Senate committee debates enforceability of post‑adoption contact agreements

Senator Julie Van Orden, R‑District 30, introduced Senate Bill 113 on behalf of its sponsors, describing it as a voluntary law allowing parties to record a post‑adoption contact agreement that would be filed with the adoption case. "This is a post adoption contract agreement means a document agreed to prior to the finalization of an adopt[ion] of a child that outlines the relationship between an adopted parent, a birth parent, and an adopted child after the finalization of the adoption," Van Orden told the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee.

Supporters and opponents agreed on the basic concept — written agreements to record the parties' expectations about photos, letters or updates — but sharply disagreed about whether filing those agreements with the court would change that relationship and create new legal risks.

Why it matters: the bill responds to repeated accounts from birth parents who say adoptive parents stopped sending promised updates after placement. Proponents said putting commitments in writing and on the court record would make adoptive parents think carefully before promising contact and reassure birth parents. Opponents — including licensed adoption social workers, adoption attorneys and some adoption agencies — said the bill as written risks adding cost, court involvement and uncertainty that could harm the parties and the child.

What proponents said: Terry Markcroft of Unplanned Good, who helped craft the bill, told the committee the measure would allow voluntary written agreements to be signed by all parties and filed with the adoption case. "When people write things down, they think about what they're promising," Markcroft said, and she noted more than two dozen other states have statutes touching enforceability of post‑adoption contact agreements.

What opponents said: Kara (Kara/Karen) Walsh, a licensed social worker who said she has worked in Idaho adoptions for 17 years and has been involved in about 300 adoptions, urged the committee to "post" the bill for further work. Walsh and others said agencies already prepare written open‑adoption agreements without filing them in court and that inserting the courts could create financial and emotional burdens, interfere with established agency mediation, and risk turning private trust relationships into adversarial disputes. "We do put them in writing," Walsh said, "and our social work staff is already navigating those within our agency at no cost to birth parents or adoptive parents." Amber Stiles, who identified herself as a birth mother, also opposed the bill in its present form, saying court‑filed agreements could create implied coercion at the time rights are terminated.

Legal and practical concerns: several adoption attorneys and experienced practitioners told the committee that Idaho adoption practice includes a mandatory parental‑rights termination hearing conducted in magistrate court and that Idaho courts currently warn birth parents that pre‑adoption promises are not legally enforceable. Attorney Shelly Kazakos (described herself as an adoption attorney and Quad A member) said putting agreements on the court record could invite judges to evaluate them later under "best interest of the child" standards and could force adoptive parents into court years after they have become the child’s legal parents. "These parents need the autonomy like the rest of us to decide what's best for the children," she said.

Process and next steps: Committee members debated two procedural options: sending the bill to the Senate floor with a "do pass" recommendation, or referring it to the committee’s fourteenth‑order process for further amendment and stakeholder work. The committee voted on a motion to send the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation and on a substitute motion to send it to the fourteenth order for possible amendment. The committee recorded votes on both motions; the substitute motion to send the bill to the fourteenth order failed, and the committee discussion concluded without the bill advancing with a due‑pass recommendation at that time.

What the committee heard most: witnesses described the bill as voluntary, but questioned whether filing agreements with the court would change how judges and parties view them. Adoption agencies stressed agency‑level written agreements and mediation practices already exist; proponents argued that statute would give birth parents meaningful reassurance.

Outlook: Committee members repeatedly invited further stakeholder negotiation. Multiple committee members said they supported the underlying concept but had concerns about the court‑filing mechanism and the potential for unintended consequences; several urged the sponsor and agencies to work on revised language before returning the bill to the committee.

Ending note: The committee hearing produced no final legislative finding on the bill; senators concluded the item after recorded votes on procedural motions and discussion that signaled continued concern and an interest in additional stakeholder work.