Children in foster care: witnesses, youth and attorneys urge law to prioritize keeping siblings together

House Bill H.268 would require the Department of Children and Families to prioritize placing siblings in the same foster home and, when joint placement is not possible, to facilitate frequent sibling visitation. Testimony at the Joint Committee hearing included youth who had been separated from siblings, service providers who cited research on the benefits of joint placement, and attorneys urging judges to be able to order specific parenting time when appropriate.

Why it matters: Multiple witnesses said sibling relationships are a primary protective factor after a child is removed from a home. Speakers described emotional and educational harms when siblings are separated and urged statutory changes to require DCF to document why separation is necessary and to develop plans and placement resources that preserve sibling ties.

Ethan and Tia Dalmashaney, siblings who said they were placed in three separate households after DCF took custody, described the strain on family relationships and the practical barriers to staying connected. Tia said the separation affected schooling, language development and trust; Ethan said placing siblings apart “layers one more trauma and grief” on children who already experienced removal.

CPCS (Committee for Public Counsel Services) Director of Appeals Ian Cohen told the committee that Massachusetts places fewer than two‑thirds of sibling groups together, by DCF’s own records, and called sibling separation “extremely troubling.” He and other attorneys recommended that judges be allowed to order specific frequency and duration of parent‑child visits (a provision in companion House Bill H.269) and that DCF be required to develop plans to expand placement capacity for large sibling groups.

Service providers described both the benefits of sibling placement and limited capacity: an advocate from an educational nonprofit said about 70 percent of children in foster care have siblings and that placement of entire sibling groups falls sharply as group size increases. Witnesses asked the committee to require DCF to show that separation is necessary and to create placement‑expansion plans and visitation facilitation when siblings cannot be co‑placed.

No formal votes were taken during the hearing. Committee members asked for data on repeat DCF involvements and placement statistics; several witnesses offered to provide numbers in follow‑up written testimony.

Ending: Supporters asked the committee to report H.268 and companion bills favorably, arguing that statutory change would reduce trauma and improve chances for reunification and better outcomes for children in foster care.