Transcript Highlights:

• How is a child? How is a child? As defined in lines 48 to 49, is an unborn child.
• So talking about child support, well, if the child hasn’t been born, there isn’t a metric with which
• If you have a hypothetical where the unborn child, the negligence of the unborn child, I'd be interested
• The statute deals with the unborn child, so there's no scenario under this bill where the child would
• But if a living, breathing child dies, that was born out of wedlock, dies, then the father of that child

Summary: The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee met to consider one measure, PCS for HB 289, which would amend Florida’s wrongful death statute to allow parents of an unborn child to recover damages for the child’s wrongful death and to include parents in the definition of survivors. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give parents a remedy when a wrongful act, negligence, breach of contract, or breach of warranty causes the loss of an unborn child, while also preserving existing protections for lawful medical care and the mother. Members questioned the bill extensively about the meaning of “survivors,” whether it could reach surrogacy situations, friends or family who assist someone in obtaining abortion care, paternity issues, and whether abusive or unqualified fathers could bring claims. The sponsor repeatedly said the bill is limited to parents, does not authorize suits against the mother or lawful medical providers, and would still require the normal wrongful death procedures, including appointment of a personal representative. He cited Duncan v. Flynn as the case holding that current law does not allow recovery for the death of an unborn child. Representative Gottlieb offered an amendment modeled on criminal-law protections, aimed at expanding explicit immunity for a pregnant woman and for persons providing medical care or abortion-related conduct with consent. Supporters of the amendment said it would better align civil law with criminal protections; opponents argued it was overly broad and could shield unlicensed conduct. The amendment failed on a voice vote. Public testimony was divided, with supporters from pro-life and Catholic organizations backing the bill and some asking to remove the health care exemption, while opponents from ACLU, Equality Florida, Planned Parenthood affiliates, Florida Voice for the Unborn, Voices of Florida, and others warned the bill could chill reproductive health care, increase liability for doctors and hospitals, and invite lawsuits involving surrogates, family members, and abortion-related care. In debate, supporters said the bill simply recognizes the value of unborn children and gives parents a remedy for wrongful loss, while opponents argued it could create unintended consequences in family law, surrogacy, IVF, and medical practice, and could empower abusive partners or rapists. After closing remarks, the committee voted 13 yeas and 3 nays to report PCS for HB 289 favorably. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><00:34:51.000> Protective child services uh a Child Protective child services uh a Child Protective
• and group child care homes.
• and group child care homes.
• and group child care homes.
• The program is utilized by group child care centers and group child care homes.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several Human Services measures focused on Medicaid access, long-term care benefits, home health reimbursement, SNAP administration, trauma-informed child welfare, and child abuse reporting. HP 702 would increase funding for Medicaid in-home services if federal matching funds are secured, and testimony from disability advocates supported the measure as needed to help people with disabilities cover medical expenses. HB 1477, described as a correction to a prior session’s mistake, would clarify that the monthly needs allowance for certain long-term care residents does not replace state supplemental payments and would raise the ceiling by $25 to fix the prior issue and by an additional $20 as a new benefit; DHS supported it with amendments, and the committee indicated it would amend accordingly. HB 713 would fund a DHS rate study for home health services, with the Healthcare Association of Hawaii strongly supporting it and describing rising labor costs, losses on Medicaid patients, and access concerns if agencies cannot keep serving Medicaid clients. HB 1099 would appropriate emergency funds to DHS after a USDA penalty tied to SNAP response times, with supporters including Catholic Charities Hawaii, Hawaii Public Health Institute, and others arguing the money should be reinvested in staffing and systems to improve access and avoid further penalties. HB 1079 would direct the Office of Wellness and Resilience and DHS to create trauma-informed assessments and training for Child Welfare Services staff; testimony from state offices and advocacy groups supported it, citing the Mālama ʻOhana Working Group, staff burnout, and the need for a sustainable train-the-trainer model. Finally, HB 239 would narrow when failure to provide a child’s needs constitutes abuse or neglect, but DHS raised concerns that the current wording could broaden abuse findings and leave families in poverty without a clear safety net, while the Honolulu prosecutor’s office opposed it, warning it could weaken mandatory reporting and hinder investigations of child abuse. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided, though the chair said HB 1477 would be amended and several measures were left open for further questions and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• residential or they are child daycarees. residential or they are child daycarees.
• doesn't serve serve the child. doesn't serve serve the child.
• child care licensing unit of DHS. child care licensing unit of DHS.
• Actually, child child uh and family law.
• or a very little child.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with Senate Bill 22-FN, which would expand child care licensing background checks so the Department of Health and Human Services can receive fuller criminal history information, including pending charges and other non-conviction records, similar to the system already used for school staff. Grant Bossi, for Senator Pearl, and DHHS officials Melissa Clement and Christine Sheay testified in support, saying the bill closes a gap that can allow people with disqualifying charges to work with children. They explained that the FBI record is a snapshot in time, that juvenile records are not included, and that the bill would apply to child care programs including residential group homes. Questions focused on what “confidential criminal history” means and how often checks are repeated; DHHS said checks are done every five years or sooner if new charge information is received. The hearing on SB 22 was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 23-FN, which would expand the child endangerment statute and remove the word “purposely” from part of the language. Senator Pat Long said the bill is intended to strengthen protection for children and allow more serious conduct to be charged appropriately. Testimony from law enforcement, including Executive Counselor Dave Wheeler, Sergeant Ryan Rooney of Nashua Police, and Nicholas Georgulis of Manchester Police, supported the bill as a way to distinguish routine misdemeanor cases from the most egregious abuse and neglect cases, such as children living in squalor or being exposed to severe danger. Wheeler and some members raised concerns that the language could be vague or overbroad and cited a prior Manchester firearm-in-a-car arrest as an example of possible unintended consequences; supporters responded that the bill still requires knowingly violating a duty of care and that the serious bodily injury or death standard limits its reach. Rooney also described a fentanyl overdose case involving an 11-year-old and said the current misdemeanor charge did not fully reflect the seriousness of the conduct. The committee recessed SB 23 briefly to open and close SB 161, then returned to SB 23, which remained under hearing with no final vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:04.960> welfare system and the many child welfare system and the many child welfare
• <00:20:18.400> protection the child protection the child protection system<00:20:20.480>
• /c> other child child care facilities that other child child care facilities that are<00:47:05.880>
• care or center-based child care.
• care or center-based child care.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But the questions that are asked should most definitely be followed up on with a child because the child
• child and suggesting to every single child there could have you thought about committing suicide.
• This says that if a child is someone is going to give that type of survey or question air to a child,
• I am also a victim of child trafficking as a child.
• Child services would be involved.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee, and child care providers.
• Child care services.
• Human, DHS, Child Care Services.
• It seems like it should say services of child care services. I mean, human services of child care.
• Child care centers, group child care, two preschools.

