Committee advances child-support bill amid heated debate over Section 5 data-sharing with DCF

A legislative committee voted to report SB 6, a wide-ranging package of supports for children and families, to the floor on March 5 but did so after a lengthy, at-times contentious debate over Section 5 of the bill.

The committee chair presented the substitute language and said the changes remove a citation to Sec. 53-21a and add a provision in which the commissioner of children and families would be required to destroy information received from the education commissioner about children who are not DCF-involved. Representative McGee and others said the bill contains many positive provisions — including child tax credit and school-meal provisions — but that Section 5 raised legal and privacy concerns that would require continued work before final passage.

Why it matters: Section 5 would have created a mechanism for notifications to DCF when children were withdrawn from public school, a step opponents said could funnel innocent families into child-welfare scrutiny. Lawmakers from both parties urged caution, citing testimony from the state Department of Education and questions about whether the provision would run afoul of federal privacy law (FERPA) and constitutional protections.

Debate and amendments: Representative Dauphine introduced an amendment to strike Section 5 in its entirety, arguing that families who withdraw children to homeschool or for private school "have done nothing wrong" and should not be reported. She told colleagues she had observed "dozens and dozens" testifying against the section. That amendment failed on roll call (ayes 4; nays 11).

Representative Lanou proposed an alternative amendment to replace Section 5 with a targeted study requiring the commissioners of DCF and education and the attorney general to assess whether DCF could share information about children already in protective services and to report back by Jan. 1, 2027. Proponents said the study would focus on children with substantiated claims to avoid implicating innocent families; opponents questioned whether a statutory study was required or whether agencies could answer the FERPA questions administratively. That amendment also failed on roll call (ayes 6; nays 9).

Claims and responses: Opponents repeatedly warned that the underlying language risked "opening up Pandora's box" of lists and stigma for families who had done nothing illegal; Representative Lanou said the process could "implicate a bunch of innocent people." Supporters of the bill contended the measure seeks to protect children and said exceptions for "the welfare of the child" may exist under FERPA. The chair said she had sought legal guidance and was told there are FERPA exceptions for child welfare matters and pledged to continue working with SDE and DCF on the language.

Votes and next steps: Committee members moved and seconded that SB 6 be reported joint favorable substitute to the floor. The chair said roll-call votes would be held open after the meeting for an hour; the committee did not announce a final floor tally in the hearing. Members emphasized they would continue negotiations on Section 5 before floor action.

Context and background: Testimony at prior hearings — including letters and agency testimony submitted in writing — prompted much of the questioning and the two amendments. Several members said they support the bill’s broader child-safety and economic-support provisions but remain uncomfortable with the specific data-sharing mechanics in Section 5.

The committee recessed after the votes and staff acknowledgements; the bill’s sponsors said they will work with the departments and interested members to clarify the scope and legal authority before the bill proceeds further.