Mark Harris — Continued arguing the bill does not preserve due process and objected to reliance on the department's internal registry and verification process.
Mark Harris — Argued that if verification cannot be completed within 12 hours, the department may escalate the response without continued efforts to substantiate the risk factors.
Mark Harris — Referenced as sharing concerns about the bill.
Mark Harris — Recorded as voting aye.
Mark Harris — Name appears in the roll call; vote is implied as aye from context.
Luke Malik — Luke Malik was introduced as a representative of the state’s FQHCs and invited to testify on SB 1410. He identified himself, said he was appearing on the bill, and thanked Senator VanOrden and others for their work. He then offered to answer committee questions and responded to Senator Wintrow and Senator Shippy, including clarifying that the bill is not tied to rural health transformation funds and that the process has existed for a long time.
Sasha O'Connell — Sasha O'Connell, the state Medicaid administrator and deputy director of the Department of Health and Welfare, was introduced and then testified about the bill. She explained that without the bill there would be no restrictions on change-in-scope requests by FQHCs, and that the bill would create budget predictability by limiting increases to a 4.5% threshold.
Mr. Malick — Mr. Malick explained that under current law there is no limit on how often a change-in-scope request can be made, but the bill would place annual parameters on those requests. He added that such requests are generally granted when made, that many health centers have not pursued them because the process has not been clear, and that he was not aware of denials.
Mr. Malik — Mr. Malik explained that the bill would establish a state statutory process to handle changes in scope, drawing on the existing federal process as context. He described the federal electronic handbook process and used the dental example to illustrate how such requests are handled, then emphasized that the state framework would provide clarity on how often and how the process would work.
Brian Lenney — Senator Brian Lenney asked for a high-level explanation of the practical implications of the bill failing to pass, prompting discussion of what would happen if the bill does not advance.
Brian Lenney — Likely the senator asking about neonatal abstinence syndrome and the D factor.
Brian Lenney — Recognized as the next speaker after the motion and support comments.
Brian Lenney — Raised concerns that the bill could expand administrative power and cited a recent Idaho case, baby Cyrus.
Brian Lenney — Continued his criticism, arguing the bill could cause CPS to contact people without criminal history or evidence of harm.
Brian Lenney — Said the bill helps IDHW play 'God mode' and stated he would not support it.
Brian Lenney — Referenced as sharing concerns about the bill.
Brian Lenney — Name appears in the roll call; vote is implied as aye from context but transcription is unclear.
Senator Tammy Nichols — Introduced House Bill 776 and identified it as Benji's Law.
Lindsay Wright — Called to testify, but apparently not present.
Gabriel Messick / Gabrielle Messick — Called to testify and begins introducing themselves as a hospital social worker.
Gabrielle Messek — Gabrielle Messek, a hospital social worker in Nampa, testified in support of quicker safety review for high-risk newborn cases. She described hospital situations involving newborns testing positive for drugs at birth, parents with prior custody losses, and documented histories of abuse, neglect, or serious criminal offenses involving children, emphasizing that timely review is important in these cases while noting that most Idaho families are doing an excellent job raising their children.
Ms. Messick — Committee thanks the prior witness and asks whether there are questions.
Tracy Cottle — Called to testify next.
Tracy Caudill — Testified as a concerned citizen from District 11 about the newborn Benjamin and safety concerns.
Kyle Bensley / Bill Inslee / Kylie Billingsley — Chair struggles with the witness's name before inviting them to introduce themselves.
Dr. Kylie Billingsley — Testified as a licensed psychologist supporting House Bill 776 and describing prior evaluations of the parents in Baby Benji's case.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld asked Dr. Billingsley whether the Baby Benji case was truly isolated and requested an estimated number of similar cases Idaho has seen besides Baby Benji; the follow-up mention reflects Dr. Billingsley’s response to that same question.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld continued a follow-up exchange, asking for thoughts on the list and related risk factors, including discussion of a prior-termination risk factor. The later mentions appear to be transcription variants of the same senator within the same conversation.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — A senator asks how the bill will avoid creating more cases or overreach by CPS.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — The senator asks how the bill will prevent CPS overreach and requests another example besides baby Benji.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld is the senator asking the follow-up question.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld follows up, asking how the bill will play out if agencies cannot respond quickly.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Asked how the department would handle the added caseload and whether other cases would be delayed.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Was addressed by the bill sponsor in response to concerns about caseload and implementation.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Was addressed in the response about how the registry works and whether someone could be caught in the crosshairs.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Continued the question about registry status and acknowledged the response.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Asked whether registry status would automatically trigger removal or just a welfare check.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Received confirmation that the bill would only trigger a welfare check, not automatic removal.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Said she shares concerns raised by Senators Lenney and Kaiser and worried about unintended consequences and medical professionals making decisions.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Warned the bill could separate children from parents based on insufficiently examined information and cited the Baby Cyrus case.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Said she had listened to the CPS committee and concluded the bill would cause more harm than good, so she would vote no.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Recorded as voting aye.
Dr. Billingsley — Dr. Billingsley responded that the issue is not isolated and said she included a packet of roughly six to eight Idaho stories, along with an August 2025 news article describing infants entering care with fractured skulls. She clarified that every story in the packet involved children within their first year of life, underscoring that some of the cases remain especially concerning.
Nicole Egbert — Nicole Egbert was called to testify, introduced herself, and spoke in support of House Bill 776 (Benji's Law) on behalf of Delphina Krakow. Her testimony was then concluded and she was thanked by the chair.
Delphina Krakow — Delphina Krakow is described as a local foster parent with direct ties to Baby Benji’s family, including having fostered Benji’s older brother, Isaiah. The discussion emphasizes that she acted appropriately by filing a detailed report with CPS and documenting concerns about the parents’ history and warrants.
David Gomez — David Gomez is introduced as the next virtual witness, the committee works through audio connection issues until they can hear him, and then he begins his testimony by identifying himself as a Boise County Sheriff's Office employee and school resource officer before describing observations about families with difficult home lives in Boise County.
Josh Keyser — Senator Ziderfeld questioned Officer Gomez about the meaning of 'challenged home life,' asking for a clearer definition of the term used in the discussion.
Josh Keyser — Senator Nichols is recognized to explain the bill's purpose and operation.
Officer Gomez — Officer Gomez explained that the bill would help him get a response team on scene quickly while respecting people’s rights. He clarified that living in a trailer alone is not a concern; instead, he looks for signs of neglect or danger such as lack of water, electricity, or families hiding or fleeing. He said dispatch information and the family’s willingness to allow entry affect whether he escalates the response, and that timely Health and Welfare involvement helps him gather history and other facts needed to support a search warrant when necessary. He concluded that families can move quickly, so a prompt team response is important to protect children and preserve the option to act appropriately.
Kevin Watson — Kevin Watson testified in support of House Bill 776, using the Baby Benji case to argue that the child’s death was not an unpredictable tragedy but part of a documented pattern of escalating risk that was obscured when families moved and records became fragmented. He explained that the bill is meant to address this gap by requiring expedited safety review when parents have documented high-risk factors, cited HHS data showing elevated reoffense risk, noted that the proposal does not create new grounds for termination or removal, and compared it to more aggressive laws in other states to emphasize that it is a modest measure designed to ensure the system does not ignore known danger.