Ms. Walker — The chair thanks Walker after her testimony and notes no questions.
Ives Samantha Moore — Ives Samantha Moore testifies in opposition to Senate Bill 1257, arguing that the bill may not be narrowly tailored because judges already have authority to restrict visitation when appropriate. She warns that early visitation restrictions can create structural momentum toward severance and affect case outcomes. She also raises equity concerns, saying child welfare policies disproportionately affect low-income families, families with disabilities, and families of color, and should not be written only for extreme cases. To illustrate the stakes, she shares a family experience involving illegal adoptions and separations, describing how a foster mother and caseworker failed to disclose and properly report her sister’s brain cancer to the court and the Department of Health and Welfare.
Ms. Moore — Ms. Moore gives a continuous response opposing the legislation. She says the child welfare system needs broad reform, but this bill is not the right solution because it would not support reunification or pro-social development. She argues that making termination easier does not help families and that the state should instead invest in prevention and social safety nets. To support her view, she describes her background in Idaho child welfare reform and her experience as a foster child, including a case where a child was placed in foster care for months over a minor incident and another where her sister’s brain cancer should have been considered as a mitigating factor. She says some cases labeled abuse or neglect involve children with serious behavioral health needs and that families seeking emergency help can still face substantiation. She criticizes cost-driven decision-making, emphasizes that reunification should be supported by services and family assistance, and concludes that she cannot in good conscience support legislation that would erode parents’ and families’ rights.
Kevin Watson — Kevin Watson introduces himself as a foster parent in Idaho for five years who has fostered 26 children, then reads an anonymous statement from a friend/fellow foster parent about an ongoing case. The statement describes prior abuse reports by the children, a father with a history of domestic violence charges, the case being closed without further intervention, visitation moving from supervised to unsupervised, and the children reporting that physical and verbal abuse resumed. It also notes the eldest child’s fear of unsupervised visitation and even some supervised visits without siblings present.
Unnamed foster parent / witness — The witness described severe trauma-related impacts on children connected to visitation, including a suicide attempt requiring inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, escalating anxiety and behavioral dysregulation, academic problems, and persistent night terrors. They said all of the children needed ongoing therapy and that the symptoms were most acute during periods of unsupervised visitation. The witness urged lawmakers to require earlier and more thorough evaluation of abuse allegations and to exercise greater caution before allowing unsupervised visitation when violence has been documented, emphasizing that child safety should take priority over reunification timelines or procedural progression.
Unnamed former foster child witness — The witness, a former foster child, described being forced for three and a half years into visitation with an abusive father despite pleas from psychologists, lawyers, and other adults not to require it. They said the experience led to depression, self-harm, law-enforcement encounters, and angry outbursts for them and their siblings, and that the repercussions still haunt the family. The witness concluded by supporting Bill 1257 as a measure to protect vulnerable children.
Mr. Watson — The chair thanked Mr. Watson for testifying; he had just urged support for Bill 1257.
Jeremy Rudolph — Jeremy Rudolph was introduced and then testified as a licensed Idaho foster parent since 2022, speaking on behalf of another confidential foster parent. He argued that S-1257 is not government overreach but a narrow child-protection bill. He described his foster child's history of repeated removals from abusive or neglectful parents, including a drug bust, physical abuse, and neglect, and explained that a caseworker later forced visitation with an abusive mother despite the child's objections. Rudolph recounted a distressing video call in which the parents told the child they did not want them, and said repeated missed visits caused further rejection and harm. He closed by asking the committee to support and vote in favor of S-1257 to protect Idaho's most vulnerable children, after which the chair thanked him and noted there were no questions.
Anthony Henry — Anthony Henry testified in support of SB 1257 by recounting his childhood experience with abuse, state intervention, and foster care instability. He explained that his biological father abused his sister, leading to termination of the father’s rights to her, while his own rights were not terminated despite similar circumstances. Henry described years of on-and-off visitation, repeated abandonment, 27 placements, orphanage stays, group home living, and emancipation through Job Corps before age 17. He concluded by reflecting on his adult life as a husband, father, and working professional, and argued that the state had a duty to protect him and that parental rights should end when abuse is involved.
