Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adoption Tpr Financial Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary panel reopens debate on financial‑support factor in termination‑of‑parental‑rights law
Summary
On Feb. 11, committee counsel reviewed language to restore a statutory factor that allows courts to consider a parent's financial support when deciding termination of parental rights in pending adoptions. The panel agreed to seek additional testimony from DCF and family‑law practitioners; no vote was taken.
Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 11 that the panel is being asked to reconsider language in Title 15A governing termination of parental rights in adoption cases.
"My understanding is that DCF came to Senate Judiciary and asked for a change to the law with regard to adoption and the process of termination of parental rights," Childs said, describing a provision removed last year that had allowed a court to consider whether a parent had provided any financial support for a child six months of age and older.
The provision was removed in last year’s miscellaneous judiciary bill, Childs said. Family law practitioners later raised concerns after the change took effect, prompting legislative counsel to put the issue back on the committee’s agenda.
Childs summarized the reinstated language under review: in Title 15A, when a termination‑of‑parental‑rights (TPR) petition is filed for a child age six months or older, a court could consider whether the parent ever provided financial support as one factor, among others, when determining by clear and convincing evidence whether termination is in the child’s best interest.
A committee member questioned reopening the change so soon after it was enacted. "It seems strange to me that we would undo something we just did," said Committee Member 1.
Another member said the committee had likely not taken extensive testimony when the matter was included in the miscellaneous bill last year and that additional evidence could be helpful. "If there's a trend in which this is becoming more commonplace, then it'd be good to know as well," said Committee Member 2, adding that the factor can "weigh in either direction."
Committee members said they expect to hear from DCF general counsel—the agency that requested the original change—and from family law practitioners, including letters received from attorney Kurt Hughes. "I think we can get some additional testimony from the folks you just described and if we could find any directly impacted people, try to hear from them as well," Committee Member 2 said.
No formal motion or vote occurred during the discussion. The committee did not adopt or reject statutory language on the record; members directed staff to schedule additional testimony from DCF and family law practitioners before the committee takes further action.
