logo
CYFD reform package advancing quickly; other bills make slower progress

CYFD reform package advancing quickly; other bills make slower progress

Yahoo12-03-2025
As the Roundhouse rounds third base on this year's legislative session, lawmakers are racing to bring home a few measures aimed at reforming New Mexico's troubled child welfare system.
The lead runner seems to be Senate Bill 42, a measure unveiled late last week that bundles multiple other bills addressing child welfare issues and which is already headed to the Senate floor after unanimously clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday evening.
Other notable measures — such as House Joint Resolution 5, which would completely overhaul CYFD's leadership structure, and House Bill 5, which would establish a new oversight office for the agency — have moved slower. With time left in the session dwindling, it's unclear what will make it through.
'Given the length of time that we have left, it becomes more difficult as each day passes,' said Rep. Eleanor Chávez, D-Albuquerque and a sponsor of HJR 5.
SB 42 marks an apparent compromise between Democrats, Republicans and the executive branch. CYFD and the governor have thrown their support behind the bill after being at odds with legislators over other proposals this session, including HJR 5 and HB 5.
While the child welfare reform package leaves out large-scale oversight or leadership reforms, it would implement priorities laid out by the Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham during her State of the State address: namely, moving management of the federal Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, out of CYFD and holding families accountable to following through with care plans for substance-exposed children.
CYFD spokesperson Andrew Skobinsky said in an email the New Mexico Department of Health, which would take over CARA, is 'better equipped to manage the healthcare and medical implications of children born substance-exposed/dependent.'
Republican lawmakers and others have also criticized state law for not requiring families with babies exposed to substances to follow through on care plans prescribed to them. SB 42 would bolster the state's response to those families, requiring CYFD to assess whether a family that does not follow through with a care plan is able to keep that baby safe.
Skobinsky said that could lead to an abuse and neglect investigation and, possibly, the child being taken into CYFD custody.
SB 42 also incorporates other reform efforts, including one requiring identifying information to be released when a child dies or nearly dies while in the care of a foster family under investigation by CYFD. Another would require the agency to enact a plan pursuant to a federal plan allowing states to use more dollars on prevention services.
Though the federal Family First Prevention Services Act was passed in 2018, CYFD has yet to have a plan adopting the legislation be approved by the federal government. The agency resubmitted its plan late last year, and hopes to hear back in April.
Other measures
While SB 42 has backing from leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as from the governor and CYFD, HB 5 and HJR 5 have less broad support.
HB 5, which seeks to establish an Office of the Child Advocate under the New Mexico Department of Justice tasked with monitoring the services CYFD provides to children and receiving complaints about issues at the agency, has faced opposition from CYFD. The agency has argued that while it welcomes oversight and accountability, HB 5 is not the way to do it.
Still, the bill, which was identified by House Democrats before the start of the session as a priority for the caucus, has garnered some Republican support. House Minority Leader Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, said HB 5 and SB 42 are examples of everyone 'finally on the same page and trying to get something across the finish line.'
'This administration has had six years to fix this, and I think that everyone finally [has] come to the position of, 'They need help, and they need lots of ideas and lots of cooks in the kitchen,' and hopefully we get an answer this year,' Armstrong said in an interview. 'If we don't, it's on the majority — it's not on me.'
HB 5 cleared the floor last week and awaits passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That said, a similar iteration of HB 5 failed in 2023.
But HJR 5, which passed out of the House Judiciary Committee the same day HB 5 and other CYFD-related measures did, has lagged behind its peers and is still awaiting passage by the full House.
The resolution is ambitious, asking lawmakers and voters — who would also have to approve HJR 5 should it clear the Roundhouse — to remove CYFD from the Governor's Cabinet and install a commission that would hire a director to manage the agency.
In addition to stiff opposition from the executive branch, the resolution also drew concerns from field experts tasked with tracking the state's progress in the landmark Kevin S. settlement, reached after over a dozen foster children sued New Mexico for failing to fulfill its duty to kids in state care.
The experts argued in a letter child welfare systems in other states actually benefited from moving away from commission-style governance structures and that keeping CYFD under the purview of the governor better facilitates communication between state agencies.
Chávez, however, sees the resolution as a way for the Legislature to take matters into its own hands, noting that several years have passed since the Kevin S. settlement was reached with little to show for them.
'That agency has had some extreme turnover related to politics,' she said. '... The other piece, too, is that — and I don't want to say that any of the secretaries don't work hard — but they don't have the child welfare experience that's needed to guide this agency not just through the current struggles but also provide the kind of leadership that that expertise and experience would provide.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge Expands Texas AG's Restraining Order Over Texas Democrats' Fundraising
Judge Expands Texas AG's Restraining Order Over Texas Democrats' Fundraising

Epoch Times

time22 minutes ago

  • Epoch Times

Judge Expands Texas AG's Restraining Order Over Texas Democrats' Fundraising

A judge on Saturday ruled to expand a restraining order against former congressman Robert Francis 'Beto' O'Rourke (D-Texas) and his political organization over its fundraising efforts for Democratic lawmakers who left Texas amid a state House battle over redistricting. In the order, Judge Megan Fahey wrote that O'Rourke, also a presidential candidate in the 2020 election, cannot send money out of Texas. She ruled in favor of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, after Paxton sought to remove the charter of Powered by People, the organization headed by O'Rourke.

Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?

New York Post

time2 hours ago

  • New York Post

Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?

'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.

Disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner makes blunt prediction about Zohran Mamdani, top Dems in NYC mayoral race: ‘It's inevitable'
Disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner makes blunt prediction about Zohran Mamdani, top Dems in NYC mayoral race: ‘It's inevitable'

New York Post

time4 hours ago

  • New York Post

Disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner makes blunt prediction about Zohran Mamdani, top Dems in NYC mayoral race: ‘It's inevitable'

Top New York Democrats will swallow hard and eventually endorse lefty socialist Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani for mayor, ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner predicts. Weiner, the convicted perv whose own career crashed amid sexting scandals, said it was 'inevitable' that the nation's leading Democrats in Congress — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — would eventually back Mamdani. 'At the end of the day, people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, they are going to have to endorse the nominee of their party [Mamdani],' Weiner said Sunday on 'The Cats Roundtable' radio program on WABC 770 AM. 6 Ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner predicts New York Democrats will eventually endorse Zohran Mamdani for mayor. AP 6 'At the end of the day, people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, they are going to have to endorse the nominee of their party [Mamdani],' Weiner said on 'The Cats Roundtable' radio program. Getty Images 'I think it's inevitable,' he told host John Catsimatidis of the two lawmakers from Brooklyn. Some moderate Democrats who detest Mamdani's views will not endorse him — but Schumer and Jeffries as party leaders can't avoid the spotlight, he said. 'Some people can stay on the sidelines, and I think you're going to see a lot of people do that. but the leaders of the party, which Chuck and Hakeem are, are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea,' he said. 6 'They don't want to harm their moderate candidates all around the country, which are the ones they need to take back the House and Senate,' Weiner said about why Schumer and Jeffries have not endorsed the democratic socialist yet. REUTERS 'They've got the Democratic Party, who's now chosen their nominee,' Weiner said. Top Dems like Schumer and Jeffries have been dragging their feet on endorsing Mamdani to avoid harming moderate members of their party in the 2026 midterms, Weiner opined. 'The reason Chuck and Hakeem have been so slow to endorse Zohran is because they don't want to harm their moderate candidates all around the country, which are the ones they need to take back the House and Senate,' he said. 'That's a political question for them.' 6 According to Weiner, 'unfortunately, or fortunately … I think we're going to have Zohran Mamdani as the mayor in New York City.' James Keivom Republicans are already trying to link their Democratic rivals to Mamdani in this year's municipal elections across the Empire state. Weiner also predicted that Mamdani, as the Democratic nominee, will win the mayoralty. 'Unfortunately, or fortunately … I think we're going to have Zohran Mamdani as the mayor in New York City,' he said. Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Catsimatidis noted that two other Democrats are running as independent candidates in the November election — incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who didn't run in the June Democratic primary, and ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who lost badly to Mamdani in that race. But Weiner dismissed their chances at winning while running on independent ballot lines in the general contest. Weiner attempted his second comeback, running for a City Council seat in District 2 on Manhattan's East Side in June, but lost badly to Assemblyman Harvey Epstein. 6 Weiner, whose career crashed amid sexting scandals, attempted his second comeback by running for a City Council seat in District 2 on Manhattan's East Side in June, but lost. Paul Martinka Weiner's downfall began in 2011, when he resigned from Congress after admitting he'd sent salacious selfies to at least six women. He then saw his comeback campaign for mayor in 2013 go down in flames when it was revealed he resumed the pervy activity using the pseudonym 'Carlos Danger.' Weiner later developed a months-long online relationship with a 15-year-old girl, whom he asked to dress up in school uniforms and be part of 'rape fantasies,' prosecutors charged. He pleaded guilty to sexting with a minor and did some prison time. His scandal-scarred baggage and criminal conviction may make him unelectable — but Weiner suggested his more moderate brand of politics played a role. 6 Weiner had previously resigned from Congress after admitting he'd sent salacious selfies to women. Angelina Katsanis/AP 'Right now, the Democratic Party in a lot of parts of New York … is very, very left to the point of falling off the edge of the cliff,' he told Catsimatidis. Many mainstream or moderate Democratic lawmakers are 'looking over their shoulders wondering if the next AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] or Zohran Mamdani is going to be coming out of the woodwork to win in a primary,' Weiner said. While leftist or Democratic socialist candidates have won some races, they haven't shown yet that they can govern effectively, he said. 'The one thing that the left hasn't shown that they can do – if you look at Chicago and San Francisco – they haven't shown that they can govern yet,' Weiner said. 'The bigger problem is what outcomes are we going to get as citizens and taxpayers if these candidates are successful? Unfortunately, it looks like we're going to find out in New York City.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store