Transcript Highlights:

• Improves accountability for child welfare system.
• A child.
• If the child is in foster care child to remain in foster care.
• will be placed, that this is not child abuse, that this is a medical condition and then the child is
• She was forced the child. Parents had a 3rd child at the time that the petition was filed.

Transcript Highlights:

• When a family enters the child welfare system, our mandate is the safety of the child, but our goal is
• It wasn't against the child or an individual who shared the child with the parent or guardian at the
• So with these changes, more state preschool, general child care, and family child care home education
• I am a 24-hour child care provider.
• AB1996, the No More Child Pond.

Summary: The committee heard several child welfare, food assistance, child care, and developmental services bills. AB 308 would require a statewide evaluation of regional center safety training and crisis-response services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities; supporters said it would help reduce reliance on law enforcement and improve de-escalation and emergency preparedness. AB 1049 would remove sponsor deeming from the California Food Assistance Program, with supporters from food banks and legal aid arguing the rule creates confusion, chilling effects, and wrongful denials, while one member raised concerns about accountability and fraud. AB 1201 would narrow when a parent’s prior violent felony can bar reunification services, limiting the bypass to offenses involving a child or a child’s other parent/guardian; county and advocacy witnesses said the bill preserves judicial discretion and avoids automatic denials, though a member expressed concern about child safety in violent or criminal environments. AB 2379 would require family child care providers to be notified of constitutional rights and receive multilingual training regarding immigration enforcement; it drew broad support and no opposition. AB 2429 would make ACEs screening optional and reduce required classroom observations in the early childhood mental health consultation program, with supporters saying it would reduce administrative burdens and expand participation. AB 1755 would eliminate CalWORKs’ 100-hour monthly work penalty for two-parent families, and supporters said it would reduce poverty and administrative burden without changing income eligibility. AB 1981, presented later, would advance “true cost of care” child care rate reform, with providers describing the current reimbursement system as unsustainable. AB 2478 would create a streamlined kinship family approval pathway for foster care placements with relatives and other kin, and AB 1969 and AB 1996 would create statewide structures to coordinate cradle-to-career services and reduce child poverty, respectively; both were presented as data-driven, place-based efforts to align services and set measurable reduction goals. Most bills received strong support from county agencies, advocacy organizations, and service providers, with little or no opposition testimony. Members generally praised the goals of the measures but asked questions about implementation, accountability, and child safety in the reunification and benefits bills. The committee took roll calls on the bills it heard, and the votes shown in the transcript were largely unanimous or near-unanimous, with several measures held on call after passing committee votes. AB 1049 was voted out 2-1, AB 1201 and AB 2379 were each voted out 3-0, AB 2429 and AB 1755 were voted out 2-0, and AB 2478, AB 1969, and AB 1996 were each voted out 2-0; the chair repeatedly noted that some bills would remain on call pending absent members. AB 1981 drew extensive support testimony from child care providers and allies, but the committee did not take a final vote in the portion of the transcript provided because no motion was available at that moment.

Transcript Highlights:

• When necessary, the child welfare system is also responsible for removing a child from their parents
• Once a child is adopted, county child welfare agencies are only mandated to authorize AAP payments.
• “It’s not through the child support program, I think, is the answer, that our child support commissioners
• This is a critical investment given California's child support, or child poverty, rate, impacts of H.R
• We are here as a pro-child program.

