
CYFD reform package advancing quickly; other bills make slower progress
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.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration faces growing bipartisan pressure over Job Corps
Nearly 200 House members signed onto a bipartisan letter this week to express support for Job Corps after the Department of Labor recently announced it would soon be pausing operations at centers nationwide. In the letter to Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the lawmakers express support 'for the continuation of the Job Corps program,' while noting it remains funded through government funding legislation that passed earlier this year. 'Nearly 20,000 young people utilize Job Corps to learn skills for in-demand vocational and technical job training,' the letter said. 'Job Corps is one of the few national programs that specifically targets the 16-24-year-old population that is neither working, nor in school, and provides them with a direct pathway into employment openings in industries such as manufacturing and shipbuilding.' Job Corps, established as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, is a free residential education and job training program for low-income people between 16 and 24 years of age. In an announcement explaining the Labor Department's decision to suspend operations at Job Corps centers, Chavez-DeRemer said the program was found to no longer achieve 'the intended outcomes that students deserve,' citing what she described as 'a startling number of serious incident reports and our in-depth fiscal analysis.' 'We remain committed to ensuring all participants are supported through this transition and connected with the resources they need to succeed as we evaluate the program's possibilities.' The department said it will begin a 'phased pause' initiating 'an orderly transition for students, staff, and local communities.' The pause will occur by June 30, the office said. The move was met with swift backlash from lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who defended the program in a statement expressing strong opposition to the department's move to pause operations. 'Serving nearly 500 students in Maine, the Loring Job Corps Center and the Penobscot Job Corps Center have become important pillars of support for some of our most disadvantaged young adults,' Collins said at the time. In the new letter sent to the secretary Thursday, the group of lawmakers said by 'filling job openings, Job Corps ensures that young people become productive members of the American workforce.' 'No other program takes homeless youth and turns them into the welders, electricians, shipbuilders, carpenters, nurses, mechanics, and vocational workers of the future,' the letter said. The letter came a day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from suspending operations at Job Corps centers as critics argue the move is illegal. 'The Department of Labor is working closely with the Department of Justice to evaluate and comply with the temporary restraining order,' the agency said in a statement to The Hill on Friday. 'We remain confident that our actions are consistent with the law.' Updated: 12:51 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is keeping his distance from Elon Musk even after the billionaire's extraordinary public rebuke of President Trump and the GOP's domestic agenda. Asked Friday if Musk's bitter break from Trump presents Democrats with an opportunity to form a strange-bedfellows alliance with the tech titan, Jeffries shifted the conversation immediately to the Democrats' efforts to kill Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'The opportunity that exists right now is to kill the GOP tax scam,' Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. 'It's legislation that we have been strongly opposed to, and uniformly opposed to, from the very beginning. … It rips health care away from millions of people. It snatches food out of the mouths of hungry children. And it rewards billionaires and [GOP] donors in ways that are fiscally irresponsible.' Pressed on whether Musk should be 'welcomed back' to the Democratic Party after the high-profile split from Trump, Jeffries punted again. 'Same answer,' he said. Jeffries's cautious remarks demonstrate the limits of the old adage that the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend. They also highlight the potential difficulties Democrats would face if they embraced a polarizing and nationally unpopular figure in Musk — one they've spent most of the last year bashing for heavy spending on Trump's campaign and, more recently, for his role in heading Trump's efforts to gut the federal government. Still, some Democrats say Musk's influence is significant enough that Democrats should make the effort to try to court him to their side amid the Trump feud. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Silicon Valley, is leading the charge. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' Khanna posted Thursday on social platform X, which is owned by Musk. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority,' referring to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Jeffries isn't going nearly so far. But he has welcomed Musk's attacks on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the Republicans who voted for it. And he aligned Democrats with Musk's sentiments that the package piles too much money onto the federal debt, a figure the Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $2.4 trillion. 'To the extent that Elon Musk has made the same point that everyone who has voted for this bill up until this moment should be ashamed of themselves, we agree,' Jeffries said. 'And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the point that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination,' we agree. And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the observation about the GOP tax scam — that it is reckless and irresponsible to explode the deficit by more than $3 trillion, and that potentially could set our country on a path toward bankruptcy — we agree.' 'These are arguments that Democrats have been making now for months.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?
