WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HD 392

An Act promoting the placement of foster children with family members and preventing discrimination against potential foster parents based on irrelevant convictions

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by David DeCoste and 2 co-sponsors

Massachusetts bill prioritizes kinship foster placements and restricts disqualifying applicants solely based on irrelevant criminal convictions, aiming to keep children with family while broadening foster parent pool.

0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HD 392

Legislative bill overview

HD 392 seeks to prioritize placing foster children with relatives and kinship caregivers while restricting the state's ability to disqualify potential foster parents based on criminal convictions deemed "irrelevant" to child safety. The bill aims to streamline the approval process for family placements and create clearer standards around which criminal histories should automatically bar foster parent candidacy.

Why is this important

Foster care placement decisions directly affect child stability and outcomes. Kinship placements often provide better continuity and cultural connection, but bureaucratic barriers can delay or prevent family reunification. The bill addresses real delays in family placements while raising questions about how to balance child safety with fair consideration of applicants with criminal histories.

Potential points of contention

  • "Irrelevant convictions" definition: The bill doesn't clearly specify which convictions qualify as irrelevant to child safety, creating ambiguity about whether certain offenses (property crimes, drug offenses, etc.) would be automatically disqualifying or subject to case-by-case review
  • Child safety vs. second chances: Tension between giving people with criminal histories fair access to foster parenting and protecting vulnerable children from potential harm—what evaluation standard adequately addresses this?
  • Implementation burden: Determining relevance requires individual assessment, potentially increasing caseworker discretion and creating inconsistent outcomes across different agencies or evaluators

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.