SB 6023
In CommitteeSenate
Children/imminent risk
Protecting children from imminent risk of harm.
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 gives law enforcement and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) new authority to remove children from dangerous situations without waiting for a court order when there is probable cause to believe the child is at imminent risk of serious physical harm. It also clarifies what counts as evidence of such danger and allows photography of the child for evidence purposes.
- Allows law enforcement to take a child into emergency custody without a court order if there is probable cause to believe the child faces imminent physical harm from abuse, neglect, sexual abuse/exploitation, high-potency synthetic opioids, or severe neglect.
- Requires law enforcement to immediately take a child into custody when notified by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) that such action is needed to prevent imminent harm.
- Authorizes law enforcement or DCYF to photograph a child to document physical condition as evidence in abuse or neglect cases.
- Clarifies that evidence of imminent harm can include a determination that a child’s home is unsafe to enter.
- Requires investigations of abuse/neglect reports to continue as before, including referrals to court when necessary.
Who is affected
- Children at imminent risk of harm — Children who are in immediate danger of physical harm due to abuse, neglect, sexual abuse/exploitation, exposure to high-potency synthetic opioids, or severe neglect patterns may be taken into emergency custody by law enforcement without waiting for a court order.
- Law enforcement agencies — Law enforcement officers gain new authority to take children into emergency custody without a court order in specific high-risk situations, and must do so immediately upon notification from the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).
- Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) — The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) must now immediately notify law enforcement when they believe a child is in imminent danger and needs emergency removal, and can rely on evidence such as an unsafe home environment to support that belief.
- Juvenile courts — Courts may see increased emergency custody filings, as this bill creates a faster pathway for removing children from dangerous situations before formal dependency proceedings begin.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (3)
Immediate protection for children in life-threatening situations: The bill enables rapid intervention when children are in imminent danger—such as exposure to high-potency synthetic opioids (e.g., fentanyl), active abuse, or severe neglect—potentially preventing serious injury or death where delays for court orders would be fatal or catastrophic.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Enhanced ability to document and preserve evidence of harm: Authorization to photograph children for evidentiary purposes improves case documentation and may support medical and legal interventions, especially in cases of physical abuse or opioid exposure where timely visual evidence is critical to diagnosis and prosecution.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Strengthened coordination between DCYF and law enforcement: Mandating immediate notification from DCYF to law enforcement ensures a unified, rapid response to high-risk cases, reducing the risk of delays or jurisdictional gaps that could leave children exposed to ongoing harm.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)
Potential Concerns (5)
Risk of overreach or misuse of emergency custody authority: Law enforcement officers are granted broad discretion to remove children without judicial review, based on “probable cause” that may be subjective or based on incomplete information—particularly in cases involving poverty-related neglect (e.g., unsafe housing due to economic hardship), potentially leading to disproportionate removal of children from low-income families.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Erosion of due process protections for families: The bill allows removal without a court order, bypassing the constitutional requirement of notice and hearing before deprivation of parental rights—potentially violating the Fourteenth Amendment rights of parents and caregivers, especially where removal is based on subjective determinations like “unsafe to enter” rather than concrete evidence.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Increased strain on local law enforcement and child welfare systems: Mandating immediate removal upon DCYF notification without requiring independent verification may overwhelm local agencies, especially in rural or under-resourced jurisdictions, and could lead to rushed decisions or misallocation of limited personnel and resources.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)Potential criminalization of poverty: The inclusion of “unsafe home environment” as evidence of imminent harm may disproportionately target families living in poverty—e.g., homes with mold, overcrowding, or lack of utilities—without distinguishing between neglect and structural disadvantage, potentially leading to unwarranted removals.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Risk of retraumatization and institutional harm to children: Emergency removal—even when justified—can be deeply traumatic for children and may place them in foster care or group homes where they face new risks (e.g., abuse, neglect, instability), especially if the system is already overburdened and under-resourced.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Children in imminent danger benefit significantly—especially those exposed to opioids, active abuse, or severe neglect—because the bill enables faster removal and protection. However, children removed unnecessarily may face trauma, instability, or retraumatization in foster care.
Law enforcement gains new authority but also new liability and operational burdens. Officers must make high-stakes decisions quickly without judicial oversight, increasing risk of error or constitutional violations—particularly in communities with high poverty or systemic bias.
DCYF gains a powerful tool to act swiftly, but also increased legal and ethical responsibility: the department must now make determinations of “imminent harm” with real-world consequences, and may face lawsuits or oversight if decisions are flawed or biased.
Low-income families and families of color are disproportionately at risk of unwarranted removal due to subjective interpretations of “unsafe home” or “severe neglect,” especially when conditions stem from poverty rather than intentional harm.
Juvenile courts may face increased caseloads from emergency removals, but also gain the benefit of earlier, more complete evidence in dependency cases—potentially improving outcomes if paired with adequate resources.