Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House amends and circles DCFS foster‑care bill after lengthy debate over relatives' definitions
Summary
HB 312, which seeks faster approval and broader kinship placement for relatives in foster‑care cases, drew extensive floor debate over how broadly to define "relative" (step‑parents, stepsiblings, cousins and whether to use a Cox relationship chart); the House ultimately adopted several amendments and circled the bill for further work.
Representative Wayne A. Harper presented House Bill 312 to the floor on Feb. 21, 2000, framing it as a bill to expedite placement with relatives, expand the definition of kinship for foster‑care approval and allow the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) greater flexibility when federal rules change.
The bill proposes an expedited approval process for related families, an expansion of the kinship definition and longer preferential placement periods (90 days in certain cases). Representative Harper explained the measure responds to federal rule changes and is intended to help children stay with relatives when appropriate.
Floor debate focused on several contested amendments. Representative Saunders moved (Amendment No. 3) to replace a strict five‑working‑day requirement that parents disclose names and addresses of relatives with a requirement that parents "cooperate with the division within five working days to provide information regarding relatives who may be able and willing to care for the child." Saunders argued the original five‑day name‑and‑address mandate was unreasonable in large extended families; the amendment passed.
A later amendment proposed by Representative Wei sought to expand the list of relatives to include cousins and stepsiblings; that motion, and an array of substitute motions (including a narrowed proposal for "first cousin"), prompted an extended exchange about administrative burden, the definition of "relative," and whether courts could look beyond the preferential list when needed. Opponents warned that an overly broad list could create an unmanageable number of preferred candidates and delay placements; proponents argued expanded pools can help find suitable homes. Representative Zelman proposed substituting a legally recognized "Cox relationship chart" as the statutory definition; that proposal led the House to circulate HB 312 for distribution and further drafting.
Several amendments were adopted and others were rejected in recorded or voice votes during floor deliberations; because the bill was ultimately circled for rework and distribution rather than passed to final enrollment on this day, sponsors said DCFS and legislative drafters would reconcile definitions and administrative details before returning the measure to the calendar.
