WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1664

directing the department of natural and cultural resources to remove the Hannah Duston Memorial in Boscawen.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Tim Hartnett and 4 co-sponsors

Arkansas HB 1664 allows alleged offenders in child maltreatment cases to obtain independent medical evaluations to rule out medical conditions mimicking abuse, with genetic testing

Inexpedient to Legislate: MA RC 194-156 02/12/2026 HJ 4 P. 52
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1664

Summary — HB 1664 (as provided)

Note: The document supplied contains multiple, different bills from different states that share the number HB 1664. This summary focuses on the primary, substantive text included in the packet — an Arkansas bill that proposes amendments to “Quincy’s Law” within the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act. The packet also contains unrelated Indiana and Illinois drafts and a metadata line stating “Died In Committee.” Readers should verify the official legislative record for final status in the relevant jurisdiction.

Purpose and intent

The Arkansas HB 1664 would amend Quincy’s Law (Arkansas Code Title 12, Chapter 18) to:
- Allow an alleged offender (typically a parent or caregiver accused in a child maltreatment investigation) to obtain independent medical evaluation(s) of the child to help rule out medical conditions that can mimic signs of abuse;
- Require certain genetic testing and family-history collection when ordered under those circumstances;
- Establish a right for a parent, guardian, or custodian to be provided the medical records of a child who has been removed or is in Department of Human Services (DHS) custody;
- Declare an emergency and state legislative findings explaining the intent to protect children, families, and the integrity of child welfare and legal systems.

Key provisions

  • Investigations under the Child Maltreatment Act may include physical exams, drug tests, radiology, photos, psychological/psychiatric exams (codified in § 12-18-614).
  • If the report alleges abuse (as defined in law), the alleged offender may:
    • Request a second opinion examination of the alleged victim by a licensed healthcare provider of the alleged offender’s choosing, provided that the provider did not perform the initial exam and routinely treats pediatric patients.
    • Request an exam specifically to rule out differential diagnoses — i.e., congenital or medical conditions that can be mistaken for abuse (examples listed include Marfan’s syndrome; hypermobility spectrum disorders; rickets; Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; osteogenesis imperfecta; vitamin D or K deficiencies; bone fragility; coagulation disorders; capillary fragility; blue/gray sclera; impaired bone mineralization; multiple fractures in different healing stages, etc.).
  • Payment: Examinations and genetic testing requested under these provisions shall be paid for by the alleged offender or covered by insurance or Medicaid.
  • Genetic testing: If genetic testing is performed, it must include a complete family medical history, including information about joint hypermobility, sprains, bruising, connective tissue disorders, and fractures (including cause and age at fracture).
  • Limits: Requests for a second opinion under these rules are prohibited when alleging sexual abuse, or when the alleged victim is in critical medical condition or receiving life-sustaining treatment.
  • New section proposed (12-18-624): grants courts authority to order that a parent/guardian/custodian be provided the medical records of a child removed or in DHS custody. (Text in packet truncated; full detail not provided.)

Who would be affected

  • Parents, putative parents, guardians, and custodians accused in child maltreatment investigations (often termed “alleged offenders”).
  • Children who are subjects of maltreatment investigations, particularly those removed to DHS custody or foster care.
  • Pediatric healthcare providers, hospitals, and medical staff involved in initial and requested second-opinion evaluations.
  • Department of Human Services, courts handling dependency/neglect and custody matters.
  • Insurers and Medicaid — because the bill specifies coverage/payor responsibility for requested exams/testing.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • The packet shows the Arkansas version was engrossed (H 4/2/25) and includes an adopted Amendment H1; it contains a declared emergency clause.
  • The metadata and packet also contain activity entries, filings, and references to different states and committees, and a line stating “Status: Died In Committee.” Because the packet mixes multiple jurisdictions and timelines, the bill’s legislative status should be confirmed in the official record for the relevant legislative body (Arkansas General Assembly if this is the Arkansas bill).

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Could reduce wrongful findings of abuse by ensuring alternative medical causes are considered and documented.
  • May speed identification and treatment of underlying medical/genetic conditions in children.
  • Places potential financial burden on alleged offenders (though insurance/Medicaid coverage is allowed).
  • Could affect timing of investigations and removals if additional exams/testing are requested.
  • Raises practical questions about access to records, confidentiality, timing of genetic testing, and how second opinions are integrated into child welfare and legal proceedings.

For a final determination of text and current status, consult the official legislative database for the Arkansas 95th General Assembly (or the applicable state legislature) because the provided materials include multiple, distinct HB 1664 drafts.

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

Sign in to ask a question.