Transcript Highlights:

• function of each child.
• Child X needs Y. Child X has these needs. They are from X background.
• We move for return of child. We move... we move for return of child.
• The child is placed in a home that is getting $4,000 to $5,000 per child.
• They interviewed the child, identified an arrest, and sent the child immediately to Child Help under

Committees: House Government , House House Government Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• When necessary, the child welfare system is also responsible for removing a child from their parents
• We want something that's building a team for the child, and then that team stays with that child even
• Once a child is adopted, county child welfare agencies are only mandated to authorize AAP payments.
• We are here as a pro-child program.
• In the child support program.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services heard an informational hearing on child welfare, foster care, community care licensing, child support, and related budget issues. CDSS described the Governor’s proposed child and family services budget, emphasized a family-centered and kin-first approach, and reported that foster care entries and congregate care placements have declined over the past decade. Witnesses also highlighted the importance of extended foster care to age 21, while noting persistent racial disparities for Native American and Black children and the need for stronger prevention, family finding, and community-based supports. A major focus was the proposed tiered rate structure (TRS), which CDSS said would shift funding from placement-based rates to child-centered supports, including care and supervision, strength-building dollars, and immediate needs funding paired with high-fidelity wraparound services. CDSS and county representatives said implementation is on track, with foundational policy guidance expected by the end of the year, CANS/CFT timeliness targeted by year-end, and the CWS CARES system nearing go-live in October 2026. Counties and providers raised concerns about whether the rate model and wraparound capacity will be sufficient, especially for higher-acuity youth, and asked for more data, clearer guidance, and continued collaboration. County Welfare Directors Association representatives also requested continued emergency response funding and an extension of flexible family supports, arguing both are needed to stabilize front-end child welfare work and bridge to TRS. Providers from FFAs and STRTPs warned that insurance costs, provider closures, and the transition to TRS could threaten service capacity unless the state addresses long-term insurance and reimbursement issues. LAO noted the Governor’s budget contains no new child welfare augmentations and said the main General Fund change reflects the expiration of one-time funding. No votes were taken; members instead asked for follow-up data, technical assistance, and possible future legislative or trailer bill solutions, including on insurance and implementation timelines.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the front lines of child welfare.
• needs of the child.
• They hold both the Child Advocacy Center and the Child Protection Team contract, and we work with that
• The Child Protection Team does—and I’ll let you maybe speak to that—but the Child Advocacy Centers who
• a determination has been made that a child must be removed from a parent’s care and that child is in

Committee: Senate Children, Families, and Elder Affairs

Summary: The Senate Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs held a panel discussion on Florida’s child protection teams (CPTs), child advocacy centers (CACs), and the related roles of DCF, DOH, and law enforcement. Testimony from DCF, the Department of Health, a local CAC director, the Florida Network of Children’s Advocacy Centers, a Pinellas County CPT nurse practitioner, and a Jacksonville sheriff’s sergeant described how the system is intended to work: hotline reports are screened by DCF, mandatory referrals are sent to CPT, forensic interviews and medical exams are coordinated through CPT/CACs, and multidisciplinary teams share findings with law enforcement and prosecutors. Speakers emphasized the value of co-location, telemedicine, multidisciplinary staffings, and trauma-informed practices to reduce repeated interviews and improve child safety and case outcomes. Committee members focused heavily on communication breakdowns, staffing shortages, and delays in response times. Senators raised Jordan’s Law and asked what had been done to improve coordination among DCF, CPT, and law enforcement. Several members questioned whether the promised 24-hour response standard is being met in practice, citing reports of delayed referrals, delayed forensic interviews, and bottlenecks that can affect medical evaluations and criminal investigations. Law enforcement testimony from Jacksonville described cases where CPT interviews were scheduled one to two weeks out and reports were not received for weeks, while DCF acknowledged average CPI caseloads of about 12 investigations and turnover commonly occurring within 12 to 18 months. The panel also discussed access gaps and funding concerns. The Florida Network of CACs said Florida has 26 member centers, with some counties lacking CAC coverage and some centers having closed due to funding challenges. Speakers said CACs are voluntary but critical for integrated services, and that workforce shortages in medical and mental health providers limit expansion. DCF and DOH representatives said they would provide follow-up information on the number of CPT medical staff and other requested data. No bills were voted on; the meeting ended with committee members requesting additional information and recommendations for statutory and budgetary changes, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• pay for child care as well.
• Of course you're going to prioritize your child if your child care facility closed.
• That's per child. Per child? Yep. Okay. What happened if I got twins? That's per child. Per child?
• health, and child welfare.
• health, and child welfare.

