SB 2775 is a Mississippi “bring forward” bill that reprints, without substantive amendment, several existing code sections for possible future revision. The bill covers three main subject areas: licensing of family foster homes, residential child-caring agencies, and child-placing agencies; revocation of hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses; and suspension of state-issued licenses for noncompliance with child support orders. It also includes the state’s definitions, licensing authority, inspection powers, renewal rules, exemptions, enforcement provisions, and penalties tied to child placement and adoption-related services.
Under the child welfare provisions, the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services remains the licensing authority for foster homes and child-placing agencies, with authority to issue, inspect, suspend, revoke, and renew licenses, set standards, and investigate complaints. The bill preserves special rules for out-of-state agencies, a longer license term for Mississippi child-placing agencies in good standing, public access to certain records, exemptions for certain government, correctional, educational, religious, and power-of-attorney arrangements, and rules governing adoption advertising and fee disclosures. It also retains criminal penalties for illegal child placement and immunity for department personnel acting under the article.
The bill likewise brings forward existing wildlife-license revocation authority and the child-support enforcement framework that allows suspension of licenses, permits, or registrations when a person is delinquent on support obligations. Those sections require licensing entities to share licensee information with the child support division, provide notice and an opportunity for review or payment arrangements, and allow suspension and reinstatement procedures, including appeals to chancery court. The wildlife section also preserves revocation and reinstatement rules for hunting, fishing, and trapping privileges, including suspension for child-support noncompliance.
Overall sentiment appears neutral to procedural, because the bill is framed as a code-carrying measure for possible amendment rather than a policy overhaul. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no evidence of active debate, opposition, or support in the available record. The bill’s caption references an “adoption licensure board,” but the text itself primarily preserves existing licensing and enforcement statutes rather than creating a new board or changing substantive policy in the version provided.
SB 2775 would not itself appear to change Mississippi law substantively in the text provided; instead, it brings forward existing statutes for possible amendment and preserves current law governing child-placing and foster-care licensure, wildlife license revocation, and child-support-related license suspension. The affected statutes include Mississippi Code Sections 43-15-103 through 43-15-125, Section 49-7-27, and Sections 93-11-155, 93-11-157, and 93-11-163. If enacted as written, the bill would maintain the Department of Child Protection Services’ licensing and enforcement authority, the child-support suspension process, and the Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks’ revocation authority, with an effective date of July 1, 2025.
The available record suggests a largely procedural and noncontroversial posture. The bill is a “bring forward” measure, there are no committee transcripts, and no votes are listed, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a housekeeping measure preserving existing law rather than a contested policy change.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. Based on the statutory text, the most likely areas of sensitivity are the licensing and oversight of adoption and child-placing agencies, the disclosure of agency fee schedules and client lists, the exemption for certain religious institutions, and the use of license suspension as a child-support enforcement tool. However, the record supplied does not show any named opponents, supporters, or disputed amendments.