Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grandparent Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to prioritize grandparents for custody in some cases; supporters and opponents weigh in
Summary
Representative David Dolan presented HB 25-05 to give priority to grandparents for temporary custody when parents are found unfit. Witnesses including Foster Adopt Connect and several grandparents supported the measure; an interfaith group opposed, saying existing law already allows courts to place children appropriately.
Get email alerts on the Grandparent Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative David Dolan presented House Bill 25-05 as a "grandparents custody" bill intended to prioritize grandparents if a court finds parents unfit and temporary custody is needed. Dolan distinguished custody priority from visitation and said the change would reflect the reality that grandparents often step into caregiving roles.
Supporters included Madison Egret of Foster Adopt Connect and grandmother Precious Jones, who described grandparents as primary caregivers and urged statutory clarity so grandparents are not left without recourse. Representative Terry, a longtime advocate of grandparents' rights, argued for codifying priority language to protect family continuity.
Opposition testimony came from Jeff Stack of the Mid Missouri Fellowship of Reconciliation, who said existing law already permits courts to place children with grandparents when it is in a child's best interest and warned that creating a statutory "priority" could lead to outcomes that do not always maximize the child's welfare. Committee members discussed the balancing act between prioritizing grandparents and preserving judicial discretion to determine the placement that best serves the child.
No committee vote on HB 25-05 was recorded in this hearing; the sponsor and members said they would continue to refine language and consider stakeholder input.
Representative David Dolan and supporters argued the priority approach would speed placements in many cases and formalize what often already occurs in practice; opponents urged caution to preserve court discretion.
