OLR BILL ANALYSIS
AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE CHILD PROTECTION LAWS.
This bill makes numerous changes in the child protection laws. It:
1. requires the Department of Children and Families (DCF), on request, to provide copies of otherwise confidential records to any party in an abuse or neglect or termination of parental rights proceeding when the child's custody is at issue and the records are about the child or his parent;
2. requires DCF's regulations implementing its child abuse registry to include an appeals process for people challenging the agency's determination that they were responsible for child abuse or neglect, which triggers inclusion in the registry;
3. requires courts to hold evidentiary hearings when any party in an abuse or neglect proceeding requests this to determine whether efforts to reunify parents and children should continue, adds additional misconduct by the parent as grounds for terminating such efforts, and raises the level of proof required to clear and convincing evidence;
4. makes clear and convincing evidence the standard for terminating reunification efforts in yearly permanency plan hearings; and
5. requires probate court applications to commit children with mental illness to include the name, address, and phone number of the child's attorney, if one has been appointed to represent him in an abuse or neglect proceeding; and
6. requires the DCF commissioner to notify, and provide its investigatory records to, state licensing or certification agencies whenever it determines that a licensed or certified school employee or staff member of a facility caring for children has abused a child.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2001
REGULATIONS
The bill requires DCF to adopt regulations establishing appeals hearing procedures for people who challenge the agency's determination that they have abused or neglected a child. DCF makes these determinations after investigating and substantiating abuse or neglect reports. The agency currently has regulations governing the use and operation of the registry but no procedure for resolving disputes over information it contains.
By law, DCF includes such determinations in its records and must disclose them, upon request, to (1) law enforcement agencies; (2) prosecutors; (3) a child's court-appointed attorney and guardian ad litem (a person representing the child's best interests); (4) the Department of Public Health, which licenses childcare workers, and the Department of Social Services, which subsidizes child care for some low-income children; and (5) local boards of education.
Violators of these regulations must be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for up to one year.
COURT REUNIFICATION HEARINGS
The bill requires courts hearing abuse and neglect cases to hold evidentiary hearings within 30 days of any party's request for a determination of whether DCF must continue its efforts to reunify a parent and a child in its custody.
The bill also adds the following as parental actions ("aggravating factors") that may serve as the basis for a judge's decision that further reunification efforts are inappropriate:
1. deliberately killing or seriously injuring another one of their children (currently only such actions against the child's siblings are covered) or
2. voluntarily surrendering to emergency nurses, within 30 days of birth, the child who is the subject of the reunification efforts.
The bill requires clear and convincing proof of all aggravating factors.
Currently, only DCF can initiate such proceedings. There is no evidentiary hearing requirement, heightened standard of proof, or time limit within which the court must act on such issues. Grounds that can support a court's determination that further reunification efforts are unnecessary currently include parental abandonment, sexual molestation, or severe physical abuse of the child; involuntary termination of rights to another child; and some sexual assault convictions.
BACKGROUND
Related Bill
SHB 6891, reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, permits judges holding permanency plan hearings to rely on previous rulings that reunification efforts are inappropriate. It does not specify a heightened standard of proof.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Judiciary Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea |
36 |
Nay |
0 |