Nicole Egbert — Nicole Egbert, a foster and adoptive mother in Idaho, testifies in support of S-1257 by sharing Isaiah’s story. She describes how visits and placement decisions caused him severe physical and emotional distress, including vomiting, night terrors, filthy returns, damaged clothing, and escalating behaviors, and says she reported these concerns as a foster parent. She explains that Isaiah was still sent on an extended home visit, later returned, and that his case moved through termination, adoption placement, and then back to his mother through a rushed vacated case. She emphasizes that children do not understand legal timelines or procedural resets, only fear, and concludes that when abuse has been substantiated, safety should not be negotiable. A later mention identifies Nicole as Joseph’s wife and co-foster parent, reinforcing the same family context.
Joseph Egbert — Joseph Egbert introduces himself as a former foster parent, not a policy expert, and explains that he is speaking from real-life experience. He then describes the case of Kyla and Noah, saying that despite repeated warnings that visitation with their biological father would be dangerous, the department proceeded anyway. He emphasizes that the children were frightened and urges the committee to put child safety first and deal with the rest later.
Monique Perry — Introduces herself as an adoptive mother from District 13 and begins testimony about her children and a sibling who recently died in Nampa.
Todd Lakey — The chair says he is filling in for Senator Lakey, who is traveling.
Todd Lakey — Referenced in a remark about the bill's reception in the Senate committee.
Todd Lakey — The chair asks Senator Wintrow if she has questions and recognizes Senator Foreman.
Cody Galloway — Cody Galloway, representing District 15 in Boise, introduced himself and presented/explained the RS and its purpose.
Melissa Wintrow — Moved to send RS-331-2-C-1 to print.
Melissa Wintrow — Melissa Wintrow introduces Senate Bill 1257 and explains that its purpose is to balance parental rights with the best interests of children.
Melissa Wintrow — The discussion centers on Senator Wintrow’s concerns and remarks about the department. Jean Fisher repeatedly references what has been heard from Senator Wintrow, and the exchange continues as the speaker responds to that prior discussion and ties it to the department’s mission. The mentions collectively reflect an ongoing conversation about Wintrow’s perspective on the department rather than separate topics.
Melissa Wintrow — Melissa Wintrow repeatedly sought clarification on the bill’s visitation-pause process after a substantiated abuse claim, asking whether the department or the court would have authority to pause in-person visitation and ultimately confirming her understanding that the court, rather than the department, would make that determination.
Daniel Foreman — Seconded the motion to send the RS to print.
Daniel Foreman — Responded after the presentation and moved toward a motion.
Daniel Foreman — Moved to send RS 33423 to print.
Daniel Foreman — Robert Gillis says Representative Skog asked him to assist with the issue.
Daniel Foreman — Gillis references Representative Skog's point that trafficking crosses state and county lines.
Daniel Foreman — He is identified as seconding the motion.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Daniel Foreman praises the bill as exceptionally and intelligently written, emphasizing that it is balanced and protective of both child safety and parental rights. Jean Fisher responds appreciatively to his supportive comment.
Daniel Foreman — Thanked by the witness for his earlier supportive comment.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Daniel Foreman responds to Ms. Moore’s concerns about Senate Bill 1257, saying he respects her sensitivities but does not read the bill as calling for early or unnecessary termination of parental rights. He explains that the bill includes judicial oversight and court discretion rather than a knee-jerk termination approach, and then asks Ms. Moore to briefly explain the source of her concern about the bill and parental rights.
Doug Ricks — Senator Doug Ricks introduced himself and presented the legislation, was thanked after the motion carried, and then continued the discussion by asking about current practice and how the bill would change case referrals in future cases.
Doug Ricks — Asks Ms. Moore whether she opposes the bill because current law is adequate or whether she wants changes to current law.
Doug Ricks — Chair Doug Ricks thanks the witnesses appearing before the committee, notes that there are no questions for Ms. Egbert, and then transitions to the next witness, Joseph Egbert.
John Furby — The chair says John Furby is first to testify and may be online.
Robert Gillis — Robert Gillis testifies in support of House Bill 518. He introduces himself as being from Idaho Tough on Crime and says Representative Skog asked him to assist based on his experience. He describes 25 years working in Los Angeles on organized crime and gang task forces, where human trafficking was a major issue but cases were difficult to prove because victims were intimidated and prosecutors lacked specialized resources. He explains that specialized trafficking prosecutors improved case handling and says Idaho would benefit from similar capability, citing a case involving a daughter picked up from a truck stop in Nampa and involving COBS. He concludes that prosecutors need another avenue to pursue these cases and reiterates his support for the bill.
Jason Kimball — Jason Kimball, a lieutenant with the Nampa Police Department, testifies in support of the bill, explaining that human trafficking cases often cross county lines and require coordination across jurisdictions. He says local prosecutors are overburdened and lack resources to handle these complex cases, and that the bill would help identify and address these jurisdictional boundary problems by improving statewide coordination. He concludes by stating his support for the bill and offering to answer questions.
Jeannie Strohmeyer — Jeannie Strohmeyer, executive director of the Nampa Family Justice Center, testifies in support of House Bill 518. She explains that the bill would create a victim-centered, one-stop prosecution model by giving the Attorney General's office lead authority, helping avoid repeated interviews and retraumatization of victims. She emphasizes that this approach would ensure victims receive dedicated attention and expertise rather than being lost in overburdened local offices, and concludes by reinforcing support for survivor-centered justice.
James Ruchti — Senator Kaiser is addressed and then moves to send House Bill 518 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
James Ruchti — Senator Galloway is referenced as having previously brought a bill addressing foster care concerns, termination of parental rights, and related court review issues.
James Ruchti — Senator Ruchti is identified as the questioner while Ms. Moore responds to his question.
Monique — Monique is introduced as a witness who will testify later, and the discussion explains that she contacted Senator Wintrow about troubling visitation requirements affecting foster and adopted children. Her own experience as a foster mother is cited as part of what prompted the bill and led to her testimony.
Jean Fisher — Jean Fisher is introduced and invited to explain the substantiation process, then comes forward to testify. She identifies herself as the division administrator for youth safety and permanency at the Department of Health and Welfare and begins discussing her background and the department’s efforts to address concerns, including the balance between parental rights and child safety.
Jean Fisher — The chair addresses Jean Fisher and begins a question about page six, subsection B.
testimony — The sponsor says the committee will hear testimony on the issue.
Brandon Shippy — The chair addresses Senator Shippy when inviting Jean Fisher to testify; likely a transcription error for the vice chair's name.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Shippy is addressed in a discussion about judicial authority over visitation. The speaker explains that courts already have the authority, but the bill provides specific guidance confirming they can make that determination. In the follow-up, the speaker clarifies that the judge will decide when visitation is not in the children's best interest and can pause visits accordingly.
Brandon Shippy — The speaker addresses 'Senator Shippy,' likely referring to Vice Chair Brandon Shippy.
Dr. Kylie Billingsley — Dr. Kylie Billingsley, a licensed child psychologist and foster parent, testified in support of the bill. She explained that forced visitation with abusive parents can retraumatize children, comparing it to compelling an abuse survivor to repeatedly face an abuser. Drawing on her foster parenting experience, she described severe trauma responses in children before and after visits, including anxiety, vomiting, self-harm, and dysregulation in a very young child. She said these requirements led her family to stop accepting long-term placements because she could not in good conscience participate in a system that sent children into harmful situations. She argued that repeated contact with an abuser can damage a child’s sense of safety and long-term mental health, and she closed by asking the committee to support the bill.
Itha Moore — Itha Moore was announced as the next online testifier, but before testimony could begin, the chair noted that the online participant appeared to have disconnected and was lost from the call.
Monique Pire — The chair/staff announces Monique Pire as the next witness after the prior online participant disconnects, then repeats the name as the meeting transitions to the next testifier.
Ivy Walker — Ivy Walker introduces herself and states that she is testifying on behalf of Idaho Voices for Children and from personal experience in Idaho’s foster care system. She then describes how, even after being removed for her safety, she was forced into ongoing visits with her abuser, who taunted and manipulated her. Walker explains the emotional toll of these visits, including panic before each one and repeated heartbreak over hoping her mother would change, and recounts a traumatic incident during a visit at the Department of Health and Welfare that finally led to ending the visits and pursuing a no-contact order.