Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Parental Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts changes to parental-rights termination timelines after hourslong debate
Summary
After extended debate over definitions and timelines, the Wyoming House passed Senate File 22, which adjusts when courts may terminate parental rights following a finding of unfitness and shortens the waiting period for family caregivers to seek adoption to 24 months.
The Wyoming House of Representatives on March 4 passed Senate File 22, a measure revising grounds and timelines for termination of parental rights, after defeating an attempt to add a statutory definition of “unfit” and adopting an amendment that set a 24-month timeline for certain guardians or relatives to pursue termination and adoption.
The 60-member House put the bill to final passage after approving a third‑reading amendment that replaced an initial 36‑month threshold with 24 months. The bill passed the House by a roll-call vote of 44 yea, 17 nay and 1 excused.
Supporters, led on the floor by Representative Evan Feiler, said the amendment aligns timeframes for family caregivers with judicial practice and with other provisions of the bill. Feiler urged colleagues to adopt language that “allows the court and the judge to still be able to make a determination” by referencing a child’s “ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs.”
Opponents warned the Legislature against enacting statutory definitions that could supplant longstanding judicial common law. Representative Chestick argued courts have “a very robust understanding” of the term and that codifying a broad definition risks unintended consequences. Representative Provenza said a statutory definition could make termination of parental rights likelier in hardship cases where parents are struggling but not unfit.
A separate division of an amendment that would have inserted a statutory definition of “unfit” failed on the floor; lawmakers voted that division down before adopting the 24‑month amendment.
Lawmakers spent much of the debate contrasting two scenarios: children removed into state custody and placed in foster care under Department of Family Services oversight (which triggers a 15‑month inquiry under current law) and children placed with relatives or private guardianship arrangements. Proponents of shortening the relatives’ timeline argued family caregivers should not face a longer waiting period than unrelated foster caregivers. Critics said the state’s involvement in foster cases makes those proceedings and evidence substantially different and urged caution before adjusting timelines.
The House record shows multiple speakers on both sides of the question and a substantive floor discussion that lasted more than an hour before final passage. The bill now proceeds to the Senate for any further action already on the docket.
Votes and formal actions recorded on the floor include the adoption of third‑reading amendment number 2 (changing the relatives’ timeline to 24 months) and the final passage tally recorded above.