Bills: HB1220

Keywords: accelerated degree, high-demand occupations, education reform, North Dakota, licensing, 908, all

Summary: The Workforce Development Committee reconvened to discuss House Bill 1119, which would create a child care advisory committee and authorize a Legislative Council program evaluation of child care services. Senator Hogan explained that the bill is intended to review child care licensing rules, child care assistance, and related laws and policies, while also giving child care providers a stronger voice in the rulemaking process. He described the proposal as a new model for legislative program evaluation and noted that leadership had been briefed and was supportive. Committee members raised concerns about the bill’s wording, scope, and structure. Senator Larson questioned the title and several sections, and multiple members suggested making the response language less directive and more collaborative, including changing “shall” to “may” in the section requiring a written response from the Department of Health and Human Services. Members also discussed limiting the advisory committee to the interim, clarifying that the evaluation would focus on child care services rather than broader early childhood programs, and adjusting language about enacted legislation to sound more neutral. The committee also discussed fiscal impact, with Hogan saying the evaluation would be done by Legislative Council staff and that any costs would likely be limited to meetings and existing DHS rulemaking activities. Members compared the proposal to other oversight models, including audit-style reviews and a possible DOGE process, and Hogan emphasized that the bill is meant to evaluate why child care issues keep recurring and why some laws are not fully implemented. No vote was taken; the committee agreed to continue refining the bill and planned to meet again the following Thursday.

