Revision: April 2, 2024, 11:40 a.m.
SB 417-FN - AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE
03/21/2024 1111s
2024 SESSION
24-2976
05/08
SENATE BILL 417-FN
AN ACT relative to out-of-home placements for children.
SPONSORS: Sen. Whitley, Dist 15; Sen. D'Allesandro, Dist 20; Sen. Rosenwald, Dist 13; Sen. Altschiller, Dist 24; Sen. Prentiss, Dist 5; Sen. Perkins Kwoka, Dist 21; Sen. Soucy, Dist 18; Sen. Carson, Dist 14; Sen. Watters, Dist 4; Sen. Chandley, Dist 11; Rep. Grossman, Rock. 11; Rep. Long, Hills. 23; Rep. M. Pearson, Rock. 34; Rep. Wallner, Merr. 19
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS
This bill revises criteria for out-of-home placement of children under the child protection act and other juvenile statutes and establishes an order of preference based on placement with the child's siblings, when possible, and proximity to the child's community of origin.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
03/21/2024 1111s 24-2976
05/08
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty Four
AN ACT relative to out-of-home placements for children.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Child Protection Act; Presumption in Favor of In-State Placements. Amend RSA 169-C:19-b to read as follows:
169-C:19-b Presumption in Favor of In-State Placements. There shall be a presumption that an in-state placement is the [least restrictive] less restrictive and most appropriate placement. The court may order an out-of-state placement only upon an express written finding that [there is no appropriate in-state placement available.] the out-of-state placement offers specialized programming or services that are unable to be provided within New Hampshire, and the placement is contracted with the state. Preference shall be given to out-of-state placements that are in proximity to the child’s family and/or kin, who are able to participate in family and/or reunification services. Any out-of-state placements shall be limited in time, and require increased judicial oversight.
2 Child Protection Act; Siblings. RSA 169-C:19-d is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
169-C:19-d Siblings.
I. The department shall place a child with the child's siblings unless doing so would be contrary to the safety or well-being of the child or siblings, or otherwise not in the child's best interest.
II. If siblings are not placed together, reasonable efforts shall be made to provide for visitation with siblings, unless such visitation would be harmful to the child or sibling.
3 Child Protection Act; Custody Hearing for Parent Not Charged with Abuse or Neglect. Amend RSA 169-C:19-e, I to read as follows:
I. A parent who has not been charged with abuse or neglect shall be afforded, upon request, a full hearing in the district or family court regarding his or her ability to obtain custody. At the hearing, the parent shall be provided the opportunity to present evidence pertaining to his or her ability to provide care for the child and shall be awarded custody unless the state demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she [has abused or neglected the child or is otherwise] is unfit to perform his or her parental duties. The court shall make written findings of fact supporting its decision.
I-a. The welfare of the child is the primary factor to be weighed when determining if a parent is fit to parent that child. In determining whether a parent is fit to perform his or her parental duties, the court may consider the following factors, in addition to any other relevant evidence presented:
(a) The unique needs of the child, and whether or not the parent is adequately prepared to address those needs;
(b) The parent’s existing and historical relationship with that child;
(c) The parent’s untreated mental health or substance use issues;
(d) The parent’s provision of care to other children in their household, including addressing education needs, medical care, and mental and behavioral health care;
(e) The condition of the parent’s home;
(f) Any prior allegations of child abuse or neglect; and
(g) The results of the department’s evidence-based safety assessment of that parent, their home, and any other adults in the home. A parent’s failure to cooperate with the department's assessment, or to provide any records necessary to such a determination, shall be weighed against the fitness of that parent.
4 New Sections; Placement for Evaluation; Order of Preference of Out-of-Home Placement. Amend RSA 169-C by inserting after section 19-f the following new sections:
169-C:19-g Placement for Evaluation. Any psychological evaluations, including measures of personality functioning, shall be conducted by, or supervised by, a licensed psychologist with specialized training in the evidence-based treatment of childhood trauma.
