Bill would limit public access to some child‑protective records to help parents find work, DHHS says rulemaking possible alternative
Loading...
Summary
LD 1922 would set timeframes to seal certain child‑protective records from background checks while excluding severe findings. Supporters said sealing would reduce lifelong barriers; OCFS said it supports the intent but raised timing, automatic vs. review, and staffing concerns (fiscal note: 12 background‑check staff).
Representative Michelle Meyer told the committee LD 1922 seeks to "support workforce development for families that were involved in child protective activities" by creating clear timelines for excluding certain records from public background checks while keeping the most serious offenses visible.
"This legislation proposes important changes to Maine's child abuse and neglect registry and background check process," Meyer said, describing automatic exclusion timelines for unsubstantiated and lower‑level substantiated findings after periods with no subsequent findings, and explicit exclusions for serious offenses such as trafficking or child fatality.
Supporters including Melissa Hackett said the registry currently treats all findings the same, which can permanently block parents from employment and volunteer roles even after reunification and rehabilitation. "This bill doesn't change what information the state retains, only what's accessible publicly via background checks," Hackett told the committee.
Bobbi Johnson, director of the Office of Child and Family Services, said OCFS "strongly supports the intent of this bill" but had technical and operational concerns. Johnson outlined the bill's proposed timelines (for example: sealing substantiated investigations three years after the report if the child was not removed and no subsequent findings occurred; when a child was removed, sealing three years after removal or five years after the report, whichever is first) and said many of the goals could be achieved through rulemaking. She also cited the fiscal note indicating a need for 12 additional staff in the background‑check unit to implement the proposal as written.
Committee members asked whether appeals or review processes exist now and requested comparative information from other states. The committee closed the public hearing and requested a work session and additional data for drafting decisions.
