AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 14-15-09, 14-15-11, 50-12-09, 50-12-10, and 50-12-17 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the revised uniform adoption act and child-placing agencies; to repeal sections 50-12-02.1 and 50-12-11 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to out-of-state child-placing agencies and revocation of license; and to provide a penalty.
HB 1120 updates North Dakota’s adoption and child-placing agency laws. It revises the petition and notice requirements for adoptions, clarifies what information must be included in adoption petitions, and expands the list of reasonable adoption-related expenses that may be paid, including counseling, legal services, medical costs, transportation, lodging, and limited living expenses for a birth mother. The bill also tightens language around when fees may be charged and prohibits contingent fees tied to placement or consent.
The bill further changes the court-ordered investigation process in adoption cases. It requires or clarifies investigation and reporting by licensed child-placing agencies or the Department of Health and Human Services, adds a presumption that certain foster homes are suitable adoptive homes if they have been licensed or approved for more than a year without enforcement action, and allows some waivers for stepparent, adult, guardian, and certain relative adoptions. It also revises child-placing agency compensation rules, license revocation grounds, and the definition of unlawful placement activity, while repealing provisions related to out-of-state child-placing agencies and revocation of license.
The bill’s impact on state law is to modernize and consolidate adoption procedures and child-placing agency regulation under the revised uniform adoption act framework. It affects adoptive parents, birth parents, child-placing agencies, the Department of Health and Human Services, courts, and human service zones by changing filing requirements, notice obligations, fee rules, investigative standards, licensing enforcement, and criminal penalties for unauthorized placement activity. It also removes two existing statutory sections and replaces them with updated provisions.
Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. The House passed the bill unanimously, and the Senate passed it with only one dissenting vote, suggesting broad bipartisan support for the changes. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting record indicates the bill was viewed as a technical and policy update to adoption law rather than a highly contested measure.
The main points of contention, to the extent they can be inferred from the text, are the regulation of adoption-related fees and the scope of agency authority. The bill carefully limits fees that can be charged to adoptive families and birth parents, bars contingent fees, and specifies what counts as reasonable expenses, which may reflect concern about commercialization of adoption. It also preserves and clarifies the state’s licensing and enforcement powers over child-placing agencies, including felony penalties for willful violations, but the near-unanimous votes suggest these issues did not generate major opposition.
HB 1120 amends North Dakota Century Code provisions governing adoption petitions, notice, investigations, child-placing agency compensation, licensing enforcement, and unlawful placement of children for adoption. It repeals two sections relating to out-of-state child-placing agencies and revocation of license, while adding updated standards for adoption-related fees, agency investigations, and penalties. The bill directly affects adoptive parents, birth parents, licensed child-placing agencies, the Department of Health and Human Services, human service zones, and courts handling adoption proceedings.
The bill appears to have received broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 88-0 and the Senate 46-1, indicating strong bipartisan approval. With no committee transcript available, there is no record of significant public debate in the provided materials, but the voting history suggests the measure was generally seen as a routine modernization of adoption and child-placement law.
The most notable potential areas of contention are the bill’s regulation of adoption fees, its limits on what expenses may be paid, and the state’s authority over child-placing agencies. The bill allows reimbursement for certain adoption-related and birth-mother expenses but prohibits contingent fees and excludes items like lost wages, gifts, and vacations. It also expands or clarifies licensing violations and makes willful violations a class C felony, which could be sensitive for agencies. However, the overwhelming vote margins suggest these issues were not strongly disputed in practice.