An Act to renumber and amend 48.227 (1); to amend 48.227 (2) and 48.227 (3); to create 48.227 (1a) of the statutes; Relating to: authorizing a respite care provider home to be a runaway home.
AB 1196 would expand Wisconsin’s runaway-child placement law to include a new category of placement: a “respite care provider home.” The bill defines that term as the home of a person approved under Department of Children and Families rules to provide respite services or emergency care to a foster child during a foster parent’s absence, through DCF, a county department, or a licensed child welfare agency. Under the bill, these homes would be treated similarly to licensed foster homes, group homes, and shelters for purposes of housing or serving runaway children.
The bill preserves the existing consent-based framework when both the child and the parent, guardian, or legal custodian agree to the placement, and it extends the current notice-and-hearing procedures to respite care provider homes when consent is not given. That means a home could shelter a runaway child without parental consent only if it notifies the appropriate intake worker within 12 hours, the agency notifies the parent or guardian as soon as possible, and a court hearing is held to determine whether the child may remain in the home for up to 20 days. The bill also allows judges to designate respite care provider homes as temporary care placements for runaway children who have been taken into custody and then released.
In practical terms, the bill would amend s. 48.227 of the Wisconsin statutes to add respite care provider homes to the list of authorized runaway-child placements and to apply the same procedural protections and court oversight that already apply to foster homes, group homes, and shelters. It would not create a new runaway-child process, but rather broaden the set of approved homes that can participate in the existing system under supervision of a county department, child welfare agency, or DCF.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive and administrative rather than controversial: the measure appears aimed at increasing placement flexibility and using already approved respite-care homes to help manage runaway-child situations. No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, so there is no recorded floor debate or vote pattern here to indicate broader legislative support or opposition.
The main point of potential contention is likely the expansion of authority to homes that are not traditional licensed foster homes, especially in situations where a child is placed without parental consent and a court hearing is required. Any concerns would center on child safety, oversight, and whether respite care provider homes should be treated the same as foster homes for runaway placements. At the same time, supporters would likely emphasize continuity of care, flexibility for foster families, and the availability of additional approved homes for temporary placement.
The bill would amend Wisconsin Statutes section 48.227 by creating a new definition for “respite care provider home” and by adding those homes to the list of places that may provide housing or services to runaway children. It would extend existing notice, consent, and hearing requirements to these homes, and it would allow courts and intake workers to use them as temporary placements in the same way they may use licensed foster homes, group homes, and shelters. The bill would affect the Department of Children and Families, county human services/social services departments, licensed child welfare agencies, foster parents, and approved respite providers.
The bill appears generally favorable in purpose, with a practical child-welfare focus on expanding placement options for runaway children and supporting foster-care respite arrangements. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented public debate to show organized support or opposition. The fact that the bill failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 indicates it did not become law, but the available record does not explain whether that was due to policy disagreement, timing, or broader legislative procedure.
The likely contention is whether a respite care provider home should be authorized to shelter runaway children under the same rules that apply to licensed foster homes, group homes, and shelters. Opponents or cautious lawmakers might worry about oversight, training, and whether these homes are sufficiently equipped for runaway-child placements, particularly when parental consent is absent and court review is required. Supporters would likely argue that these homes are already approved for respite or emergency foster care and can safely expand placement capacity without changing the underlying protections in current law.