Committee hears emotional arguments on bill allowing narrow relinquishment of adoptive parental rights

House Bill 1556 drew extensive and sometimes emotional testimony Wednesday as the House Human Services Committee debated a proposal that would let adoptive parents petition to relinquish parental rights in narrowly defined "extreme circumstances." The hearing featured testimony from the sponsor, adoptive parents, disability advocates and human‑service directors.

Representative Greg Seaman, R‑District 27, told the committee the bill addresses rare but acute situations in which an adopted child poses a sustained safety risk to other household members and medical experts provide evidence that the child is likely to reoffend. Under the bill’s language, the court would presume a petition should be granted if a court finds credible evidence of three specified conditions, including a qualifying clinical diagnosis, a violent act that would be criminal if committed by an adult and an imminent safety fear for the household.

"This is not a feel‑good piece of legislation," Representative Greg Seaman said. He described a hypothetical family whose adopted child later engages in repeated violent or sexualized behavior and said current law provides no clear path for adoptive parents in that rare circumstance.

Opponents urged a "do not pass" recommendation. Protection & Advocacy’s legal director, Brad Peterson, said the bill risks violating federal Indian Child Welfare Act notice and participation requirements and would leave children without the right to counsel in these proceedings. Kelsey Bless of the Department of Health and Human Services said the department opposes the bill because it would create a different legal standard for adoptive parents than for biological parents and could produce children who re‑enter care with no parent to reunify with.

Human service zone directors, adoption‑advocacy groups and faith organizations described the possible harms: adopted children who already experienced early trauma could be re‑traumatized, labeled "unadoptable," and reenter foster care where they may linger for extended periods. Burleigh County Human Service Zone director Chelsea Florrie said existing statutory processes govern abandoned children and that service gaps should be addressed rather than creating a separate termination pathway for adoptive parents.

Adoptive parents who testified against the bill described personal experiences of extreme stress and scarce options, but said terminating parental rights would permanently harm children who need permanence. One written testimony from an adoptive mother recounted years of intensive efforts to support a child with severe behavioral and mental‑health challenges and argued the family’s duty remains even in crisis.

The committee did not take a vote; testimony spanned legal, procedural and moral concerns and several witnesses offered alternative proposals, such as expanding therapeutic and respite support and improving access to behavioral‑health services. The department offered to work with the sponsor on possible alternatives.