Transcript Highlights:

• custody of the child.
• the child as intended.
• Um, the bill would allow them to receive the child support payments, um, to support the child.
• Unpaid child support, as I understand in the bill, this is charged as additional child support.
• Child support is not the same thing as supporting a child.

Transcript Highlights:

• For universal child care.
• That's just for universal child care.
• As a result of universal child care, child care capacity is growing.
• One third of families who applied for child care after the announcement of universal child care were
• Child care is the place that they often find out or learn that their child may have a delay.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I would say that that child should be coming into the child welfare system if they do not have
• Because a child could answer a question that... ...be followed up on with a child because a child could
• child and suggesting to every single child that have you thought about committing suicide?
• and put their child in danger.
• That child is.

Summary: The committee on Pre-K through 12 Education took up SB 1288, a parental rights bill by Sen. Grall, which would expand the Parents Bill of Rights to require written parental consent for minors’ medical care and prescriptions, give parents access to medical records, require parental review/consent for surveys and questionnaires, and restrict use of biofeedback devices without parental permission. The sponsor said the bill is intended to restore parents’ role in major medical decisions and to address concerns about schools or providers collecting sensitive information from children without parents’ knowledge. She said she was open to clarifying language, especially around exceptions and definitions, but maintained that parents should generally be the decision-makers. Committee members pressed the sponsor on how the bill would affect minors who are abused, homeless, estranged from parents, or otherwise without a safe guardian, as well as access to STI treatment, mental health care, contraception, and care after sexual assault. The sponsor repeatedly said children in unsafe situations should come into the child welfare or law enforcement system and that she was open to changes for truly unsafe or unavailable parents, but she rejected the idea that the bill was merely about notification rather than consent. She also defended the survey provisions as a way to stop routine questioning of children about suicide and other sensitive topics without parental awareness, and said the biofeedback language was aimed at school settings where data about children’s anxiety or stress is allegedly being shared with classmates. Public testimony was heavily divided, with many speakers opposing the bill and describing personal experiences with abuse, rape, mental health crises, lack of supportive parents, and the need for confidential access to birth control, STI testing, and counseling. Opponents argued the bill would delay care, endanger vulnerable minors, and reduce access to medically necessary services and surveys that can identify risk. Supporters said the bill would restore parental authority, improve transparency, and protect children from inappropriate surveys and biometric monitoring. During debate, Sen. Berman and Sen. Davis opposed the bill, saying it conflicts with existing law and could harm vulnerable youth, while Sen. Yarborough supported it, arguing that not all parents are bad actors and that the state should not treat all families as if they were. The transcript ends with debate underway and no final vote or action recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• if appropriate, obtaining testimony in cases of child fatalities while the child was in state custody
• I'm the founder and executive director of Child First. Child First. I'm a former foster parent.
• Experience in child welfare.
• well-being and child welfare.
• child welfare agencies.

Transcript Highlights:

• winds up in child welfare.
• was of a real child.
• It also increases the market of CSAM, child abuse, and child sex trafficking, even if the images are
• and child sex dolls.
• child sexual abuse.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Turning to the child care and development programs, the revised budget for child care includes $6.8 billion
• is to replace the Child Welfare Services case management system with a compliant, comprehensive child
• Sarah Batchez with Children Now and Child Poverty, on behalf of the early learning and child care item
• nurturing child care.
• Family child care providers are deeply concerned that in the May revision, it leaves major child care

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:40.080> care continue to work on child care continue to work on child care throughout
• with children with special needs, child with children with special needs, child care<00:04:53.120
• care funding and transparency and child care funding and spending,<00:05:01.120> child<00:05:
• You have your traditional child care centers, and then we have family child care homes.
• If you're a family child care home provider but your child is maybe a school-age child getting care somewhere

