WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 560

Children - As enacted, clarifies that the economic disadvantage of a parent or guardian alone is not a ground for termination of parental rights; clarifies that, for purposes of laws relative to juvenile courts and proceedings, "neglect" does not exist solely on the basis of economic disadvantage. - Amends TCA Title 36; Title 37 and Title 39.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Ed Jackson

Tennessee law now prohibits terminating parental rights or finding child neglect based solely on a parent's economic disadvantage, effective July 2025.

Pub. Ch. 322
#children
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 560

Legislative bill overview

SB 560 amends Tennessee law to explicitly prohibit using a parent's or guardian's economic disadvantage as the sole basis for terminating parental rights or determining child neglect in juvenile court proceedings. The bill clarifies that poverty alone cannot be grounds for removing children from their parents' custody.

Why is this important

Child welfare agencies have sometimes removed children from low-income families based primarily on poverty-related factors like substandard housing or inability to afford services. This bill protects vulnerable families by requiring courts to distinguish between actual neglect (harm or deprivation of necessities) and mere poverty, potentially preventing family separations that result from economic circumstances rather than abuse or serious neglect.

Potential points of contention

  • Implementation ambiguity: The bill prohibits economic disadvantage as the "sole" ground, but leaves unclear how courts should weigh poverty alongside other factors when both are present, potentially creating litigation over what constitutes "economic disadvantage alone"
  • Child safety concerns: Critics may argue the restriction could complicate removal decisions in cases where severe poverty genuinely endangers children (e.g., homelessness combined with substance abuse), though advocates counter that actual neglect should still be provable independently
  • Enforcement variability: Different judges and counties may interpret the standard inconsistently, potentially creating disparities in how aggressively poverty-adjacent cases are pursued across jurisdictions

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

Sign in to ask a question.