Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Protective Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DCF warns bill letting juvenile petitions finish after 18 would strain system
Summary
The Department of Children and Families told the Committee on Children that Senate Bill 1215 — which would allow juvenile courts to finish abuse and neglect proceedings filed before a child’s 18th birthday even if adjudication occurs after they turn 18 — could overwhelm an already strained child welfare system.
The Department of Children and Families told the legislature it opposes Senate Bill 1215, saying the bill would let juvenile courts adjudicate neglect, abuse or uncared-for petitions that were filed before a child’s 18th birthday even if the proceedings finish afterward.
DCF Commissioner Jody Hill Lilly told the Committee on Children the proposal “has several legal and fiscal concerns” and could “result in a substantial resource problem for our child protective service system.”
The bill would amend the current definition of “child” in Connecticut’s juvenile statutes so the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters could finish adjudication and disposition of petitions that were filed while the alleged victim was under 18. Lilly said the department already files petitions for older youth and typically works with courts to resolve those before the youth turns 18. “Approximately 100 17‑plus year olds have neglect, abuse, or uncared for petitions filed on their behalf in juvenile courts annually,” she said, and the agency already provides services post‑majority for youth committed before they turn 18.
But Lilly and DCF General Counsel Susan Hamilton warned the committee of unintended consequences. Hamilton said juvenile adjudication and disposition are structured around the child’s needs, and that commitment to DCF carries guardianship consequences the agency cannot easily apply to adults. Lilly said the change could mean “adults entering care in addition to the growing services post‑majority population we already serve,” creating new placement and staffing pressures.
Committee members and DCF staff discussed alternatives, including improved coordination with the judicial branch to expedite hearings for 17‑year‑olds so adjudication occurs prior to majority. DCF also stressed coordination with adult service agencies — Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and Department of Developmental Services — for older youth who need ongoing care, but said those systems do not substitute for juvenile court commitments in many cases.
Lilly and Hamilton repeatedly urged the committee to weigh the placement and staffing effects. “The primary purpose of the proposed language is to permit the court to commit an adult over the age of 18 to the care and custody of and guardianship of DCF, which will further tax an already overburdened child welfare system,” Lilly said.
Committee members asked for data and options for compromise; DCF said it will work with the chairs and judicial partners on changes that can protect children while limiting system strain. For now, the agency asked that any statutory change be accompanied by a careful implementation plan and likely additional resources.