Keywords: 00:00 - Call to Order/Roll Call 01:26 - Discussion of 26RS HB 6 17:45 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 6 20:20 - Discussion of 26RS HJR 50 22:30 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HJR 50 23:19 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 6, as amended by a committee substitute, which was described as a broad child care reform package developed through a multi-stakeholder collaborative. The substitute added a two-year pilot program for off-base child care at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox, beginning July 1, 2026, and making the bill an emergency measure for that purpose. Sponsors said the bill focuses on long-term reforms to affordability, quality, and access, including modernization of the All Stars quality rating system, creation of micro centers, support for children with special needs, child care data and transparency measures, CCAP improvements, and changes to the employee child care assistance partnership (ECAP). Testimony explained that micro centers are intended to fill gaps such as rural, third-shift, drop-in, and partnership-based care, would initially be limited to 10 statewide with no more than two per county, and could serve 4 to 24 children under a more flexible regulatory framework. Members also discussed whether family child care homes like the “Miss Barbara” model fit the bill; sponsors said they are not micro centers, but the bill includes other provisions to support family child care homes. Questions also focused on ECAP, which was described as a tri-share model in which employers contribute, the state matches for eligible employees, and the employee pays the remainder; sponsors said the bill privatizes ECAP first before considering expansion to teachers or public employees. House Bill 6 passed favorably by a vote of 12-0-1, and the title amendment passed. The committee then took up House Joint Resolution 50, also sponsored by Representative Heavrin. The resolution asks the Kentucky Auditor’s office to study the administrative regulations, statutes, agency policies, and processes affecting the opening and operation of licensed and certified child care services, with particular attention to the All Stars program. The sponsor said the goal is to identify opportunities for change through a thorough third-party review, noting that the All Stars system has been in place for about 10 years and that many child care rules are tied to federal funding and cannot be changed quickly. The resolution passed unanimously by a vote of 13-0. The meeting concluded with notice of the next committee meeting and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• a child care center.
• a child care center.
• A child is taken a gets abducted? A child is taken a parent. parent. parent.
• my child care, which was inh home child my child care, which was inh home child care<00:51:57.440
• and a child fun and play play uh child and a child fun and play play uh child care<00:52:42.160>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3415, a bill aimed at limiting immigration enforcement activity at child care centers. House Research explained the DE1 amendment, which defined key terms and barred child care employees from consenting to civil immigration enforcement entry without a judicial warrant, while requiring officials to identify themselves and state their purpose; the amendment also clarified that it would not block officials administering child care programs. After brief debate, members adopted the DE1 amendment. The bill author, Representative Sensor Mura, said the measure was intended to address fear and disruption in child care settings caused by recent immigration enforcement activity and to keep those spaces safe for children and families. Supporters, including a pastor, a Children’s Defense Fund representative, parents, child care workers, and an ACLU policy counsel, testified that immigration enforcement near daycares has caused fear, staff absences, lockdowns, and emotional harm to children. They argued the bill would not stop lawful enforcement but would require warrants and basic identification before entry, protecting children from witnessing raids or arrests and giving providers clear rules. Several witnesses described specific incidents involving ICE activity near Spanish immersion daycares in Minneapolis and St. Paul, including staff members being detained, parents organizing safety watches, and children showing distress. Testimony emphasized that many affected children are U.S. citizens in immigrant families and that visible enforcement can create toxic stress and separation anxiety. No final action on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided beyond adoption of the DE1 amendment and continuation of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• The state is investing high dollars to support an increased child care, yet family child care providers
• The topic of child care and family child care is complicated and as unique as the businesses and providers
• <00:03:30.640> care child care yet family child care child care yet family child care providers
• child care and<00:04:09.360> family<00:04:09.680> child<00:04:10.000> care<00:04
• Look at child care provision.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Children and Families Committee met with a quorum, approved the January 21, 2025 minutes, and then focused on child care shortages and the pressures facing family child care providers across Minnesota, especially in Greater Minnesota. Chairing members noted the issue affects both rural and metro areas and introduced testimony from Cindy Cunningham, a St. Paul family child care provider and public policy chair for the State Association for Family Child Care. Cunningham argued that family child care is in crisis despite state investments, saying provider numbers continue to decline and that the system is not working. She raised concerns about food reimbursement tiers, special licenses that may not qualify for the family child care food program, the need for supplemental support for lower-tier programs, and the burden of upfront grant spending and delayed reimbursement. She also said providers receive little financial benefit for their own children in care and described a recent DHS decision affecting supervision of providers’ own children as an example of poor communication. Her broader message was that unclear, inconsistent, and poorly implemented licensing rules are driving providers out of the field. She recommended implementing the Office of the Legislative Auditor’s recommendations, improving DHS communication with both licensors and providers, updating public guidance and training materials, and considering more direct county funding and support for family child care. She also suggested reevaluating support for certified centers and other state-funded programs that she said operate under different standards. Committee members thanked her for the detailed testimony and said they wanted to follow up with her. The committee then moved on to letters and additional testimony from providers around the state, with members emphasizing the goal of identifying specific regulations that are hindering child care startup and continuation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to call him my man-child.
• So you'll have the 2024 child abuse and neglect report.
• It always has been substance abuse in child welfare.
• It always has been substance abuse in child welfare.
• They’re looking at all unexpected child deaths...

