Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Protection Council topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supreme Court child-protection council reports wide stakeholder input; bill to extend deadline moves forward
Summary
Presenters told the House Children and Families Committee the Supreme Court Council on Child Protection has held 24 meetings, 26 focus groups and received more than 1,700 survey responses; Representative Liebling’s bill to extend the council’s deadline and correct a divorce-notice drafting error was referred to Judiciary and Civil Law.
The Minnesota Supreme Court Council on Child Protection has gathered extensive input from stakeholders across the state and is working to turn that material into statutory recommendations, presenters told the House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee.
"We received over 1,700 responses," said Judy Nord, a staff attorney with the State Court Administrator’s Office and a representative of the council, noting the council also collected about "302 single-spaced pages of written comments." Aaron Johnson, an assistant county attorney in Washington County who works on the council, said the group has met 24 times since August 2024 and organized its work into six focus areas, including maltreatment prevention, court processes, workforce development and funding systems.
The presentation preceded Representative Liebling’s request to re-refer House File 38-77 to the Committee on Judiciary and Civil Law. Jeff Shore, the State Court Administrator, told members the bill includes two main fixes: a drafting clarification to limit a divorce-related notice requirement to divorces involving children; and an extension of a statutory deadline that would give the council more time to synthesize input. Shore said the additional time is requested so the council can produce a thorough report and emphasized the extension does not require additional funding.
Committee members pressed Shore and the bill sponsor on the need for more time. Shore said the volume and depth of responses — including many lengthy written submissions and dozens of presentations to the council — made additional analysis prudent. Representative Liebling moved to re-refer the bill; the voice vote carried.
The committee did not take a roll-call tally; members approved the referral by voice vote. The council said it aims to deliver refined recommendations in time to meet the newly proposed deadline of Dec. 15, 2026.
What happens next: House File 38-77 will be considered by the Judiciary and Civil Law Committee, where staff and members will review the statutory language and the proposed deadline extension.
