Lori McCann — Moves to approve the minutes from January 26 and 27.
Lori McCann — Restates the motion to approve the minutes.
Lori McCann — Interrupts with a question before the motion proceeds.
Lori McCann — Asks whether the funds could go into an ABLE account and who would manage them.
Josh Tanner — Is addressed by the chair and given the floor.
Josh Tanner — Introduces RS 3-2-884 and explains it concerns survivors' benefits.
Josh Tanner — Explains that ABLE accounts are different and says the goal is to protect the money.
Josh Tanner — Representative Tanner asked how applicants are assessed for their ability to manage children's needs and developmental stages, specifically in the context of behavior management and discipline. The witness then responded directly to Tanner's question.
Josh Tanner — Responded to the prior comments and raised the question of whether the standard is intended to curb physical abuse.
Jordan Redman — Moves to introduce RS 3284.
Jordan Redman — Made the motion to approve the docket, with the docket number transcribed inconsistently in the section.
Julie Subject — Identified as being present to answer detailed questions about the rule.
Ms. Subject — Identified as available to answer detailed questions about the rule.
Ms. Subject — Requested to explain how the home-study process assesses applicants.
Ms. Subject — Explained that foster parent screening is a formal assessment involving several hours and a standardized home study format.
Ms. Subject — Began explaining why the discipline language was being revised.
Ms. Subject — Explained that discipline language remains because discipline is viewed as a teaching method and must meet children's needs.
Ms. Subject — Was asked to address whether minor offenses could be used to revoke a license.
Ms. Subject — Clarified that minor offenses would not be used to revoke a license; the focus is on serious conduct that would fail a background check.
Ms. Subject — Her explanation is being challenged with a follow-up question about the breadth of the rule.
Ms. Subject — Explained that staff do not independently recommend revocation without safeguards and supervisory review.
Ms. Subject — Described supervisory review, central office involvement, and appeal rights for families whose licenses are revoked or denied.
Mr. Larson — Mr. Larson explained that the reasonable and prudent parent standard was enacted in statute last session, clarified revocation language and how sections 109 and 110 were reorganized into section 108, confirmed that the department could revoke on the stated basis, and then distinguished the civil licensing standard from the criminal standard of proof by noting that the department must show the conduct by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt because the matter concerns licensing and the child’s best interest.
Mr. Larson — Mr. Larson was asked to explain the differences between the federal and state rules. In response, he said the department has a crosswalk document that could be provided if needed and stated that the federal rules are entirely similar to the state rules.
Robert Beiswenger — Representative Beiswenger questioned the fairness and legal basis of revoking or suspending a license in cases where law enforcement did not investigate, charges were never filed, charges were dismissed, or the accused was acquitted. He expressed concern that taking away a license after an acquittal seemed wrong.
Julie Subcheck — Testified that home studies assess family background, parenting experience, and fit for the needs of children being placed.
Van Burtenshaw — Expressed concern that the foster parent standards would exclude him because he used spanking, and questioned whether that is now the adopted standard.
Melissa Wintrow — Speaker said his daughter is in the Senate, joking that his parenting style may have influenced that outcome.
Jeff Cornilles — The meeting discusses a motion to extend temporary rule docket 16-06-2501 until July 1, 2026. The motion is attributed to Representative Redmond, though the name appears garbled or uncertain in the transcript, and the later mention again notes that a motion would be in order from Representative Redmond.
Phil Hart — Jared Larson, Chief of Staff of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, introduced the pending rule and explained that it reflects an improved direction for the committee under the reasonable prudent parent standard. He further clarified that the repeal would remove state rules tied to a federally dictated program without eliminating the program itself.
Laura Denner — Identified as the division administrator who administers the program and may answer detailed questions.
Ilana Rubel — Asked Mr. Larson to identify differences between the federal rules and the state rules being repealed.