Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawyers and service providers press prevention, argue courts still remove when imminent harm shown
Loading...
Summary
Annie Chung (LCYC) briefed the board on HB 12/27 and SB 6109, explaining the shift to an "imminent physical harm" removal standard and urging investment in prevention. A panel of providers recommended expanding PCAP, paid safety‑plan supports, housing, and workforce investments to reduce critical incidents.
At the Dec. 17 meeting the board heard a detailed presentation from Annie Chung, director of legal services at Legal Counsel for Youth & Children (LCYC), on House Bill 12/27 (Keeping Families Together) and Senate Bill 6109 (fentanyl guidance).
Chung explained that HB 12/27 changed the initial removal standard from "serious threat of substantial harm" to "imminent physical harm," and added an express requirement for courts to weigh the harm of removal against the harm of leaving a child in the home. "It changed the standard of removal from serious threat of substantial harm to imminent physical harm," Chung said, and she emphasized that the statute requires a causal connection between home conditions and child safety before a court may order removal. She also noted statutory changes that shifted burdens around relatives and placements.
Chung told the board that LCYC’s work shows courts have removed children when petitions present evidence of imminent physical harm. She said many critical incidents highlighted in recent reports never made it to court for reasons that might include screening, intake, or policy choices inside the agency; LCYC’s review found only a small number of the highlighted critical incidents had been adjudicated in court.
After the presentation, a panel of service providers described programs aimed at preventing removal and improving reunification. Key presenters and points included:
- Adam Balut, First Clinic (medical‑legal partnership): hospital‑based screening and a parent‑ally model that arranges legal help, parent allies and immediate service navigation. Balut said 79% of families the clinic serves avoid a dependency filing and infant removal when engaged early.
- Heather (Parents for Parents): peer‑led mentoring, short crash‑course education for parents, and statewide fidelity supports; when families received the full model reunification rates improved to about 79% and termination of parental rights decreased.
- Ray Deck (Skookum Kids): emphasized in‑home Family Preservation Services (FPS) as an alternative to removal and identified workforce and recruitment gaps for experienced FPS clinicians.
- Jessica Humphreys (Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe): described tribal prevention and healing clinics and the need for housing supports in rural counties.
- Dr. Susan Stoner (PCAP): described the Parent Child Assistance Program (PCAP) intensive case management model for pregnant and parenting people and the evidence that clients who complete the program achieve strong outcomes in treatment engagement, housing and employment.
Panelists urged the board and legislators to fund and scale upstream, voluntary services rather than treating family separation as the primary default. Specific, actionable requests included expanding PCAP statewide, funding perinatal residential treatment (PPW) beds that keep parent and child together, paying for safety‑plan participants or home‑visiting options so families can meet 24‑hour supervision requirements without immediate removal, and increasing compensation to attract and retain experienced FPS clinicians.
During public comment several speakers urged revisiting HB 12/27’s effects. Some public commenters argued the imminent‑harm standard has left children at risk and asked the board to prioritize child‑safety outcomes; others described inconsistent application or alleged problematic departmental processes. LCYC and panelists responded that statutory standards alone do not explain the rise in critical incidents and that many cases never reach court; they urged investments in screening, intake, and upstream services as better levers to reduce fatalities and near‑fatal incidents.
Board members asked for more data about why critical incidents did or did not proceed to court and for follow‑up on policy and operational barriers (screening thresholds, training, and availability of prevention services). The board will collect and circulate written follow‑up questions to panelists and staff and expects to track legislative opportunities to fund provider recommendations.
The presentation and panel provided the board with evidence and community proposals that will shape its oversight focus going into the legislative session.
