Committee tables bill creating independent Office of the Child Advocate after agency concerns

The Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday reviewed LD 1893, an amendment to establish an independent Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) to replace the current child welfare ombudsman contract. Lawmakers, agency representatives and the current ombudsman debated the office’s authorities, confidentiality protections, advisory‑board powers and statutory timelines before the committee opted to table the measure for further drafting.

The draft amendment circulated for the work session would convert the contracted ombudsman into a state office administratively housed within DAFS for budget purposes, create a five‑year appointive term for the child advocate with specified graduate‑degree qualifications (law, nursing, public health, social work or related field), authorize access to DHHS and DOC records for investigations, and establish an 11‑member advisory committee with staggered terms. The amendment also sets deadlines: an interim child advocate report on resource needs is due by Feb. 15, 2027; advisory‑committee membership by March 15, 2027; and appointment of the first child advocate by July 15, 2027.

Department of Corrections government affairs director Jill O’Brien urged several edits to protect incarcerated adults and clarify juvenile protections. "We would advocate for 18 being the age limit here," O’Brien said, noting the draft’s reference to age 21 could unintentionally include adult prison populations. DOC also asked that consultation with the Attorney General be required when the advocate seeks to interview juveniles with active criminal matters and that juvenile criminal record provisions be clarified so investigative and intelligence records remain protected where appropriate.

DHHS government-relations director Abby Sivers asked the committee to reconsider a proposed advisory‑board slot reserved for a former OCFS staffer and suggested either ex officio participation or removal of the seat to ensure current, accurate departmental perspectives. The bill’s sponsor and the current ombudsman, Christine Albury, and Kate Knox, chair of the current ombudsman board, discussed the differences between the current contract-based board and the broader authorities proposed for an advisory committee under the new office.

Committee members expressed interest in retaining strong confidentiality protections for juvenile and behavioral-health records, ensuring the advocate’s access aligns with existing confidentiality statutes, and clarifying whether the advisory board would have formal supervisory authority over the office or the advocate personally.

After a sustained presentation and agency Q&A, the committee voted to table LD 1893 to allow staff, the agencies and the sponsor to refine draft language on age limits, attorney‑consultation requirements for interviews, definitions of critical incidents, confidentiality carve‑outs for juvenile justice records, and labor/union protections for staff interviews. Committee members instructed staff to reconvene the parties to produce a revised draft addressing those points before the measure is brought back for further consideration.

What happens next: The bill is tabled pending redrafting and interagency negotiation. Committee staff were asked to integrate DOC and DHHS edits (age limit to 18 for DOC facilities, stronger AG consultation language for juvenile interviews, and clearer confidentiality and personnel‑records provisions) and return with a revised draft.