Subcommittee refines HB553 definitions to add trauma‑informed and psychological‑abuse language

Chair opened the subcommittee meeting on House Bill 553 by framing the effort as narrowly focused on statutory definitions, not on adding new punishments or removing parental rights.

"This is literally the definitions of child abuse and neglect and the rebuttable presumption of harm and abuse and neglect case," the chair said, explaining the measure forms "the foundation of how we then build other bills."

The Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) told the committee the proposed language is intended to clarify rather than expand agency authority. "Psychological abuse is defined as reports where a child suffers or is likely to suffer psychological, emotional harm as a result of parental behaviors," said Jen Ross, deputy director of DCYF, reading from agency policy. Ross listed examples DCYF considers when screening reports: "persistent and severe ridiculing, terrorizing, bullying, isolating," threats of harm, and caregiver overdose in front of a child.

Ross and other staff said screening decisions depend on two elements: the caregiver action or inaction, and observable impacts on the child — such as bedwetting, severe withdrawal, depression, anxiety, self‑harm or running away. Ross said ordinary disciplinary actions like grounding a child or temporarily taking away keys or a phone are "prudent parenting" and would generally be screened out unless they rose to the level of persistent or severe harm.

Susan Larrabee, general counsel for DCYF, noted the legislature added a statutory definition of psychological maltreatment in 2021 to allow the division to address emotional forms of harm. "Psychological maltreatment means pervasive and emotionally abusive behavior, which shall include but not be limited to patterns of threatening, berating, or demeaning behavior," Larrabee said, summarizing the existing statutory language and the impetus for clearer definitions.

Lisa Maschio, associate child advocate, told the committee the change is intended to help courts and practitioners apply the law consistently and to close gaps where very young children with severe injuries previously returned home without services or safety plans. "This is not meant to take children away from parents," Maschio said; she pointed to enacted statute (SB417) and the bill's stated purpose of preserving family unity while protecting children.

Committee members and counsel warned against shifting procedural or litigation questions into the definitions bill. Representative Greg and others referenced a stakeholder memo from Representative Markel that examined courtroom implications; members agreed policy and training will follow statutory changes and that the division's practices, attorney training and OCA oversight are part of implementation.

The committee discussed logistics of amendments and agreed to consolidate changes into one clean amendment before sending language to the Office of Legislative Services (OLS). Members asked DCYF and the OCA to share the policies and training materials that support the draft language ahead of the next subcommittee meeting.

Ending: The committee scheduled another subcommittee meeting (the first Monday in March) and requested DCYF/OCA provide the cited trauma‑informed materials and implementation guidance for review.