Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated debate on bill to allow reinstatement of terminated parental rights; House circles measure for further work
Summary
Representative Christiansen’s HB 156 — to create a statutory pathway to reinstate terminated parental rights — drew extended floor debate March 5, 2013; supporters cited audits and out‑of‑state precedents, opponents warned of risks to adoptive-family permanence and urged further agency review; the House voted to circle the bill for additional work.
A lengthy, often emotional debate played out on the House floor March 5 over a bill that would create a legal pathway to reinstate previously terminated parental rights in some circumstances.
Representative Christiansen (sponsor) opened by tying the amendment to recent performance audits of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) and the state’s child-welfare system. He said the amendment narrows and simplifies the bill and described three elements: a statement of parental liberty interest, the ability for a parent to designate a caregiver for courts to consider, and a pathway for reinstatement modeled in part on laws adopted in several other states. Christiansen cited audit findings and budget figures for DCFS, and argued that reinstatement in narrowly defined circumstances gives a second chance to parents who later become appropriate caregivers.
Opponents — including Representatives Arendt, Westwood, Nelson and Wilson — urged caution. Their floor remarks warned that language in the bill (for example, a broad statement of parental rights 'under natural law') raised serious concerns for DCFS, the Attorney General’s office and the Guardian ad Litem, and could generate litigation and instability for adoptive families. Several speakers emphasized the need to prioritize the child’s right to stability and permanence; one lawmaker noted most terminations have been upheld on appellate review and cautioned that reinstatement could undermine adoption finality unless carefully bounded.
In back-and-forth exchanges the sponsor said he had worked with agencies but that not all had volunteered formal language and that he continued to refine the amendment. Multiple members suggested more time and technical work; Representative Noel moved to 'circle' the bill (a motion to take it off the immediate floor calendar to allow further work). The motion to circle passed, and HB 156 was circled for additional drafting and stakeholder consultation rather than being advanced to final passage that day.
