Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate circles bill that would shift presumption in medical-neglect disputes
Summary
Senator Thomas’ fourth-substitute SB 90, which would place an initial presumption in favor of parents making medical decisions for children and outline a DCFS/AG process to 'flip' that presumption, was debated and circled for further amendment.
Senator Thomas presented fourth substitute Senate Bill 90 on Feb. 10, 2004, explaining that the bill ‘‘puts a basically presumption in favor of the parents’’ when disputes arise over medical treatment for children and describing the process by which the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) would investigate and the attorney general would seek court authority to reverse that presumption.
Thomas told the Senate that after DCFS investigates and conducts a home study to determine whether a parent is a "reasonable, prudent, and fit caregiver," the attorney general would screen and — if warranted — petition a court to "flip" the presumption. "That presumption can always be flipped," Thomas said on the floor.
Several senators asked for additional time and amendments. Senator Davis asked that the sponsors circle the bill so he could pursue follow-up questions with the attorney general’s office: "I'd like to ask the sponsor if we couldn't circle the bill," Davis said. Senator Knutson echoed concerns and said he could not vote for the bill until certain issues were addressed.
Thomas said he had worked with interested parties and would, as a courtesy, agree to circle the bill to continue negotiations on the outstanding issues. The motion to circle SB 90 carried; there was no final passage or recorded final vote on the floor that day.
The transcript records the central policy tension: SB 90 moves the default toward parental decision-making authority in medical disputes involving children while preserving a multi-step state process to seek court intervention where DCFS and the attorney general conclude a stronger state action is necessary. The bill was tabled for further sponsor negotiations rather than enacted on Feb. 10.
