SB 6416 Concerning relatives in dependency proceedings
The Alexis Stuth Bill passed out 48-0 (with one excused) and has been transmitted to the House of Representatives.
The bill needs to pass out of the House and be delivered to governor. Your support will be needed again. This time in the House hearing. Thank you to everyone in getting it this far. Of note, Denise Revels-Robinson testified in favor of the bill. And, Alexis became one of Washington's youngest to be addressed by the chair, Senator Jim Hargrove (second on the bill).
If passed into law a relative will be able to file a petition to be heard on the issue of removal of a dependent child from their care. The relative has ten business days from the date of removal, or when the relative learns of the removal, whichever is later, to file the petition. The relative may call and cross examine witnesses at the hearing on the petition. The relatives ability to file a petition to be heard does not grant them party status in the underlying dependency. When a parent requests that his or her child be placed with a relative, there is a presumption that such placement is in the child's best interest. (The best interest placement was SB 6417 which was amended into SB 6416.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Way to go Pam!!!!
LOVE, LOVE, LOVE IT! FINALLY SOME GOOD NEWS, JUSTICE FOR ALL, THE CONSTITUTION, REASON FOR LAWS, HERITAGE, FAMILY, ABOVE ALL! TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO GET THE BILL ENACTED.
Right on! Thank you Senator. You are an Angel to the families in Washington State.
I notice the language of the bill is very similar to one proposed in California.
Folks might be interested to know that in the California case, an Orange County Mom was awarded close to 5M because of losing her children to social services and her ex hubby.
Now DCFS in California is appealing and the judgement may be confidential or unpublished, but folks might be interested to know that the caseworkers were also defendants in the litigation
Californians, update us on Deana Fogary-Hardwick's case.
KIN must come first, otherwise, we completely risk having children and teens mistrusting government forever.
Just as a few teens expressed to me: "They had family", but DHS placed them, willy-nilly in a GROUP HOME.
How will this bill effect Grammas who have been trodden on in the past, crucified as relative placement, then our babies go to non-relative foster care?
I believe the state should consider building a memorial for the couples and their families who have wrongfully lost their children to strangers (foster/adopt). The hope is always reunification no matter how old that child is; however, we only live so long and many grandparents have aged by now and/ or passed away.
This bill is so humane and logical. Family should always be the first consideration as home for the children. It is such a common sense decision that the wonder is why anything else would ever have been considered first. Thank you, Pam.
Post a Comment