Pennsylvania hearing spotlights bill to let parents seek reinstatement of terminated parental rights, with safeguards urged
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers held an informational hearing on HB 133, which would create a statutory pathway for reinstatement of terminated parental rights in Pennsylvania. Testimony from attorneys, advocates and people with lived experience emphasized safeguards — counsel for children, a one-year filing delay and protections for finalized adoptions — while lawmakers pressed for clearer limits on dangerous parents and disruption of adoptive homes.
Harrisburg — Lawmakers and advocates on Thursday discussed House Bill 133, a proposal to provide a legal pathway for parents whose parental rights were previously terminated to petition a court to have those rights reinstated.
Supporters said the bill would fill a gap in Pennsylvania law and could restore legal ties for families when parental fitness changes. "Termination of parental rights is the death penalty when it comes to parents and children," said Marissa McClellan, a family law attorney and former children and youth administrator, recounting a case where a parent who had been incarcerated later reunited with a teenage child and the court allowed the child to leave the dependency system and live with the biological parent.
The bill as presented would permit a parent to file for reinstatement under certain conditions, require that a child be appointed counsel to represent the child’s perspective, and bar petitions if a child is already adopted or if an adoption petition is pending. It would also require a waiting period: a parent generally must wait one year after filing for reinstatement, and youth age 12 and older must consent to reinstatement, supporters said.
Why it matters
Advocates framed the change as a narrowly tailored option to avoid long-term harms for children who remain without permanent families. "We have children and youth sitting in group placements, juvenile justice centers, hospitals, temporary care rooms with no clear pathway forward," said April Lee, cofounder of Philly Voice for Change and a parent with lived experience. Marcia Hopkins, a child-advocate social worker, told the committee that nationally "between 22 percent and 30 percent of youth who age out of foster care will go on to experience homelessness," citing the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and argued HB 133 could be one avenue to improve outcomes.
Legal context and safeguards
Sarah Katz, a clinical law professor at Temple University, told the committee federal rules that drive termination timelines — notably the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 — mean Pennsylvania often moves toward termination on a strict timetable. Katz said the bill creates a statutory mechanism for relief that some other states already provide: "By creating a pathway for the reinstatement of parental rights, Pennsylvania has an opportunity to restore hope, reunite families, and recognize the power of change." She and other witnesses stressed the bill would not automatically restore rights; rather, it would allow courts to consider petitions and determine whether circumstances have meaningfully changed and whether reinstatement would be in the child's best interest.
Committee concerns and exchanges
Several lawmakers raised questions about limiting harm to children and protecting stable adoptive families. Representative Pew asked whether parents convicted of particularly severe crimes could use the process to get children back, and whether children could be coached to use a petition to disrupt foster or adoptive placements. Katz replied that "certain convictions, the most heinous of convictions, are actually a basis for grounds for termination under our law already," and that a petition does not guarantee relief — courts must assess whether significant therapeutic treatment or other changes have occurred and whether reinstatement is in the child’s best interest.
Members also asked why HB 133 allows children themselves to file petitions, a provision that differs from other states. Supporters said that provision reflected input from youth and families who helped draft the bill and pointed to built-in protections: the child would be represented by counsel and older youth would need to consent.
What the bill would not do
Sponsors and witnesses repeatedly distinguished HB 133 from a measure that would undo finalized adoptions. Katz and other witnesses said the bill excludes children who have been adopted or whose adoptions are pending; they stressed that adoption law already provides counsel to parents in termination proceedings and that the bill’s relief is aimed at children without an adoptive resource or where an adoption plan has collapsed.
Next steps
The committee did not vote on the measure at the hearing. Sponsors, including Representative Krogewski and co-sponsor Representative Delosier, said they would work with committee staff and stakeholders to clarify language and address concerns about scope and safeguards. The hearing was adjourned with the committee thanking panelists for their testimony and noting the sponsors would seek amendments to tighten ambiguous language.
Sources: Testimony from Marissa McClellan, Marcia/Marsha Hopkins, April Lee and Sarah Katz during the House committee informational hearing on HB 133. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill at this session.
