A sweeping child welfare and foster care bill wins NC Senate committee approval
An expansive bill overhauling the child welfare system that aims to increase stability for children in foster care won approval from a Senate committee on Thursday.
House Bill 612 provides for increased oversight of local child welfare office decisions by the state Department of Health and Human Services. It sets out timeframes for court hearings on plans to move children in foster care to permanent homes. Courts would be allowed to authorize post-adoption contact agreements between biological and adoptive parents.
Legislators have discussed comprehensive changes to child welfare and foster care laws for years.
'It's a long time coming,' Rep. Allen Chesser (R-Nash), one of the bill sponsors, told the Senate Health Committee during a Wednesday hearing. 'I think it's one of the most bipartisan issues we have.'
When they discussed the bill Wednesday, the Senate committee members heard concerns from a lawyer and adoptive parents that the bill would discourage infant adoptions.
The bill gives a biological father up to three months after a child's birth, when he is not married to the child's mother, to acknowledge paternity or attempt to form a relationship with the child before his parental rights are terminated. If a possible father finds out that a woman has fraudulently concealed her pregnancy or a child's birth, he would have up to 30 days after finding out to acknowledge paternity before his parental rights are terminated.
'From an adoptive parent perspective, this bill is frankly terrifying,' said Natalie Carscadden, an adoptive parent. 'Imagine the anxiety that comes when a person who's never met or shown any interest in a child suddenly appears in requests for custody up to a three-month time span after that child is born. This would upset the status quo and put significantly more legal risk on potential adoptive families.'
In the committee discussion Thursday, Chesser referenced a court decision on a father's right to act within a 'timely manner.'
'What we are doing is defining what a timely manner means,' he said.
The Senate combined the measure with three other bills that have passed the House:
House Bill 795, which extends financial assistance for guardians who are related to children who won't be adopted or returned to their parents. Payments through the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program could start when children are 10. Under current law, children have to be 14 or older.
House Bill 162 would have cities and counties require criminal background checks for any person they plan to hire who would work with children.
House Bill 182, which would allow judges to issue permanent 'no contact' orders against people convicted of violent crimes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Sherrod Brown, Ohio's highest-profile Democrat, reportedly expected to seek a return to the US Senate in 2026
Democrats view Brown, a three-term former senator and champion of the working class, as among their most formidable candidates despite his 2024 reelection defeat to Republican Bernie Moreno. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up His entry into the race would mark another major recruiting win for the party. While Democrats face a daunting Senate map in next year's midterm elections, they have been buoyed by the decisions of well known candidates to run in high-profile races. That includes in North Carolina, where former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper announced that he will be running for an open Senate seat, giving Democrats a proven statewide winner in a race that is expected to be one of the most competitive 2026 contests. Advertisement Republicans, meanwhile, have struggled to line up candidates in key battleground states like Georgia, where term-limited Brian Kemp passed on challenging Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff, whom Republican leaders have made their biggest target in next year's midterm elections. Advertisement In Ohio, numerous fellow Democrats had been deferring to Brown before announcing their own plans for 2026, when every statewide executive office in Ohio is up for grabs due to term limits. Besides Senate, Brown was also weighing a run for governor. He immediately becomes the front-runner for the Democratic Senate nomination. Husted was appointed to succeed then-Sen. JD Vance after Vance won the 2024 election alongside Trump. Husted's appointment to the seat expires next year. The winner of a fall 2026 special election will serve the remainder of Vance's unexpired six-year term, which runs through 2028, and then would need to run again for a full term. It's unclear how Brown's usual electoral advantage in name recognition might play against Husted, who spent more than 20 years as a statewide officeholder and state lawmaker. But Democratic strategists said Tuesday that a Husted-Brown race would be more centered on Ohio themes, an advantage for Brown over last year's nationally focused contest against Moreno. Trump's endorsement has been a winning formula in Senate bids by both Moreno and Vance before him, who both scored wins as political newcomers even amid fields that included more experienced rivals. Husted's campaign spokesman Tyson Shepherd said in a statement, 'Should Brown enter the race as (Senate Democratic Leader Chuck) Schumer's handpicked candidate he will be starting in the biggest hole of his political career. He has never faced a candidate like Jon Husted.' Ahead of his decision, Schumer visited Ohio to meet with Brown at least twice, as first reported by Axios. Schumer's deep-pocketed Senate Majority PAC helped make Brown's race against Moreno the most expensive in U.S. history. Advertisement Brown launched a pro-worker organization called the Dignity of Work Institute in March, as he weighed his own — and his party's — future in the wake of 2024's losses. Associated Press writers Jill Colvin and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 takeaways as Trump seizes control of DC police, deploys National Guard