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:32.720> Care things among just running a Child Care things among just running a Child
• It includes our child care licensing, child care center, and child care certification teams, and the
• It is for both child care centers and for family child care programs.
• both family child care and Child Care both family child care and Child Care Centers<00:39:26.200
• child care this special family child child care this allows<01:18:11.320> for<01:18:11.719>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Now think of this child, the child that did not ask for these learning challenges, the child that did
• And we also work with child care and child protection professionals in our area.
• And we also work with child care and child protection professionals in our area.
• And we also work with child care and child protection professionals in our area.
• or involved child-on-child.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 206, which would require cardiovascular pre-screening and blood pressure testing for student athletes beginning in the 2026-2027 school year. Chairman Miller said the bill was prompted by concerns about undiagnosed hypertension and sudden cardiac arrest in young athletes, and Coach Marcus Scott testified about his own kidney transplant after years of untreated high blood pressure. Members asked about who would perform the screenings and how follow-up would work; the American Heart Association said existing athletic physical processes and referral networks could handle it. An amendment was adopted, and the committee reported SB 206 favorably as amended. The committee then took up SB 305, which would require a publicly available statewide career-alignment dashboard showing how degree programs connect to workforce outcomes, including completion, employment, wages, and high-demand jobs. Chairman Edmonds and student task force member Cruz Cassard said the goal was to help students understand job opportunities in Louisiana and reduce the number leaving the state after graduation. Workforce and higher education stakeholders supported the measure as a transparency and workforce-planning tool. The committee reported SB 305 favorably. Next, the committee considered HB 624, a school safety cleanup bill updating references from crisis management plans to emergency operations plans and aligning school emergency language with national standards. Representative Johnson and the Louisiana Center for Safe Schools said the bill would not create new mandates or costs, but would clarify existing requirements. The committee reported HB 624 favorably. The committee then heard HB 1022, as substituted, concerning school-based health care services. Representative Jackson said the bill was intended to clarify that medical decisions in school-based health centers should be made by licensed health professionals, not school staff, while preserving parental consent. Testimony from school-based health center providers supported the bill, but several members raised concerns about consent, parental authority, and whether the language shifted too much responsibility away from schools; the Charter School Association suggested adding more collaborative language. After discussion, the committee adopted the substitute and reported HB 1022 favorably by a 10-4 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• care provider types, family child care and child care centers.
• <00:03:51.319> um child care and Child Care Centers um child care and Child Care Centers um
• to Child Care Centers and family child to Child Care Centers and family child care<00:05:12.199>
• /c><00:24:46.360> Centers<00:24:47.240> from child care and Child Care Centers from child
• child care centers and for family child child care centers and for family child care<00:41:56.079

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:31:29.840> could child, we used to say that a child could child, we used to say that a
• So if a child goes and help that child.
• So when a child<01:38:44.080> um<01:38:44.400> has child um has child um has um<01:38:46.639
• my child during the day and my child my child during the day and my child again<02:49:58.080>
• Even when my child um is my child doing?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all