Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House delays changes to Foster Care Citizens Review Board after members raise implementation concerns
Summary
Lawmakers debated Senate Bill 17 for more than an hour before voting to "circle" the measure for further review after members questioned whether the citizen review board has authority, whether its recommendations are followed by DCFS and judges, and why review timing would shift from 12 to 18 months.
Representative Mascaro, sponsor of Senate Bill 17, defended a set of changes to the Foster Care Citizens Review Board that would shift some reviews from a 12-month to an 18-month schedule so the board can focus on children who remain in custody longer than a year. "The change of this bill will allow the Foster Care Assistance Review Board to focus its attention on reviews on those children who remain in care longer than 12 months," Mascaro said, adding the board would still conduct reviews during the first year when appropriate.
Opponents and questioners pushed back on both the board's authority and the practical effect of the bill. Representative Tilton asked whether the board is merely advisory or whether it carries policy authority; Mascaro replied that the board is a review committee and not a policy-making committee. Representative Tilton also pressed on who would be proactively notified when a court issues a finding or determination about a child, noting the bill strikes a notice provision in lines 142–144. Mascaro pointed to statutory language later in the bill that grants the review board access to court records and hearing information but acknowledged he could not describe the physical steps for notification.
Several members described constituent frustration with the current process. Representative Eure (voice recorded in the floor debate) said constituents who serve on local review boards "have been away completely frustrated" because their recommendations are often ignored. Representative Christiansen and others echoed concerns that a steering committee in the current code contains officials with more authority than citizen reviewers, which can undercut the impact of volunteer boards. By contrast, Representative McGee described the boards as "a window for the local community" into difficult custody cases and urged members to preserve citizen participation.
After extended questioning and remarks, Representative Christensen moved to "circle" the bill — a procedural action to delay final passage so sponsors and members can resolve open questions. The motion to circle passed on a voice vote. The sponsor argued that SB17 had already been vetted by interim committees and stakeholder groups over the summer and that circling would delay a process that those groups supported.
The House left SB17 circled pending additional work and clarification on notification procedures and the board's effective role in practice. The bill will return to the House calendar after the sponsor and interested members reconcile the outstanding concerns.
The motion to circle was made and decided on the House floor; further committee or sponsor-directed work was recommended but no formal amendments were adopted on the floor.