President Trump announced Monday that he was taking control of the District of Columbia's police and deploying the National Guard. Trump portrayed the moves, which will involve about 800 National Guard troops, as a response to high crime rates in the nation's capital. He said it was an attempt to 'rescue' the District from 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor.' Reporters in a packed White House briefing room received handouts just before the president spoke where the District's murder rate was shown as higher than those of other international cities including Delhi, London and Bogotá, Colombia. Police statistics, however, show crime rates in the District have fallen sharply over the past two years. Violent crime is down 26 percent when compared year-to-date against 2024. Last year, in turn, saw a 32 percent drop in homicides and a 35 percent drop in overall violent crime compared to 2023. That being said, the total number of homicides last year, 187, was still above the years that immediately preceded 2020's COVID-19 pandemic. Here are the main takeaways from Trump's announcement. A major assertion of federal power — and Trump's power The decision from Trump was more expansive than many people expected. A deployment of National Guard troops had been predicted, in part because the District's status — short of full statehood — gives the president clear control of when the Guard is deployed. The decision to wrest control of Washington's police — the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) — was a significantly larger step. The fact that it came amid falling crime rates makes it even more controversial. So too does the politics of the District. Voters who gave then-Vice President Kamala Harris more than 90 percent of their votes last November will have their police force taken over by a notably divisive Republican president. Trump secured fewer than 7 percent of the vote in D.C. The Home Rule Act of 1973, which gives the District its current measure of autonomy, provides for a president taking emergency control of the D.C. police for 48 hours. During that period, a president who wishes to extend control is supposed to provide the reasons for that decision to the chairs and ranking members of House and Senate committees with responsibilities for the District. Doing this enables presidential control for 30 days. Any extension beyond that, the statute says, can only come if 'the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' Whether Trump accedes to those requirements remains to be seen. DC mayor offers modulated response District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) was critical of Trump's decision without intensifying her rhetoric as much as she could have. Bowser called the president's move 'unsettling and unprecedented' in a news conference. She also used the move to reiterate her belief that D.C. should be granted full statehood — a long-standing aim for many of the District's voters. In relation to a question about the prospect of military troops being deployed, Bowser said, 'I think I speak for all Americans: We don't believe it is legal to use the American military against American citizens on American soil.' But Bowser struck a fairly restrained tone throughout, writing on social media, 'Here's where we stand after today's announcement: we will follow the law, work with federal officials, and continue the work we do every single day to keep D.C. safe, beautiful, and the best city in the world.' Not everyone in city government was quite so measured. The District's attorney general, Brian Schwalb (D), said Trump's move was 'unlawful' and asserted that 'there is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia.' Democrats, liberal groups worry about militarization at Trump's behest Beyond the D.C. government, Democrats, liberals and civil rights groups expressed angst over what they see as Trump's penchant for gratuitous militarization. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement that Trump's 'ever-expanding use of the military for domestic matters is beyond alarming.' Reed cited as a precursor Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year — against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — saying that this showed a willingness 'to deploy U.S. military forces on American streets for inflammatory and political reasons.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) accused Trump of being 'an incoherent wannabe dictator who is trying to turn D.C. into his personal police state.' Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) contended that 'using U.S. military forces to enforce a policy agenda on American soil is a gross abuse of power that reeks of authoritarianism.' Among the broader criticism, Monica Hopkins, the executive director of the D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, called Trump's move 'political theater and a blatantly phony justification for abuse of emergency powers.' It's unclear where things go from here Even amid all the words on both sides, there is a lot of uncertainty. One obvious question is whether Trump will fulfill the demands of the Home Rule Act, in terms of informing Congress about the reasons for his decision to take control of the police and in ceding back control of the MPD after no more than 30 days. Another issue is where exactly the National Guard or other federally commanded troops will be deployed. Trump has focused on tourist-friendly areas being besmirched by crime. But in fact Washington's worst crime rates by far are found in the economically deprived neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, far from the epicenter of tourism. Another uncertainty hangs over what the president would characterize as success. In a social media post, he insisted that crime — as well as 'Savagery, Filth and Scum' — would 'DISAPPEAR' from D.C. Presumably he doesn't consider literally zero crime to be an achievable goal. Does any crime at all amount in his mind to justification for maintaining federal control? The news conference wasn't all about DC During Monday's news conference, Trump took questions on other topics. The most interesting moments came when he discussed his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday in Alaska. Trump's tone suggested a new turn against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump and Vice President Vance berated Zelensky during an Oval Office meeting in late February, but more recently the president had seemed to be putting pressure on Putin. That changed back Monday, when Trump once again appeared to blame Zelensky for the war, which was in fact started by Russia's 2022 invasion. 'I get along with Zelensky but, you know, I disagree with what he's done — very severely disagree,' Trump said. 'This is a war that should have never happened.' A deadline Trump had set for new sanctions on Russia expired Friday without action being taken. All in all, Trump's latest shift will please Moscow and discomfort Kyiv. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Rubio recasts long-held beliefs with cuts to U.S. human rights reports
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a vocal champion of human rights during his 14 years in the Senate, has overseen the most dramatic recasting of Washington's annual assessment of foreign governments' transgressions in years, sharply curtailing formal criticism of corruption and abuse around the world in a sweeping realignment of U.S. priorities.
