HCS HB 679 & 396 -- FOSTER CARE

SPONSOR:  Phillips (Hanaway)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Children
and Families by a vote of 14 to 0.

This substitute makes numerous revisions to laws relating to
foster care and protective services for children.

MENTAL HEALTH FOR CHILDREN

The substitute requires the Department of Mental Health to
develop, implement, and administer a comprehensive children's
mental health service system.  It requires the Department of
Social Services to look at the children in its custody and
determine which children are in the system solely because of a
need for mental health services.  These children may be returned
to the family's custody by the judge, and the Department of
Mental Health is obligated to provide the necessary services for
these children in the least restrictive appropriate environment.
The departments of Mental Health and Social Services must prepare
a plan to address the need for mental health services for
children who are in the custody of the state because of their
need for mental health services and for children and persons age
17 who are determined by the court to need mental health
services.  The substitute specifies what the plan must include
and requires that it be completed by January 1, 2004.  The plan
must be submitted to the Governor, the President Pro Tem of the
Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT HOTLINE

The substitute requires the Division of Family Services to
establish a protocol for handling hotline calls.  It allows for
the establishment of a child well-being hotline to receive
reports that do not rise to the level of abuse and neglect, but
that could be referred for follow-up services and other
assistance.  The division must classify a report of child abuse
or neglect that is received by the child abuse and neglect
hotline immediately into one of three categories:  those that
indicate a need for an emergency preliminary investigation (Class
I); those that warrant a central registry investigation (Class
II); and those for which closure is appropriate (Class III).  The
division must use the Structured Decision-Making Model (SDM) for
child protective services in all reports that require an
investigation.  Court personnel, guardians ad litem,
court-appointed special advocates, and judges must be trained on
the SDM model.

The substitute specifies procedures for responding to Class I and
Class II reports.  For Class I reports, the local office must
begin an emergency preliminary investigation immediately, which
must include direct observation of the child within 24 hours of
receipt of the report.  If the division determines during an
emergency preliminary investigation that there is no probable
cause that a child is in danger of death, sexual abuse, or
serious physical harm, the emergency preliminary investigation
will be terminated.  The division may determine at any time
during the intake assessment, preliminary investigation, central
registry investigation, or during the provision of family
assessment and services that summary case closure is appropriate.
If the division so decides, its reasons must be clearly
documented in writing.  When an incident report is referred for a
central registry investigation or for family assessment services,
the division must communicate the report to the local office,
along with Class I information included in the information
system.  Central registry investigations and family assessments
must be initiated within 48 hours of receipt.

Currently, the division must retain identifying information from
reports of child abuse and neglect made by a mandated reporter
for a period of 10 years when there is insufficient evidence of
abuse or neglect.  The substitute reduces the length of time that
the record must be kept to five years and specifies that if no
evidence of abuse or neglect is found, the division may not
retain any identifying information.  The division may not keep
any identifying information for reports for which summary closure
is appropriate (Class III).

Currently, the division must prove that there is probable cause
to believe that an individual has committed child abuse or
neglect.  The substitute changes the standard to require the
division to prove abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the
evidence.

Currently, an alleged perpetrator who is aggrieved by the
division's decision concerning a report of child abuse or neglect
may appeal the decision to the Child Abuse and Neglect Review
Board, but the alleged perpetrator's presence is not required for
the review to take place.  The substitute requires an alleged
perpetrator to be given the opportunity to appear and present
evidence before the board and requires that Missouri Rules of
Civil Procedure and Missouri Rules of Evidence apply to
proceedings of the board.  Current law also allows an alleged
perpetrator who is aggrieved by the board's decision to seek de
novo judicial review within 60 days of notification of the
decision.  The substitute allows the alleged perpetrator to
demand that the division initiate de novo circuit court
proceedings.  The demand must be made within 60 days of the
notification of the board's decision, and the proceedings are to
be initiated in Cole County.  The alleged perpetrator may seek a
change of venue to the county in which the alleged perpetrator
resides.  The division is the petitioner in the proceeding and
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged
perpetrator abused or neglected a child.  The Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Rules of Evidence apply to this proceeding.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Currently, the parents of a child under the age of 17 who is
alleged to be in need of care and treatment and who is taken into
custody must be notified of the right to a protective custody
hearing, and any party may request that the hearing be held
within three days of the request, but a hearing is not mandatory.

