AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36 and Title 37, relative to children.
Summary
SB1109 makes a narrow change to Tennessee law governing zero to three court programs and safe baby courts. Under current law, these programs are required to provide program data and an annual report, and this bill revises the reporting language so that each program must submit that information to the Department of Children’s Services, the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges by February 1 each year.
The bill does not create a new program or change eligibility for services; instead, it standardizes and clarifies the annual reporting requirement for early-childhood and family court initiatives. Its practical effect is to ensure that state agencies and court-related entities receive the same annual data on a fixed deadline, which may improve oversight, coordination, and evaluation of these specialized court programs.
Impact
SB1109 amends Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-903(c)(2) in Title 37, which governs juvenile matters, by replacing the existing final sentences of the reporting subdivision. The bill affects zero to three court programs and safe baby courts by specifying the recipients of annual reports and the deadline for submission. It primarily impacts program administrators and the state agencies and judicial bodies that oversee or use the reported data, rather than altering substantive child welfare or court policy.
Sentiment
The available record suggests little to no controversy around the bill. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes indicating opposition, and the measure appears to be a technical, administrative update focused on reporting and coordination. The overall sentiment is best characterized as neutral to favorable, with the bill likely viewed as a housekeeping measure supporting oversight of child-focused court programs.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Because the bill only adjusts reporting requirements and deadlines, any disagreement would likely center on administrative burden, data collection expectations, or interagency coordination, but none of those concerns are reflected in the available discussion or voting history. In short, the bill appears to have proceeded without notable dispute.