'Poverty is not neglect' bill debated; sponsor agrees to delay for legal drafting

The Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee heard extended testimony and debate on House Bill 347, a measure the sponsor described as clarifying that poverty, by itself, should not be treated as child neglect.

Sponsor Representative Hurt said the bill codifies a policy intended to prevent unnecessary investigations and family separations by making clear that alleged harm "solely due to financial hardship" does not constitute neglect unless reasonable material resources have been offered and refused. She and supporters cited model language used in Texas and Iowa and said those states saw decreases in some child-welfare system measures after similar changes.

Public witnesses and advocates, including Nina Gurak of Healthy and Free Tennessee, testified in favor of the bill and cited results from Texas. Gurak said Texas saw a 50 percent decrease in Department of Children's Services cases following its changes and noted a multi-year decline in child death rates attributed to the policy shift.

The Department of Children's Services (DCS), represented by legislative director Jim Layman and Deputy General Counsel Sammie Mayfair, said it shares the bill's intent that poverty should not, by itself, be treated as neglect, but raised significant legal and practical concerns about the bill's current language. DCS said it trains staff not to remove children for poverty alone, described an existing decision tree used by the child-abuse hotline to screen referrals, and warned the bill's phrasing could shift the focus from the child's safety to the caregiver's financial circumstances. DCS counsel and the committee's legal services attorney, Michelle Fogarty, flagged that an amendment in the bill would change criminal and civil definitions of abuse and neglect and could be read to preclude a finding of abuse when reasonable resources had not been offered.

Committee members questioned DCS staff about the concrete factors investigators assess during home visits — for example, whether basic needs such as food, safe housing, and visible injuries are present. DCS witnesses described the assessment as holistic: investigators look for whether the home presents health hazards (rodent infestation, exposed wiring, feces), whether children are clothed and fed, and whether there are marks or bruises on a child. DCS emphasized that emergency removal authority is limited, subject to court review within 72 hours, and that termination-of-parental-rights and permanency processes could be affected by statutory changes.

Following extended discussion, Representative Hurt said she was willing to "roll it a week" to work with DCS and legal counsel on the bill's drafting, and the chair approved that postponement without objection. The record shows continuing concerns about litigation risk, evidentiary effects in court, and interaction with existing Tennessee law; committee members urged the sponsor and DCS to reconcile language before the bill returns to committee.

The committee did not adopt or reject the bill at this hearing; it was postponed for further drafting and negotiation.