Early permanency hearings proposed for younger children

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony Feb. 9 on a bill that would shorten the minimum timespan for holding a permanency hearing for a young child in foster care.

LB598, introduced by Lincoln Sen. Tony Fulton, would require a permanency hearing for a child who is six years old or younger to be held no later than six months after he or she enters the foster care system.

For a child older than six, the requirement for holding a permanency hearing within 12 months of entering the system would remain in effect.

Crucial development and attachment need to occur in the first few years of a child’s life, Fulton said. Failing to achieve early permanency for young children can result in attachment disorders and other negative outcomes, he said.

Less than half of the young children currently in the foster care system were given a permanency hearing in less than a year, Fulton said.

“We must recognize the long-lasting ramifications on a child who fails to have permanency in their home before they have even entered the school system,” he said.

Linda Cox, special projects and data coordinator for the state Foster Care Review Board, testified in support of the bill.

The state has over 1,000 children younger than six years old in out-of-home care, Cox said, and about 41 percent have been in out-of-home care for a year or longer.

It is critical that young children achieve permanency in a timely manner, she said.

Todd Reckling, director of the division of children and family services at the state Department of Health and Human Services, testified in opposition to the bill, saying the court already has the authority to hold a hearing at any time after a child has entered the system.

The timeline proposed in LB598 would not be in the best interest of the children, Reckling said, as the assessments made would be too narrow and decisions would be based on too little information.

Christine Constantakos, an attorney in juvenile law, provided neutral testimony.

The proposed timeframe would give parents of younger children less time to rehabilitate themselves than the parents of children who are older than six, she said, which could result in constitutional challenges under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.