HB 2692
In CommitteeHouse
Child abuse & neglect
Modifying the standard by which courts, law enforcement, and hospitals may remove children based on child abuse or neglect.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill raises the legal threshold for removing children from their homes by changing the standard from 'imminent physical harm' to 'substantial risk of physical or emotional harm' and adds specific protections for children in cases involving synthetic opioids. It also strengthens procedural safeguards for families—including faster hearings, expanded visitation rights, and requirements to consider relative placements first—and clarifies when courts may impose conditions on reunification during shelter care.
- Changes the legal standard for removing children from homes from 'imminent physical harm' to 'substantial risk of physical or emotional harm'—including harm from sexual abuse, exploitation, high-potency synthetic opioids, or severe neglect—and requires courts to give great weight to public health guidance on synthetic opioids.
- Requires shelter care hearings within 72 hours (excluding weekends/holidays) after removal, with additional hearings if removal occurs after the initial hearing, and allows continuances for good cause.
- Authorizes courts to impose conditions on reunification (e.g., service participation) during shelter care only if conditions are culturally appropriate, reasonably available, and accessible—and prohibits using failure to provide timely referrals as grounds for continued removal.
- Mandates that courts prioritize placing children with relatives or other suitable persons before ordering foster care, and requires agencies to actively search for and assess potential relative placements.
- Expands rights to early, frequent, and unsupervised visitation (unless safety risks exist), with the first visit required within 72 hours of department custody, and prohibits limiting visitation as a sanction for service noncompliance.
Who is affected
- Parents, guardians, or legal custodians — Parents, guardians, or legal custodians may face higher thresholds for child removal and gain new rights to request shelter care hearings, receive timely referrals to services, and have conditions imposed on reunification that must be culturally appropriate and accessible.
- Children involved in child welfare cases — Children may benefit from stronger protections against unnecessary removal, earlier and more consistent visitation with family, and placement with relatives when possible.
- Juvenile courts and judges — Courts must apply a higher legal standard for removal, hold more frequent shelter care hearings, and consider less restrictive placement options before ordering foster care.
- Law enforcement officers and hospital staff — Law enforcement and hospital staff may act more quickly to remove children in emergencies but must now meet a 'substantial risk' standard instead of 'imminent physical harm' and follow updated notification and documentation procedures.
- Child welfare agencies and staff — The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) and county child protective services must make more intensive efforts to locate relatives for placement, provide housing assistance when relevant, and ensure timely service referrals.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Raising the removal standard to 'substantial risk of physical or emotional harm'—and explicitly listing poverty, housing inadequacy, and nonconforming behavior as *not* constituting risk—reduces overreach and disproportionately targeted removals of low-income and minority families, especially in cases involving substance use without direct harm.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(5)(a)(ii)(B)(I)Mandating shelter care hearings within 72 hours and requiring courts to consider whether prevention services could prevent removal before ordering shelter care strengthens due process and prioritizes family preservation, reducing unnecessary trauma from prolonged separation.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a), Sec. 2(5)(a)(ii)(B)(i)Mandating prioritization of relative placements—and requiring courts to consider the parent’s and child’s preferences—supports kinship care, which research shows leads to better outcomes for children and reduces long-term foster care costs, especially for Native and rural families.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(d)(i)-(iii), Sec. 2(5)(d)(ii)(B)Requiring the first visit within 72 hours of custody and mandating early, frequent, unsupervised visitation (unless safety risks exist) preserves critical parent-child bonds during crisis, supporting emotional stability and long-term reunification success.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(9)(a), Sec. 2(9)(d)Prohibiting use of service noncompliance as grounds for continued removal if timely referrals are not made incentivizes agencies to actually deliver services—especially mental health, substance use, and housing support—rather than using noncompliance as a proxy for parental failure.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(c), Sec. 2(5)(c)(iii)
Potential Concerns (4)
Raising the threshold from 'imminent physical harm' to 'substantial risk of physical or emotional harm' may delay or prevent emergency removal of children in acute danger—especially from synthetic opioids—because the new standard requires courts to consider 'great weight' to public health guidance, which may not be available or timely in fast-moving overdose crises.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 5(1)Mandating shelter care hearings within 72 hours (excluding weekends/holidays), plus additional hearings if removal occurs after the initial hearing, significantly increases demand on already-stretched court and child welfare agency staffing, potentially causing delays elsewhere in the docket or forcing agencies to divert resources from prevention services.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a), Sec. 2(1)(b)The requirement that the department provide service referrals within 7 days of a signed release—and prohibit using failure to provide timely referrals as grounds for continued removal—may strain agency capacity, especially in rural counties with limited service providers, potentially leading to inconsistent access to services and uneven enforcement.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(c), Sec. 2(5)(c)(iii)The prohibition on using service noncompliance as grounds for continued removal unless conditions are 'culturally appropriate, reasonably available, and reasonably accessible' may reduce accountability for parents who refuse or fail to engage with services—even when those services exist—potentially prolonging unsafe home environments.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(c)(i)-(iii)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income parents and caregivers—especially those of color or with substance use histories—are less likely to face unnecessary removals under the higher 'substantial risk' standard, and benefit from stronger due process, kinship placement preferences, and service-based safety net provisions. However, those in active crisis (e.g., acute opioid exposure) may face delays in removal if evidence does not meet the new threshold.
Children benefit from reduced trauma from unnecessary removal, earlier and more consistent visitation, and placement with relatives—which is associated with better emotional, educational, and safety outcomes. However, in cases of acute opioid exposure or severe neglect, the higher standard may delay life-saving removal.
Courts and judges face increased procedural demands (e.g., 72-hour hearings, detailed inquiries into services and relative placements), but gain clearer legal standards and procedural guardrails that reduce arbitrary removals and promote consistency. Judges also gain discretion to prioritize reunification pathways, aligning with evidence-based practice.
Law enforcement and hospital staff gain authority to act quickly in emergencies but must now apply a higher legal threshold ('substantial risk' instead of 'imminent physical harm'), requiring more nuanced assessments and documentation. This may increase liability concerns in borderline cases.
Child welfare agencies (DCYF and counties) face increased staffing and service-delivery demands (e.g., 72-hour hearings, relative searches, timely referrals), but gain stronger statutory support for prioritizing kinship care and prevention—reducing long-term dependency and foster placements. Rural agencies with limited resources may struggle most.