Bill Description: House Bill 776 would direct the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) to “investigate and verify” reports against a caretaker of a newborn that meet certain prior risk factors within 12 hours and conduct safety checks when a report has been verified.
Rating: -2
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
House Bill 776 expands the authority and responsibilities of the DHW by establishing a system for preemptive state intervention based on past parental conduct rather than current findings of harm. The bill creates a new statutory framework for “newborn safety review,” effectively institutionalizing ongoing surveillance of a targeted class of Idaho residents based on the child protection central registry, a prior conviction of injury to a child, a previous termination of parental rights, or a child being born with neonatal abstinence syndrome.
It is also worth noting that there is no time limit for a prior conviction of injury to a child, which includes a variety of misdemeanors for offenses, including driving while under the influence with a child in the car. So someone who had a DUI with their child in the car back in the 90s and is now a caregiver for their grandchild can be flagged under this law.
Though there may be circumstances when one or more of these factors apply that a child should be removed from their caregivers for safety purposes, there is also often a lack of due process and the absence of convictions within the DHW and court systems that may leave a parent branded with one of the above-listed circumstances unjustly.
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
H776’s fiscal note states that the impact of this bill would be minimal; however, it is uncertain. This is concerning as the language necessarily imposes additional costs on the state by requiring safety assessments, expanded casework, increased monitoring, and administrative oversight from the DHW. These unaccounted costs are significant and commit taxpayer resources to ongoing intervention programs without clear limits or measurable fiscal constraints.
(0)
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 776 significantly infringes upon parental rights, which the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized as a fundamental liberty. Courts have consistently affirmed that parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children without undue government interference. H776 mandates state monitoring of newborns based solely on past parental conduct, without necessarily having a new finding of abuse or neglect. One of the particularly alarming sections of this bill states, “(2) Risk factors that require action by the department pursuant to subsection (1) of this section are as follows: (a) A parent, guardian, or legal custodian's identifying information appears in the department's child protection central registry going back no more than ten (10) years.” This is problematic when taking into consideration that having one's name put on the child protection central registry does not require a criminal conviction of injury to a child, abuse, or neglect.
Additionally, the bill states, “(3)..."verify" means use of the department's internal records to substantiate termination of parental rights and, when possible, the use of official, public-facing repositories of Idaho criminal or medical records in order to confirm the existence of a reported risk factor.” The language here would allow the termination of parental rights without a criminal conviction and instead, the DHW may simply rely on their own internal records to verify the guilt of a caretaker. There must be a high threshold for determining guilt and/or a criminal conviction when the termination of someone’s parental rights is at stake.
Further, the bill says if there is a child under the age of one, and "If the reported risk factor is verified, the department shall initiate a priority I response." This is the highest level of response, normally reserved for sexual abuse and ongoing or imminent danger, requiring that “the child must be seen by a Department family services worker, law enforcement, and medical personnel if applicable, immediately…” But this law requires no evidence or even allegation of any active or imminent mistreatment or abuse. So this bill is equating two entirely different situations.
Additionally, this bill effectively subjects a group of parents to ongoing state scrutiny even in the absence of current evidence of harm, raising due process concerns and eroding the presumption that parents act in the best interest of their children. While the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect in circumstances that are proven with clear and convincing evidence, H776 shifts the balance of power too far toward government authority at the expense of constitutionally protected parental rights. This undermines the principle that fundamental liberties should not be restricted without clear, evidentiary justification and robust due process.
(-1)