Committee: House Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> order to keep your child? order to keep your child?
• child help.
• </c> place a child. place a child.
• I was a child. I was a child in things. I was a child.
• </c><03:54:12.800><c> as</c><03:54:12.960><c> one</c> child if if child identifies as one child if if

Committee: House Children and Family Law

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't have any child care. I don't have any child care. Closer to home. That was two months ago.
• I don't have any child care.
• And finally, I don't believe we can expect quality child care if we don't pay our child care providers
• I'm a child care provider in Long Beach. I've been a child care provider for 20 years.
• Child care is essential for our family, and there's not enough child care centers.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on California’s child care, preschool, and transitional kindergarten oversight, with chairs emphasizing the state’s Master Plan for Early Learning and Care and the need to break down silos between programs. CDSS and CDE reported progress toward the plan’s goals, including universal access to TK for all four-year-olds next school year, expanded access for low-income three-year-olds, and more children with disabilities being served in state preschool. They also noted ongoing work on quality rating/review reform, funding structure changes, and the need to address rates, workforce shortages, and federal uncertainty around Head Start. Testimony from advocacy groups and providers largely supported expanding access while simplifying the system. Children Now, Every Child California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that California still has uneven access, especially for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds, and urged investments in mixed delivery, inclusion, full-day options, and a cost-of-care rate methodology. Every Child California recommended consolidating part-day and full-day contracts, streamlining eligibility priorities, making the two-year-old option permanent, and funding staffing incentives. Parent testimony highlighted how child care gaps and county-to-county transfer delays can disrupt work, safety, and children’s stability, and providers described low reimbursement rates, the need for health and retirement benefits, and support for delinking subsidy rates from private pay. The second panel addressed universal transitional kindergarten. The Learning Policy Institute reported rapid TK expansion, with most districts now offering TK, but said access still depends on facilities, staffing, and whether programs are available at all school sites. The Department of Finance said the governor’s budget would fully implement TK by adding funding for all eligible four-year-olds and lowering the adult-to-child ratio from 12:1 to 10:1. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the administration’s enrollment and cost assumptions were optimistic and estimated lower TK enrollment growth and lower costs for the ratio change. CDE supported the expansion and urged continued funding for UPK coordinators, teacher development, and mixed-delivery planning grants. Members questioned facilities shortages, staffing competition, and how to ensure TK expansion does not displace CSPP or Head Start classrooms. No formal votes or actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't have any child care. I don't have any child. Closer to home. That was two months ago.
• I don't have any child care.
• their child was eligible.
• I'm a child care provider in Long Beach. I've been a child care provider for 20 years.
• Child care is essential for our family, and there's not enough child care centers.

