cultural and religious ties to their biological family with the practices of a foster home. She said rules already require resource parents to respect the child's family values and that ODHS tries to resolve conflicts through engagement with biological families, foster parents and the child.

Gelser Blue and others also discussed the foster-care ombudsman and the limits of that office's independence; Gelser Blue said the ombudsman currently reports to ODHS and described prior legislative proposals to create an independent children's advocate with separate funding and confirmation to increase independence.

Why it matters: committee members and advocates said placing key rights in statute and speeding notice could make rights easier for youth to use. Opponents and some committee members urged caution on provisions that could affect placement stability, especially the religious-participation clause. The sponsor indicated a dash-1 amendment was forthcoming to address some concerns.

Next steps: SB 875 was heard in committee; no final action or committee vote was recorded that day. Committee discussion continued into collateral bills to address luggage carriers and related rules.