Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Court Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee backs bill letting family courts enter no-contact or supervised-contact orders after termination of parental rights or adoption
Summary
After testimony from an adoptive parent and DSS, the subcommittee gave SB 823 a favorable report; the bill would allow judges, at TPR or adoption, to enter continuing no-contact or supervised-contact orders addressing in-person, electronic and third-party contact, enforceable by contempt or referral to law enforcement.
The Domestic Relations Business and Probate Law Subcommittee on April 30 reported favorably on Senate Bill 823, which would allow family courts at the time of a termination of parental rights (TPR) or adoption decree to consider and enter continuing no-contact or supervised-contact orders to protect a child’s safety, welfare, stability and attachment.
Chair Rep. Beth Bernstein said the measure adds two sections to the children’s code so courts may consider restrictions that cover in-person contact, phone calls, text messages, social media, mail, third-party communications and other attempts to communicate. The bill sets procedures and guardrails, requires written findings if the court determines such an order is unnecessary, and provides enforcement through civil contempt or possible referral for criminal investigation; orders generally remain in effect until the child turns 18 unless modified.
Kelly Beasley, an adoptive parent, testified that a biological parent whose rights had been terminated contacted her adopted son repeatedly through gaming consoles and social media, ultimately taking him across state lines. "She actually kidnapped him," Beasley said, describing repeated attempts to manipulate and reunite with the children; Beasley said DSS later took the child into custody and that the family considers the adoption a "failed adoption" for that child. She urged lawmakers to add statutory protections because older adoption language predates the social-media era.
Connolly Ann Ragley of the Department of Social Services told the committee the agency had no concerns with the bill if it remains discretionary for judges and noted a Senate-floor addition that limits who may bring certain motions during these proceedings. Ragley described available post-adoptive support and said second TPR proceedings are rare but possible when reunification is not appropriate.
Committee members and witnesses discussed how the bill preserves caregiver discretion while allowing courts to weigh factors such as violence, stalking, abduction attempts, age and attachment when deciding whether to include no-contact or supervised-contact provisions. The subcommittee recorded a roll call of three ayes, two not voting and none against; SB 823 received a favorable report.