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s early learning and care system, including the Master Plan for Early Learning and Care, universal preschool access, and the state’s transitional kindergarten (TK) expansion. Administration officials said California has made progress toward universal TK for all four-year-olds and expanded access for low-income three-year-olds, children with disabilities, and some two-year-olds in state preschool. The Department of Social Services highlighted ongoing work on quality improvement and a single rate structure, while the Department of Education emphasized continued investments in UPK infrastructure, inclusion, and teacher development. Testimony from advocacy groups stressed that access remains uneven, especially for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds, and that federal threats to Head Start could significantly disrupt services in California. Witnesses and committee members discussed several policy recommendations for preschool and state preschool programs, including consolidating part-day and full-day contracts, simplifying eligibility priorities, eliminating some family and licensing fees, allowing self-attestation of income, making the two-year-old preschool option permanent, and basing funding on enrollment and the true cost of care. A parent from Contra Costa described losing child care after moving counties for safety reasons, illustrating delays and fragmentation in the system. Providers in public comment argued that reimbursement rates are too low and that better pay and retirement and health benefits are needed to stabilize the workforce. The second panel addressed the governor’s January budget proposal to fully implement universal TK and reduce TK class ratios from 12:1 to 10:1. The Department of Finance said the budget would add about $2.4 billion to serve all eligible four-year-olds and $1.5 billion for the lower ratio. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said its enrollment and cost estimates were lower than the administration’s and projected the ratio change would cost less than proposed. The Department of Education and the Learning Policy Institute reported that TK enrollment and staffing have grown, most districts now offer TK, and many are on track to meet new teacher requirements, but facilities, staffing, and expanded learning remain challenges. Committee members raised concerns about access at all school sites, the need for more full-day options, and the risk that TK expansion could crowd out CSPP and Head Start space.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am the Deputy Director of Child Support Services, and we're here on the four-year review of the child
• Of the cost of raising a child, 25,210 dollars. Costs of raising a child.
• So, looking at this 25 to 10, ideally erasing a child raising a child.
• It's 25,000 for that child.
• Then, child support for that child is $22,250 for that child.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• and child care homes.
• child.
• So people who work at a child care center would also have their child enrolled at that child care.
• I was surprised that the child care providers were less than the non-child care providers.
• So the non-child care providers could include child care providers that are serving non-child care assistance

Committees: Joint Human Services , Joint Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• A Child Care Services Advisory Committee and child care providers.
• child.
• So people who work at a child care, who would also have their child enrolled at that child care.
• So the non-child care providers include, it could include child care providers that are serving non-child
• So it's the non-child care assistance providers could be also caring for child care and not child care

Committee: Joint Human Services Committee

Summary: The committee first approved the February 11, 2026 minutes and then received an update from the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency on the interagency council on homelessness and continuum of care funding. Testimony described rising homelessness tied to tight housing markets, low incomes, aging homelessness, barriers to rental assistance and public benefits, and limited shelter and case-management capacity. Members discussed the need for more affordable housing, continued one-time funding for the North Dakota Homeless Grant and Housing Incentive Fund, better coordination with Health and Human Services on economic assistance and human service zones, landlord engagement, recovery housing, and reentry housing. The committee also heard that federal continuum of care funding remains uncertain, with possible shifts away from permanent supportive housing and housing-first models; members asked for a future update on the impact if federal rules reduce the share available for permanent housing. The committee then took testimony on accessibility of government services for people who are blind or visually impaired. Paul Olson of North Dakota Vision Services School for the Blind described current screening and service delivery, including infant referrals, regional staff, short-term programs, and collaboration with vocational rehabilitation. He said the targeted screening system is working, recommended maintaining the current model, and noted ongoing challenges with staffing, public awareness, and accessible state websites and documents. Public testimony from a visually impaired resident and a deaf resident emphasized barriers such as CAPTCHAs, inaccessible PDFs, employment forms that screen out applicants based on driver’s license status, shortages of interpreters, and the need for video remote interpreting and video relay services, along with training for users and agencies. Finally, the committee heard a final report on the study of child care provider licensing from HHS Early Childhood Director Kay Larson. The report summarized provider input and committee discussion on simplifying North Dakota’s child care licensing structure, reducing administrative burden, and balancing that with health and safety standards. Key topics included licensing categories, child care assistance eligibility, food program sponsorship, staff qualifications, training requirements, ratios and group size, age bands, and preschool exemptions. The committee’s recommendations included streamlining to three provider types plus a preschool designation, revising ratio and age-band rules, and carrying forward certain preschool outdoor-space exemptions. Larson noted that any changes would require statutory changes, rulemaking, and a transition period before new licensing rules could take effect.