The substitute requires a status conference to be held within
three days of a child being taken into custody and requires the
court to make reasonable efforts to notify specified individuals,
including biological parents and foster parents, of the status
conference.  The substitute specifies issues that must be
addressed at the status conference, including the appointment of
a guardian ad litem for the child and appointment of legal
counsel.  A protective custody hearing may be requested at the
status hearing.  The hearing must be held within 14 days of the
request.  An adjudication must be held 60 days after the child
has been taken into custody.  If at that time the court
determines there is sufficient cause for the child to remain in
the state's custody, the court must conduct a dispositional
review 90 days after the child has been taken into custody.  The
court must then conduct review hearings every 90 to 120 days
during the first year and at least every six months after the
first year.

The substitute requires foster parents to be notified of all
court hearings.  The court cannot grant continuances in juvenile
proceedings unless there are compelling extenuating
circumstances.  The court must make written findings on the
record about the specific reasons for granting a continuance.

The substitute requires the guardian ad litem or court-appointed
special advocate volunteer to be informed of and have the right
to attend all meetings involving the child upon appointment by
the court.  Judges have the authority to examine the general and
criminal background of individuals appointed as guardians ad
litem and court-appointed special advocates to ensure the safety
and welfare of the children they are appointed to represent.  The
guardian ad litem has the duty to advocate for timely court
hearings to achieve permanency for the child as soon as possible.
The substitute requires the Department of Social Services to
place a child with relatives if the court has determined that
relative placement is not contrary to the best interests of the
child.

The substitute requires that any interrogation or interview of a
child taken into custody by the juvenile officer or a law
enforcement official be recorded by audiotape or videotape or be
conducted in the presence of a third party who can testify about
the interrogation or interview in an administrative or court
proceeding.  Failure to comply with this section makes statements
by the child inadmissible in future proceedings.

Currently, the general public is excluded from juvenile court
proceedings, except in some cases in which a child is accused of
an offense that would be considered a felony if committed by an
adult.  The substitute allows all juvenile court proceedings to
be open to the general public.  The court can close the
proceedings on its own motion to protect the welfare of a child.
Any party except the state and the victim may also make a motion
to close the proceedings.  The substitute requires all records to
be closed until the 72-hour status hearing is held, but after the
status hearing, all records are open unless they are specifically
closed.  Evidentiary hearings must be held on motions to close
the record, and the court must set forth reasons for closing the
record in a docket entry.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

The substitute requires the Division of Family Services to
contract for the provision of children's services through private
children's services providers and community agencies whenever
available and appropriate.

The substitute requires the division to implement a two-year
pilot project beginning on or before July 1, 2004.  This pilot
project will be located in Greene County, the City of St. Louis,
and a rural county in the state selected by the division.  In the
pilot project locations, all direct services for children that
are currently provided by the division will be provided by public
and private children's service providers that have contracted
with the division through a competitive bid process, except for
hotline, initial investigation, and family assessment services.
The substitute specifies the criteria for the pilot project and
the terms of children's services contracts entered into by the
division for purposes of the pilot project.  It requires cities
and counties participating in the pilot project to submit a plan
for implementation of the pilot project by February 1, 2004;
specifies what must be included in the plan; and the composition
of the committee that develops the plan.  The division must
submit a report to the General Assembly beginning July 15, 2005,
and continuing each year that the pilot project is in operation.
The report must include specified details about the pilot
project, recommendations concerning the continuation or expansion
of the project, and information relating to the provision of
direct services for children and their families.  The pilot
project provisions expire December 31, 2005.

