Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Family testimony spotlights out‑of‑state placement barrier; committee eyes narrow statutory fix
Loading...
Summary
Relatives of a 9‑year‑old in Oregon foster care testified that licensing and inter‑state procedure blocked their ability to bring him home from an out‑of‑state therapeutic placement. The committee pressed ODHS for background and discussed a targeted amendment to ORS 418.321 to allow narrow exceptions.
Jerry Joslin and his wife, Elizabeth Spainhower Joslin, told the Senate Committee on Human Services they completed therapeutic foster licensure in North Carolina but were subsequently told their grandson could not be placed with them because of licensure and placement rules. They said the child has had multiple placements and has regressed while in a therapeutic center. "We just want to take him out," Elizabeth Joslin said, describing alarms on the child's bed and a loss of progress when he returns to the facility.
Committee members asked ODHS why the family had been told that completing out‑of‑state therapeutic licensure would permit placement, when ORS 418.321 appeared unchanged and still requires an out‑of‑state child‑caring agency to be licensed as an Oregon CCA to host an Oregon placement. Lacey Andresen, ODHS deputy director for child welfare, apologized to the family for poor communication and pledged to pull the case file and advise the committee on the reasoning behind the instruction the family received.
Oregon Judicial Department staff said they are reviewing how the proposed section 8 language would interact with the Oregon Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) placement preferences and asked for language that clarifies court notice and how a potential "good cause" deviation would be handled when Indian children are involved. Committee members said section 8 of SB 15 32 is intended to create a narrow statutory pathway so providers who decline to pursue Oregon licensure do not become an automatic barrier for specific kinds of out‑of‑state placements.
The chair asked agencies to provide technical amendment language quickly because of the short session schedule. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill at the hearing; chairs said a statutory clarification could enable family placements like the Joslins' without broadly opening out‑of‑state placement policy.