Transcript Highlights:

• is just $24 a day per child.
• is just $24 a day per child.
• Our family child care educators... 3,000 family child care educators that I work with closely.
• But we ask right now with the FFN, we know the child can go to child care, so it doesn't have to stay
• We know the child can go to child care, so it doesn't have to stay all day with the FFN care provider

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held its sixth public hearing and took testimony on a large slate of bills, with the chair moving H. 542/S. 341 on family, friend, and neighbor (FFN) child care to the top of the agenda so young constituents would not have to wait. Witnesses from labor, community organizations, and FFN providers strongly supported the bill, saying FFN care fills critical gaps for families working nonstandard hours, especially in low-income, immigrant, and BIPOC communities. Testimony emphasized that FFN providers are currently underpaid, often receive only about $24 per child per day, and should be guaranteed at least the state minimum wage. Witnesses also backed changes to the voucher system to allow families to combine formal and FFN care more flexibly, and they supported creating an FFN advisory council. Committee members asked about the difference between FFN and center-based care, registration requirements, fingerprinting/background checks, EEC’s ongoing study group, and the fiscal impact; witnesses said the current annual cost is about $1.8 million and could rise to about $6 million if all current FFN providers were paid minimum wage, still under 1% of the EEC budget. The committee then closed testimony on that bill. The committee next heard testimony on several preschool and universal pre-K bills, including H. 707 on public preschool facilities, H. 687/S. 339 on universal pre-K and mixed delivery, and related bills such as H. 606, H. 523, H. 618, H. 522, H. 510, and H. 615, many of which were later closed without additional witnesses. A Lowell school official testified that space and facilities funding are major barriers to expanding preschool and that the city has hundreds of children on voucher waitlists. Other witnesses and organizations, including the Early Care and Education Consortium and AFT Massachusetts, supported mixed-delivery universal pre-K and warned that public-school expansion should not undermine community-based providers, whose preschool tuition helps subsidize infant and toddler care. Several witnesses also urged stronger standards for preschool teachers, better staffing ratios, and more integrated special education and support services. The committee accepted written testimony on some bills and closed testimony on the others when no one else came forward. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 541/S. 373, which would ban school exclusion in pre-K through third grade. Advocates from Massachusetts Advocates for Children, Mass Appleseed, Citizens for Juvenile Justice, AFT Massachusetts, and the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee argued that suspensions and expulsions at young ages harm learning, worsen inequities, and contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. They cited data showing disproportionate impacts on Black and Latinx students, students with disabilities, and low-income children, and described personal stories of children whose behavior improved when schools kept them in class and addressed underlying needs. Committee members asked for updated data on the number of students and districts affected, and witnesses said they would provide more detailed written information. After testimony on this and a few other bills, including S. 372, S. 357, and H. 275/S. 133, the committee closed testimony and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• pay for child care as well.
• for child care.
• Or are you going to prioritize your child? Of course, you're going to prioritize your child.
• health, and child welfare.
• We have created Child Care Works.

Committees: House Economic Development , House Joint Committee on Rural Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• ’ve caused my child to die?
• then murdered that child.
• , the child is a premature child...”
• “A newborn child, if I wasn’t going in for an abortion, the child is a premature child at similar gestation
• , unborn child...”

Committee: House Children and Families

Transcript Highlights:

• We put in place a child care employee substitute plan because a lot of child care providers, if they
• who's actually receiving child care from that child care provider.
• who's actually receiving child care from that child care provider.
• who's actually receiving child care from that child care provider.
• The child and the family, but it is paid directly to the child care provider.

Committee: Joint Public Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• of the new child.
• Child care.
• care. affordable child care.
• We were subsidizing child care.
• Child care is so important.