169-C:19-h Order of Preference of Out-of-Home Placement. If the court finds that a child is abused or neglected or if the court issues a consent order pursuant to RSA 170-E:25, the court shall enter an order regarding the placement of the child, in the following order of preference:
I. Presume that remaining in the family home is in the best interest of the child, but if it is determined to not be in the child’s best interest, to secure placement:
(a) With a kin or fictive kin; or
(b) Within the child's community of origin, with fictive kin or in a licensed foster home setting, with preference given to a licensed foster home with whom the child has a pre-existing relationship; or
(c) In a licensed foster home outside of the child’s community of origin, with preference given to a licensed foster home with whom the child has a pre-existing relationship, and/or in a foster home that can provide intensive (ISO) services designed to meet the specific needs of the child; and
(1) The department of health and human services and the department of education shall make every attempt to arrange for the child to continue to attend their school of origin, making special transportation arrangements when necessary; and
(2) The department of health and human services shall ensure that the child is able to maintain their connections with their community of origin, including important relationships and activities; and
II. Only if placements described under paragraph I are not appropriate for the child due to an inability to maintain safety in the community, may alternative placements be considered, such as group or residential care as defined in RSA 170-E:25 and certified by the department for the care of children placed pursuant to 169-C, or in any state-operated treatment program, that meet the specific needs of that child, and that are not available in that child's community of origin; and
(a) If the child is placed in a group or residential facility, such placement shall be for a limited time and with frequent review, pursuant to RSA 169-F:8, with the goal to return the child home or to a family setting in the community of origin as quickly as possible; and
(b) The court determines that the needs of the child cannot be met by kin, fictive kin, or in a foster family home. Neither the shortage or lack of foster family homes nor the lack of community-based resources shall be acceptable reasons for determining that the needs of the child cannot be met in a family setting.
5 Standard for Return of Child in Placement. Amend RSA 169-C:23 to read as follows:
169-C:23 Standard for Return of Child in Placement. In the absence of a guardianship of the person of the minor, governed by the terms of RSA 463, before a child in out-of-home placement is returned to the custody of his or her parents, the parent or parents shall demonstrate to the court that:
I. They are in compliance with the outstanding dispositional court order;
II. The child will not be endangered [in the manner adjudicated on the initial petition,] if returned home; and
III. Return of custody is in the best interests of the child, [. Upon showing the] and with a showing that the parent has an ability to provide proper parental care[, it shall be presumed that a return of custody is in the child's best interests].
6 New Sections; Court Ordered Placements; Presumption in Favor of In-State Placements; Order of Preference of Out-of-Home Placement. Amend RSA 169-F by inserting after section 4 the following new sections:
169-F:5 Presumption in Favor of In-State Placements. There shall be a presumption that an in-state placement is the less restrictive and most appropriate placement. The court may order an out-of-state placement only upon an express written finding that the out-of-state placement offers specialized programming or services that are unable to be provided within New Hampshire, and the placement is contracted with the state. Preference shall be given to out-of-state placements that are in proximity to the child’s family and/or kin, who are able to participate in family and/or reunification services. Any out-of-state placements shall be limited in time, and require increased judicial oversight.
169-F:6 Order of Preference of Out-of-Home Placement. For any out-of-home placements made under this chapter, the court shall enter an order regarding the placement of the child, in the following order of preference:
I. Presume that remaining in the family home is in the best interest of the child, but if it is determined to not be in the child’s best interest, to secure placement:
(a) With a kin or fictive kin; or
(b) Within the child's community of origin, with fictive kin or in a licensed foster home setting, with preference given to a licensed foster home with whom the child has a pre-existing relationship; or
(c) In a licensed foster home outside of the child’s community of origin, with preference given to a licensed foster home with whom the child has a pre-existing relationship, and/or in a foster home that can provide intensive (ISO) services designed to meet the specific needs of the child; and
(1) The department of health and human services and the department of education shall make every attempt to arrange for the child to continue to attend their school of origin, making special transportation arrangements when necessary; and
(2) The department of health and human services shall ensure that the child is able to maintain their connections with their community of origin, including important relationships and activities; and
II. Only if placements described under paragraph I are not appropriate for the child due to an inability to maintain safety in the community, may alternative placements be considered, such as group or residential care as defined in RSA 170-E:25 or certified by the department for the care of children placed pursuant to 169-C, or in any state-operated treatment program, that meet the specific needs of that child, and that are not available in that child's community of origin; and
(a) If the child is placed in a group or residential facility, such placement shall be for a limited time and with frequent review, pursuant to RSA 169-F:8 with the goal to return the child home or to a family setting in the community of origin as quickly as possible.
(b) The court determines that the needs of the child cannot be met by kin, fictive kin, or in a foster family home. Neither the shortage or lack of foster family homes nor the lack of community-based resources shall be acceptable reasons for determining that the needs of the child cannot be met in a family setting.
169-F:7 Oversight of Children in Care; Department Responsibilities.
I. Any child in a court-ordered placement pursuant to RSA 169-B, RSA 169-C or RSA 169-D shall be seen in-person on at least a monthly basis, by the case worker assigned to that child’s case. In the event the assigned case worker is not available, another case worker or supervisor familiar with the child and/or case may perform the visit. The visit to the child shall include a private meeting with the child, in a safe place, as well as an in-person tour of the child’s living quarters. The monthly contact shall also include contact with the child’s placement provider, therapeutic providers, and educational providers, preferably in real-time, but at least by written correspondence. For any child placed in a residential placement by the department, these visits shall include a tour of the facility where the child may have access to; check-in with appropriate leadership and therapeutic providers with knowledge of the child’s case about program culture and therapeutic programming, and the child’s individual progress, strengths and challenges in the program; a check-in with a member of program direct care staff, and a private interview with the child to inquire about care received.
II. The department shall develop, in consultation with the office of child advocate, a standard operating procedure and form for monthly visits conducted by the department, pursuant to RSA 169-F:7, I to be completed during each monthly in-person visit.
169-F:8 Court Oversight of Children in Residential Treatment Programs.
I. Prior to placing a child in residential treatment programs or psychiatric residential treatment programs, the court shall:
(a) Consider all assessments and plans for the child, including assessment of whether a residential treatment program is the most effective and appropriate level of care, in the least restrictive environment for the child, and any child-specific, short- and long-term goals for the child and the family. The assessment shall specify, in writing:
(1) Whether the child’s needs can be met in a kin, fictive kin, or foster family home, not dependent upon availability of community resources.
(2) If the assessment recommends a residential treatment program:
(A) The specific reasons why the child’s needs cannot be met in a kin, fictive kin, or foster family home, not dependent upon availability of community resources; and
(B) Why recommended placement in a residential treatment program is the setting that will provide the child with the most effective and appropriate level of care, in the least restrictive environment.
(3) How the placement is consistent with the short- and long-term goals for the child, as specified in the case plan or permanency plan for the child.
(b) Confirm that the school district has complied with its legal obligations to assess the educational impact of the placement, and consider the school district’s input on that impact.
(c) Determine that the needs of the child cannot be met through placement with a parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, kin or fictive kin caregiver, or in a foster family home; and that placement of the child in a residential treatment program provides the most effective and appropriate level of care for the child in the least restrictive environment; and that placement is consistent with the short- and long-term goals, including mental, behavioral, and physical health goals, for the child as specified in the permanency plan for the child, or as outlined in the family services plan. A shortage or lack of foster family homes shall not be an acceptable reason for determining that the needs of the child cannot be met in a foster family home.
(d) Review information relating to the facility, including staff-to-child ratio; staff training; program culture; therapeutic, clinical and milieu programming; educational programming; recreational programming; and, family connections, in order to ensure that the program is the most effective and appropriate level of care, in the least restrictive environment for the child, and meets the child-specific short- and long-term goals for the child and the family.
(e) Approve or disapprove of the placement, in a written order, containing all of the necessary findings laid out in this section.
II. Prior to determining that a residential treatment program is the most effective and appropriate level of care, in the least restrictive environment for the child, the court shall consider any available assessments and plans, giving the greatest weight to assessments completed by a licensed psychologist or licensed neuropsychologist with specialized training in the evidence-based treatment of childhood trauma. If the court deviates from such recommendation, the court shall make specific findings of fact regarding the most effective and appropriate level of care, in the least restrictive environment for the child, and that the placement is consistent with child-specific short and long-term goals for the child and the family. When making such findings of fact, the court shall consider all relevant information, including but not limited to:
(a) Whether the protocol for the residential treatment program assessment was followed;
(b) Whether the school district is meeting the child’s educational needs, based on their statutory requirements under RSA 169-B:22, RSA 169-D:18, and RSA 169-C:20;
(c) The strengths and specific treatment or service needs of the child and the family;
(d) The expected length of stay; and
(e) The placement preference of the child and the family.
III. When a child is placed in a residential treatment program or psychiatric residential treatment program:
(a) The department shall notify the court promptly of such placement.
(b) The court shall review the placement of that child within 60 days after placement, and every 60 days thereafter; or
(c) If the child or the child's representative does not support the residential treatment program level of care or the child, guardian ad litem, or any party objects to the placement, the court shall review the placement within 30 days, and every 30 days thereafter.