The House proposed tax on college endowments has drawn considerable attention. Critics have rightly noted that it would effectively tax student scholarships as well as undermine donor intent, and lacks a clear public policy rationale. While this tax targets only the wealthiest institutions, every college and university in the country is paying a different kind of price — what I call a 'chaos tax.' This refers to the unfunded time, energy and expense required to respond to the administration's attacks on higher education, along with its onslaught of confusing policy proposals and demands. That the federal government would so recklessly jeopardize the future of American colleges and universities is mind-boggling. When my organization surveyed and interviewed hundreds of college presidents two years ago, they reported that the issues that mattered the most to them were tied to improving the education offered to students. Among their top priorities: fostering a climate for free expression, strengthening the college-to-career pipeline, and integrating new technologies. This year, college presidents tell us that the bulk of their time is taken up with responding to executive orders, protecting the rights of students, and responding to negative perceptions of higher ed. In both the near past and the present, many were also focused on the financial stability of their institutions. But the current policy climate has made this an even more pressing worry. College presidents now express concern that their institutions face an existential threat. Each time the federal government issues a threat or demand, institutions must pause to parse and interpret it. Each time funding is withheld or a grant is cancelled, institutions have to realign their already stressed budgets and make difficult decisions. Many executive orders have been paused by judges due to their lack of clarity or their lack of alignment with federal law or the Constitution. But whether they stand or fall, the toll on campus leaders — and the students they serve — is intense. If our largest universities are struggling to respond, imagine what this season of attack is doing to the many smaller and leaner institutions. To give just one example, the recent threat to disenroll Harvard's international students — a threat currently on hold thanks to a judicial ruling — has sent shock waves throughout all of higher education. Nationally, more than a million college and university students are from countries outside the U.S. For decades, American colleges and universities have welcomed them, seeing opportunities for enhanced peer-to-peer global learning, a way to keep tuition down for domestic students, and a chance to share the good news about American democracy and freedom to learn. In the wake of unprecedented arrests, sudden cancelling of visas and now the threat of disenrollment, international student applications have dropped dramatically across the board. Current international students are panicked about their future and unsure if they will be able to return after the summer. For many years, American higher education has been the envy of the world and one of our most successful exports. The international students who flock here pay top dollar to receive a world-class education, globally lauded credentials, and a deeper appreciation for the American way of life. In this case, the balance of trade is widely in our favor. The loss of international students means a less effective and robust education for all American students. Without revenue from international students, American students will have to pay more. And international enrollment is but a single target of chaotic orders and policy. With more of their college leadership investing time in navigating the many unforced errors of the current administration, American students will see less time spent on meeting their educational needs and fewer opportunities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other important fields. That the federal government would recklessly endanger the future of so many American colleges and universities is vexing. What are our goals as a nation? Are we looking to create well-paying jobs and enhance American prosperity? Preserve the blessings of a free society? Improve health and life expectancy for more Americans? No country has been able to achieve these aims without significant investment. It is not just the elites that are bearing the burden of this chaos. The local religious college, the small comprehensive university that educates nurses and teachers, community colleges, the land grant public institution, the state branch campus — all of them are vulnerable to the same threatened withdrawal of federal support. Collectively, American higher education is being weakened and hollowed out. Our capacity for scientific innovation is being hobbled. Our pathways out of poverty are being pruned. Our future is being mortgaged. We need to insist on a sensible policy agenda for higher education — one that is preparing the country for the impact of AI and positioning our graduates to serve their communities and lead in their professions. Students, alumni and families who hope for a bright future for their children must join higher ed leaders and insist on an end to the chaos tax. Marjorie Hass, Ph.D., is president of the Council of Independent Colleges, an organization serving more than 600 independent colleges and universities, based in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.