Senate committee adopts amendment to SB 15-33, advances foster-rights bill to floor

The Senate Committee on Human Services on Feb. 10 adopted a dash-1 amendment to Senate Bill 15-33 and advanced the bill to the Senate floor with a due-pass recommendation.

The hearing opened with a sponsor summary explaining SB 15-33 would modify the Oregon Foster Children's Bill of Rights and the Foster Children's Sibling Bill of Rights, including definitions of "child in care," parental-investigation exceptions, and required notifications. Channa Newell of the Oregon Judicial Department told the committee the judicial branch supports the bill with the dash-1 amendment, saying courts could implement the provisions with minimal fiscal impact and that the bill would require written findings when judges limit sibling contact.

Several people with lived experience testified in favor. Max Massey, who said he spent eight years in Oregon foster care and serves on the Oregon Youth Advisory Council, called the bill "amazing" and urged support to protect sibling connections. A witness identified as Riley described 11 years in care during which contact with siblings was limited; Riley urged posting the Bill of Rights in placements, ensuring children keep important personal belongings, and preserving reasonable access to devices for education and contact. Jasmine Hunter Kennedy, who said she has two years of foster-care experience and works as a peer navigator, urged the committee to preserve sibling visitation and hold agencies accountable, citing that "nearly 75 percent" of siblings who enter foster care are separated from at least one sibling.

Committee members questioned witnesses about posting the Bill of Rights in foster homes and about policies on personal belongings and devices. Witnesses said posting can be handled to protect privacy (for example, giving an individual copy to each child and placing a posted copy where the child can access it) and argued reasonable device access supports schooling and social connection.

Chair Gelser Blue said language that would have extended the "child in care" definition to children in legal custody who are temporarily lodged or placed out of state was removed from this bill at the request of the executive branch because of potential fiscal impacts; those topics will be revisited in related legislation. After questions and brief debate, the committee adopted the dash-1 amendment and voted to move SB 15-33 as amended to the floor with a due-pass recommendation. The chair will carry the measure.

The hearing record shows the committee adopted the amendment by roll call and then approved the motion to advance the bill; the amendment and the committee action were recorded as having no revenue impact and minimal fiscal impact on the dash-1 amendment.