The substitute requires that all information at meetings or
hearings regarding the removal of a child from the child's home
are confidential.  A parent or party can waive confidentiality
for himself or herself.  The substitute requires biological
parents and their legal counsel, foster parents, guardians ad
litem, and court-appointed special advocates to be provided
notice and allowed to attend all family assessment team meetings.
Biological parents, their legal counsel, and foster parents may
request that other individuals attend the team meetings, and
other individuals who are invited to attend must also receive all
subsequent hearing notices.

The substitute requires monthly meetings between the departments
of Social Services, Mental Health, and Elementary and Secondary
Education to address and review action taken by agencies
regarding the provision of services to children.

BACKGROUND CHECKS

Beginning January 1, 2004, the substitute requires any person
employed by a school to have a criminal background check
completed before having any unsupervised contact with a student.

The substitute requires a name-based criminal history check when
an emergency placement of a child must be made.  After the
initial name-based search, all persons in the home age 18 and
over must submit two sets of fingerprints for a more extensive
criminal background check.  If placement of a child is denied
because of the name-based search and the denial is contested, the
members of the household age 18 and over must submit fingerprints
for a background check.  An "emergency placement" is when a child
is placed in a private home because of the sudden unavailability
of the child's parent or caretaker.

The substitute requires the Division of Family Services to
conduct a search for full orders of protection for anyone seeking
a foster parent license or any adult in the applicant's
household.  The applicant and any adult in the applicant's
household must also submit two sets of fingerprints for a
criminal background check.

DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES' EMPLOYEES

The substitute specifies that it is grounds for dismissal for
Division of Family Services' employees who purposely or knowingly
violate policy of the division, rules of the division, or state
laws directly relating to the child abuse and neglect activities
of the division.  It is also grounds for dismissal for a
supervisor who knew or should have known of the violation.  If
the violation results in serious physical injury or death, the
employee or supervisor who knew or should have known will be
immediately dismissed from employment with the division.  This
section applies to merit and non-merit employees and is
considered grounds for a for-cause dismissal.  If an employee is
responsible for assignments that exceed specified caseload
standards and the employee fails to follow policy, rules, or
state laws related to the child abuse and neglect activities of
the division, the employee's good faith efforts to follow the
policy, rule, or law is a mitigating factor in determining
whether the employee is dismissed.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Certain provisions of the substitute are to be known as the
Dominic James Memorial Foster Care Act of 2003.

The substitute requires the Children's Juvenile Justice Task
Force established in accordance with federal law to conduct an
independent review of the policies and procedures of state and
local child protective services agencies and to conduct reviews
of specific cases, when appropriate, to evaluate the extent to
which agencies are effectively discharging their
responsibilities.  The task force is prohibited from disclosing
information about specific cases or making other information
public, unless otherwise authorized.  The task force may have
access to information concerning cases it is asked to review and
may receive assistance from the Department of Social Services in
carrying out their duties.  The task force must also complete an
annual report summarizing their activities.

The department is required to submit an annual statistical report
regarding the number of children receiving child protective
services to the Governor and the General Assembly, beginning
February 1, 2005.  The substitute specifies what the report must
contain.

The substitute allows parents to temporarily place a child in a
family home; church, athletic, academic, or charitable camp;
babysitting; military academy; child care facility, foster home,
or residential care facility; or with a licensure-exempt foster
home with the state.  It also allows parents to use a power of
attorney to delegate their powers regarding care or custody of a
minor child to a child care facility, foster home, residential
care facility, or child placing agency whether licensed or
license-exempt for a period of up to one year.

The substitute requires the department to seek Title IV-E waivers
from the Department of Health and Senior Services.