IV. As long as a child remains in a residential treatment program, the department shall submit evidence to the court and all parties, at least 5 days prior to every regular review hearing:
(a) Demonstrating that:
(1) Ongoing assessment of the strengths and needs of the child continues to support the determination that the needs of the child cannot be met through placement with a parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, kin or fictive kin, caregiver, or in a foster family home;
(2) Any recommended psychological or clinical evaluations or assessments have been completed, and if not, the status of those evaluations or assessments;
(3) The department has worked with the school district to assure, consistent with the best interest of the child, the child’s educational stability;
(4) That the placement in a residential treatment program provides the most effective and appropriate level of care for the child in the least restrictive environment; and,
(5) That the placement is consistent with the short- and long-term goals for the child as specified in the permanency plan for the child, or as outlined in the family services plan.
(b) Documenting that:
(1) The specific treatment or service needs that will be met for the child in the placement;
(2) The length of time the child is expected to need treatment or services, and the treatment basis for the determination of that length of time; and
(3) The specific efforts made by the division to prepare the child and prospective placement for the child’s return home or to be placed with a fit and willing kin or fictive kin caregiver, a legal guardian, legal custodian, or an adoptive parent, or in a foster family.
7 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2025.
24-2976
Amended 4/2/24
SB 417-FN- FISCAL NOTE
AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE (AMENDMENT #2024-1111s)
AN ACT relative to out-of-home placements for children.
FISCAL IMPACT: [ X ] State [ ] County [ ] Local [ ] None
|
| |||||
Estimated State Impact - Increase / (Decrease) | ||||||
| FY 2024 | FY 2025 | FY 2026 | FY 2027 | ||
Revenue | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||
Revenue Fund(s) | None | |||||
Expenditures | $0 | DHHS $3,028,440/ Judicial Branch $1,483,484/ Judicial Council Indeterminable | DHHS $4,089,235/ Judicial Branch $1,531,885/ Judicial Council Indeterminable | DHHS $4,235,084/ Judicial Branch $1,531,885/ Judicial Council Indeterminable | ||
Funding Source(s) | General Fund | |||||
Appropriations | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||
Funding Source(s) | None | |||||
• Does this bill provide sufficient funding to cover estimated expenditures? [X] No • Does this bill authorize new positions to implement this bill? [X] No | ||||||
METHODOLOGY:
This bill provides additional structure to the Department of Health and Human Services’ use and oversight of residential treatment for children and youth. In particular, the bill enhances the scope of in-person visits between Division for Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) caseworkers and DCYF-involved youth in residential treatment. It also increases the frequency and intensity of court oversight of placements of DCYF-involved youth. In order to accommodate this increased workload for DCYF-involved youth, the Department anticipates a need for 18 additional child protective services workers (CPSW), nine additional juvenile probation and parole officers (JPPO), and five additional attorney III positions to support DCYF staff through the increased hearings and appeals.
In total, the Department projects the costs shown below. These projections assume the positions will be active beginning October 1, 2024. Accordingly, FY25 reflects 75 percent of a full year’s cost. (FY25 costs also include equipment and other startup costs for the positions.) Relatedly, travel is assumed to begin on January 1, 2025. FY25 therefore reflects 50 percent of a full year’s cost. The Department’s travel estimates assume a four percent cost increase each year.
| FY25 | FY26 | FY27 |
Youth Visit Staffing |
|
|
|
18 CPSWs | $1,566,000 | $2,052,000 | $2,124,000 |
9 JPPOs | $783,000 | $1,026,000 | $1,062,000 |
5 Attorneys | $525,000 | $690,000 | $715,000 |
Youth Visit Travel (Mileage, Flights, Hotel) | $154,440 | $321,235 | $334,084 |
Total: | $3,028,440 | $4,089,235 | $4,235,084 |
With respect to the impact on the Judicial Branch, the Branch states that currently, review hearings are held at 90-day intervals to determine the appropriateness of a residential treatment program. This bill would reduce the intervals of review hearings to every 30 days, resulting in a possible new average of 3,600 hearings per year, an increase of 2,400 hearings, or 200 percent. The Branch predicts this increase will result in the following additional salary and benefit costs.
| New Positions Needed | FY 25 | FY 26 | FY 27 |
Judges | 2 | $650,618 | $653,720 | $653,720 |
Clerks' Offices | 7 | $832,866 | $878,165 | $878,165 |
Total: | 9 | $1,483,484 | $1,531,885 | $1,531,885 |
The Judicial Council states that the bill's impact is indeterminable. The Council notes that depending on the parties present for a given review hearing, the Council would potentially be responsible for funding one or more attorneys or guardians ad litem (GAL) for a given review hearing. Attorneys and non-court appointed special advocate GALS are compensated at $90/hour, with a current cap under the rules of $450 per review hearing. The Council also pays for travel time to court.
AGENCIES CONTACTED:
Department of Health and Human Services, Judicial Branch, and Judicial Council