WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 3676

Relating to a grant program for community water infrastructure.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Darcey Edwards

HB 3676 raises the reunification standard from 'reasonable efforts' to 'active efforts,' requiring more intensive, timely DCFS casework and explicit court findings on failures.

In committee upon adjournment.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 3676

HB 3676 — Summary (Introduced Feb 18, 2025; In committee upon adjournment)

Note: The bill metadata supplied lists a water-infrastructure title, but the text of HB 3676 amends the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 and the Adoption Act. This summary follows the bill text provided.

Main purpose

HB 3676 raises the statutory standard that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) must meet when providing services aimed at family reunification. Specifically, it replaces references to "reasonable efforts" with a higher standard, "active efforts," in multiple provisions of the Juvenile Court Act and adjusts related Adoption Act rules to reflect that change.

Key provisions

  • Replaces the term "reasonable efforts" with "active efforts" across the Juvenile Court Act (sections amended: 1-2, 1-3, 2-10, 2-13, 2-13.1, 2-21, 2-28).
  • Defines "active efforts" (new definitional language):
    • Means efforts that are affirmative, active, thorough, timely and intended to maintain or reunite a child with the child’s family.
    • Represents a higher standard than "reasonable efforts."
    • Explicitly states that "active efforts" includes the provision of reasonable efforts as required by Title IV‑E of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670–679c).
  • Court-review / findings:
    • If a court finds DCFS failed to make active efforts as provided in the service plan, the court order must specify each party to which the failure applies and the applicable time period.
  • Adoption Act clarifications:
    • A person shall not be considered unfit solely because DCFS (or its assignee) was found to have not made active efforts during any period of the pending case.
    • A parent shall not be found unfit for failure to make reasonable efforts or reasonable progress for any 9‑month period during which a court found DCFS failed to make active efforts with respect to that parent.
    • The protections apply to findings of failure to make active efforts made on or after the effective date of the amendatory Act.

Who is affected

  • DCFS: will need to meet a higher service standard and document more intensive, timely, affirmative steps toward reunification.
  • Children and families involved in abuse/neglect/dependency proceedings: could receive more active casework and services intended to preserve or restore family placement.
  • Parents whose rights are at issue: may be shielded from findings of unfitness or from negative findings of failure to make progress when court has identified DCFS failures.
  • Courts and attorneys: will need to evaluate and make explicit findings about active efforts and their timing; orders must delineate parties and periods of any failure.
  • Adoption processes: potential effect on timelines and findings used to support termination of parental rights and adoption petitions.

Procedural status & timeline

  • Introduced / First reading: Feb 18, 2025 (filed Feb 7, 2025 by Rep. Kimberly Du Buclet).
  • Committee referrals and actions: referred to Rules; to Adoption & Child Welfare Committee; Rule 19(a) re‑referred to Rules Committee; later referred to State Affairs and other committees per record.
  • Public hearing: Apr 28, 2025 (testimony taken); left pending in committee that day.
  • Chief sponsor change noted Apr 8, 2025 (sponsor metadata shows changes).
  • Current status (as of 2025‑06‑28): In committee upon adjournment.
  • Companion bill: SB 970.

Potential implications to note

  • Raising the statutory standard from "reasonable" to "active" may require DCFS to provide more intensive services and produce more detailed documentation; it could slow or alter timelines for termination of parental rights or adoption where DCFS service failures are found.
  • Because the bill expressly incorporates Title IV‑E reasonable efforts language into the definition, it attempts to preserve federal eligibility language; however, application and federal funding implications should be reviewed by state attorneys/administrators for compliance with federal requirements (Title IV‑E) and for interactions with other statutes (e.g., ICWA where "active efforts" is already a recognized term).

If you want, I can produce a side‑by‑side comparison of current vs. proposed statutory language for the most affected sections, or draft talking points summarizing impacts for DCFS administrators or child‑welfare advocates.

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

Sign in to ask a question.