Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foster Care Placement Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee hears broad opposition to bill mandating foster placements by birth sex
Summary
House Bill 4302 would require children in residential foster care to be placed using anatomical sex on original birth certificates; dozens of witnesses, advocacy groups and attorneys testified the change would remove needed professional discretion and risk harm to vulnerable youth.
A special laws subcommittee heard sustained opposition to House Bill 4302, a measure that would require residential facilities serving children in Department of Social Services custody to assign housing and sleeping quarters strictly by anatomical sex on the child’s original birth certificate and would make facilities ineligible for state funds for at least one fiscal year if they do not comply.
Representative McCabe, the bill’s sponsor as introduced, framed the measure as addressing placement rules for children in DSS custody and noted the bill does not prohibit single‑occupancy accommodations when necessary for a child’s safety. The chair summarized the proposal and contrasted it with current DSS regulations, which the chair and other members said direct facilities to accept a youth’s gender identity and make individualized placement decisions based on safety, needs and preferences.
Testimony opposing H4302 came from a wide cross‑section of advocates, professionals and people with lived experience. Lucia Ramos urged the committee to reject the bill, saying it would remove professional judgment and increase risks for transgender and nonbinary youth; she cited survey data and medical association guidance about higher suicide risk among transgender youth and said affirming environments lower those risks. “This bill prioritizes inflexible rules over the well‑being of vulnerable children,” Ramos said.
Multiple advocacy organizations delivered similar objections. Katie D’Tilio of the Women’s Rights and Empowerment Network (WREN) said the measure would harm children and not make women and girls safer. Ashley Peel of the Alliance for Full Acceptance warned the bill targets trans youth, could force placements that do not match children’s lived presentation, and might push caregivers out of the system because of threatened funding penalties. Sue Berkowitz of the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center referenced the long‑running Michelle H. court oversight and urged the committee not to upset reforms that have improved placement stability.
An attorney with decades of family‑court experience, Jay Elliott, said the bill would set agencies up to be sued and deprive them of flexibility needed to care for children with complex needs. Testimony included questions about current DSS regulatory language; one committee member cited regulation 114‑594‑a‑1 as requiring facilities to accept a youth’s gender identity. Witnesses emphasized individualized, trauma‑informed decision‑making and warned the bill’s funding penalties could worsen placement shortages.
Multiple speakers from affected communities described fear and exhaustion at repeated legislative actions targeting transgender people. Representatives and public commenters asked whether the bill addresses a demonstrable problem in the state and noted that transgender youth are overrepresented in foster care.
Next steps: The transcript records testimony and an adjournment when the House convened for session; the subcommittee did not record a vote on H4302 during this hearing.
Sources: testimony from Lucia Ramos, Emily Mayer, Katie D’Tilio (WREN), Ashley Peel (Alliance for Full Acceptance), Jay Elliott (attorney), Sue Berkowitz (South Carolina Appleseed) and others.