The substitute requires the Division of Family Services to
conduct a diligent search for the natural parents of a child who
is in the custody of the division when the parents' identity or
location is unknown.  The definition of "diligent search"
includes efforts to locate or identify the natural parents of a
child, initiated as soon as the division is made aware of the
existence of the parent, with progress reports at each court
hearing until the parent is identified and located or the court
excuses further search.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Net Cost to General Revenue Fund of
Unknown Greater Than $4,309,409 in FY 2004, Unknown Greater Than
$22,486,473 in FY 2005, and Unknown Greater Than $24,262,775 in
FY 2006.  Estimated Net Income to Criminal Records Systems Fund
of $1,601,702 in FY 2004, $215,961 in FY 2005, and $211,855 in FY
2006.  Estimated Net Effect on Urban and Teacher Education
Revolving Fund of $0 in FY 2004, FY 2005, and FY 2006.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters of House Bill 679 say that the bill makes
changes to the child welfare system throughout the process, from
hotlines to court proceedings.  It requires background checks for
foster parents and requires the court to hold a hearing within
three days of a child being taken into custody.  It also
privatizes all aspects of care for abused and neglected children
that can be privatized in a pilot project.  The bill attempts to
address the goals of protection of children and reunification of
families.  It outlines the responsibilities of guardians ad litem
in representing children in court proceedings.  Supporters
suggested limiting privatization contracts to not-for-profit
agencies and that caseworkers undergo an annual performance
appraisal that includes direct observation of the worker's
interaction with clients.  This suggestion is based on complaints
and concerns about incompetent or insensitive workers.  They
support strengthening of the Family Support Team and a periodic
review of the team's plan.

Supporters of House Bill 396 say they would like to see the
Division of Family Services' employees held accountable for
compliance with policy and state laws, would like legislative
oversight of the division's policymaking, and removing anonymity
from hotline calls allowing individuals to be prosecuted for
making false calls.

Testifying for House Bill 679 were Speaker Hanaway; Citizens for
Missouri's Children; Midwest Foster Care and Adoption
Association; Sara Barwinsky; Department of Social Services;
Foster and Adoptive Care Coalition; and Whose Children Are They.
Also providing written testimony on House Bill 679 were Family
Resource Center; Missouri Coalition of Children's Agencies; Boys
and Girls Town of Missouri; Catholic Charities of Kansas City-St.
Joseph, Inc.; and Missouri Alliance for Children and Families.

Testifying for House Bill 396 were Representative Wright; Sidney
James; Missouri Council for Children at Risk; Ronnie S. Dean; Dr.
Robert Olson; Shari Finnell; Cathy Jo Loy; Heartland
Ministries/CNS International Ministries; Susan Stone; Carolyn
McLaren; and Fred Tedrow.  Also providing written testimony on
House Bill 396 were  Malissa Winchel; Jan Eagleburger; Thomas
Eagleburger; Jennifer Cookson; Becky A. Douty; Reja Martin; Roni
LeAnne Ford; Bill Barham; John C. Kranse, Sr.; Mary E. Kranse;
Ricky L. Thompson; Catrina L. Hernandez; Cathy Rhodes; Rebecca
Kay Foster; Bernard Burkey; Orville Stone; Ruth Burkey; Shelly
Loux; Verla Henson; Sue Kiefer; Rebecca S. Thompson; Cletus W.
Kiefer; Kenya Kimbrough; Jerry and Sue Hearne; and Missouri
Family Network.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose House Bill 396 say that social
workers are underpaid and understaffed and many would not take a
job with the Division of Family Services if there was a
possibility that they could be subject to civil and criminal
liability.  The ability to make a hotline report anonymously
should be retained because it would be better to be investigated
for a false report than to have a child harmed because a report
was not made.  Hotline anonymity creates an unnecessary risk for
children by discouraging non-mandated reporters from making
reports.  The recording of all hearings is impracticable and too
broad.  These provisions are not in the substitute.
Testifying against House Bill 396 were Midwest Foster and
Adoption Association; Prevent Child Abuse Missouri; and Lori
Burns Bucklew.  Also providing written testimony in opposition to
House Bill 396 were Citizens for Missouri's Children; and
Missouri State Workers Union.

Others testifying on House Bill 679 was Missouri Council for
Children at Risk.

Amy Woods, Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
Last Updated July 25, 2003 at 10:12 am