Committee hears bill to notify military family advocacy programs when children are abuse/neglect subjects

Representative Matt Ruby introduced House Bill 1338 to the North Dakota House Human Services Committee, saying the bill would require the Department of Health and Human Services—practically implemented by human service zones—to determine whether an individual involved in a child abuse or neglect allegation is a military member and, if so, to notify the nearest military installation’s Family Advocacy Program.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Representative Matt Ruby, said the purpose is victim support, not to shield offenders: “I assure you it's not. This is about trying to get help for the victims,” he told the committee.

Michelle Richards, Midwest regional liaison for the Department of Defense State Liaison Office, told the committee the Department of Defense supports the proposal. “This bill is a victim advocacy measure to protect our most vulnerable,” Richards said, adding that about 70% of military families live off base and that state-level guidance would create consistency in information sharing that the department uses for training and program funding.

Jay Sheldon, strategy and policy officer for the North Dakota National Guard and administrator for the North Dakota Military Commission, told lawmakers the commission supports the bill as a way to improve services and consistency statewide. He provided high-level counts of service members and dependents in the state to frame the potential scale of notifications.

Kim Jacobson, director of Agassiz Valley Human Service Zone and president of the North Dakota Human Service Zone Directors Association, testified in support with suggested amendments. Jacobson outlined the human service zone role in child protective services—central intake, local CPS workers, and state field service specialists—and noted that memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with installations exist in some zones (for example Minot and Grand Forks) but not statewide. Jacobson recommended either preserving local MOUs or directing the Department of Health and Human Services to develop statewide MOUs and processes in cooperation with military family advocacy programs. She asked for clarifications the bill did not currently specify, including definitions of “military status” (active, reserve, dependent, retired), whether notification should include all branches, and whether family advocacy programs have authority to serve alleged offenders who are spouses or intimate partners.

Committee members asked practical questions about scope and process: whether the bill covers retirees (witnesses said it applies to current service members and qualifying dependents), which installation would be notified when a member of one branch lives near an installation of another branch, and how the reporting form and intake process would trigger a military-status determination. Witnesses described existing local MOUs near bases, and said family advocacy programs coordinate across branches when needed.

No formal action or vote was taken; the committee closed the hearing after testimony and questioning.

Ending: The committee received technical and operational questions and a proposed amendment from human services leaders; if the bill advances, lawmakers indicated they would consider language to clarify definitions and to direct state agency coordination to standardize MOUs and intake screening across human service zones.