Bills: HF2436 , HF470 , HF2643 , HF2456 , HF102 , HF1367

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• A Child Care Services Advisory Committee and child care providers.
• available per child.
• at a child care provider could also have their child enrolled at that child care.
• So the non-child care providers could include child care providers that are serving non-child care assistance
• So it's the non-child care assistance providers could also be caring for child care and non-child care

Summary: The committee first heard an update on North Dakota’s Interagency Council on Homelessness and Continuum of Care funding. Jennifer Henderson of the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency reported that homelessness remains driven by tight housing markets, low incomes, rising rents, and barriers to rental assistance, public benefits, and disability determinations. She said the state’s one-time North Dakota Homeless Grant is serving all regions but reaches far fewer households than the former Rent Help program, and that aging homelessness, shelter staffing shortages, and limited affordable units are growing concerns. Members discussed the need for more housing supply, better coordination with Health and Human Services, landlord engagement, reentry housing, and possible continued one-time funding for the $10 million Homeless Grant and $25 million Housing Incentive Fund. Henderson also warned that federal Continuum of Care funding is uncertain, with HUD expected to issue a new notice June 1 and possible shifts away from permanent supportive housing toward transitional housing and other models. The committee then took testimony on accessibility of government services for people who are blind, visually impaired, deaf, or hard of hearing. Paul Olson of North Dakota Vision Services School for the Blind described the school’s services for infants, children, and adults, including screenings, mobility training, assistive technology, and outreach across the state. He said the agency works closely with Vocational Rehabilitation and is also involved in improving website and document accessibility, especially for PDF materials. Public testimony highlighted barriers such as inaccessible CAPTCHA systems, online forms, driver’s license requirements on job applications, and limited transportation in rural areas. A deaf resident urged broader use of video remote interpreting and video relay services, along with training so people know how to use them effectively. Finally, Kay Larson presented the final report on the child care provider licensing study. The report recommended streamlining North Dakota’s child care licensing structure into three provider types plus a preschool designation, while preserving health and safety standards and maintaining eligibility for child care assistance. The committee discussed simplifying training and qualification rules, revising ratio and group-size requirements, and adjusting age bands for infants and toddlers. The report also noted that some changes would require statutory amendments and later administrative rule changes, with a transition period likely extending through 2029. No formal votes were taken in the transcript, but the committee accepted the updates and scheduled follow-up presentations for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is that child abuse is far... Child abuse is far more prevalent than people realize.
• state-level child welfare data.
• No child deserves that.
• needs help over the objection of the child in court that their child needs help over the objection of
• This bill does not sacrifice child safety.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities held a hybrid hearing on a series of child welfare bills focused on DCF, foster care, mandated reporting, educational records, and family support. Chair Kennedy and Chair Livingstone opened with accessibility and testimony rules, then heard testimony on bills including S.127 on expanding mandated reporters, S.107/H.235 on a Foster Children’s Bill of Rights, S.106/H.228 on transferring foster care review from DCF to the Office of the Child Advocate, H.258/S.125 on an electronic backpack for foster children’s educational records, H.205 on kinship foster care background checks, H.246/H.266 on minimizing trauma in care and protection cases, and S.159 on support for families after sudden unexpected infant death. Supporters of the mandated reporter bill, led by Sen. Feeney and Foxborough advocates, described a local model that trains all adults who work with children and argued the state should scale that approach statewide to improve recognition and reporting of abuse. Testimony on the foster care bills emphasized the need for clearer rights, better notice to children and attorneys, stronger remedies, and independent oversight. Advocates, youth with lived experience, and legal organizations described placement instability, delayed notifications, abuse in care, poor educational continuity, and the need for rights around safety, family contact, culture, language, and access to records. Several witnesses urged that the Foster Children’s Bill of Rights include enforceable court remedies, not just reporting requirements. On the oversight bill, supporters argued DCF should not review its own foster care system and pointed to poor outcomes, high placement instability, and recent investigative reporting as evidence for moving review responsibilities to the Office of the Child Advocate. On the electronic backpack bill, testimony focused on the need for real-time data sharing and a centralized system so schools can receive foster students’ records quickly and support continuity. On the trauma-minimization bill, Rep. Miskin framed the proposal as a set of practical changes to reduce harm during removals and court involvement. On the SUID bill, Sen. Lovely said families should be given information about available grief and support resources after an infant death. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions.