Protections for foster children expanded by Oregon lawmakers

Oregon foster kids now have a state “Bill of Rights,” which Oregon lawmakers passed nearly unanimously, with only a single House member voting no. The legislation was vetoed by the governor last year but modified this year to address her concerns. The Oregon Foster Children’s Bill of Rights expands protections for children and youth in the state’s care, including assurance that kids can still see their siblings even when removed from their family of origin, and that they can bring precious possessions with them — among other protections. We talk with OPB Politics Reporter Lauren Dake to get more details about the legislation and how it’s expected to affect the lives of some of the most vulnerable children in the state.

Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. We start today with what’s known as Oregon’s Foster Children’s Bill of Rights. It expands protections for young people in the state’s care, including assurances that kids can still see their siblings even when they’ve been removed from their families of origin. Oregon lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the bill this session. There was only one “no” vote in the state House and none in the state Senate, but it is worth noting that Governor Tina Kotek vetoed a very similar version of this bill last year.

OPB politics reporter Lauren Dake has covered Oregon’s child welfare system for years now and joins us with an update. It’s great to have you back on the show.

Lauren Dake: Thanks, Dave.

Miller: What’s the idea behind this Bill of Rights?

Dake: The idea behind the Bill of Rights actually came from kids placed in care several years ago, and there have been a couple of iterations of the Bill of Rights. But the idea really is to put into writing what foster care kids should be able to expect and then codify these rights into state statute. And some of the rights listed are pretty basic: the right to be safe or the right to be protected from emotional abuse. It also says, kids have the right to make complaints to their caseworkers, a judge or the ombudsman without fear of retaliation.

Some people might be thinking, OK, people should know that they have the right to be free of abuse. But this came from kids in the child welfare system. So this came from some kids who really don’t have the support that maybe would make some of these rights feel like a given. So the idea is to help them feel empowered, for these rights to be clearly stated so that they have access to this information.

Miller: As I noted in my intro, a very similar bill passed in the last session with a ton of support, and then Governor Tina Kotek vetoed it. Why?

Dake: Yeah, that really surprised everyone, including the lawmaker who had the bill. In the governor’s veto letter, the governor said she was vetoing the Foster Care Bill of Rights because she didn’t see why this level of prescriptiveness was needed in state statute. So there were some changes made to this latest version to appeal to the governor. But some additional context here too is that one of the governor’s priority bills during the 2025 session, dealing with child welfare issues, died that legislative session. Senator Sara Gelser Blouin, a Democrat from Corvallis, was instrumental in getting the governor’s bill killed. Well, this Foster Care Bill of Rights is her bill. So there might have been a little bit of politics at play as well.

Miller: How close did lawmakers come last year to overriding that veto?

Dake: In the Senate, they did. They did override her veto. Both Republicans and Democrats voted to override it. They did so in a 21-to-6 vote. The whole thing was a pretty rare legislative move, to see a governor veto a bill in a session and then lawmakers repass it in the same session.

Miller: Especially when we’re talking about the same party being in control of the governor’s office and the two chambers of the legislature?

Dake: Yeah, and especially for a bill that’s saying it’s giving rights to kids in foster care. You would not think the most contentious bill. So anyway, it passed in the Senate again that session. But when it went to the House, there wasn’t enough time to pass it, so it died.

Miller: So that brings us to this year. How is the bill, that once again overwhelmingly passed, different from last year?

Dake: The first Bill of Rights, the one that the governor vetoed, also included a change of definition of “child in care.” Basically, Sara Gelsler Blouin wanted to expand this definition of child in care to include kids who are in temporary lodging. The agency, the state’s Department of Human Services, pushed back on that. If a kid is considered a child in care, there are certain abuse investigation requirements, or if the kid is restrained or secluded while being considered a child in care, those have to be reported in a certain way.

So apparently, both the agency and the governor did not want to add those additional regulations of putting kids in temporary care, like hotels, within that definition. So that was stripped out of this current bill and that’s a pretty big difference.

Miller: So what will this bill actually do?

Dake: The most recent version of this bill strengthens some of the provisions that existed already. So, some of the language in the earlier version said kids have the right to see their siblings or they have the right to go to their own court hearings. But the language back then also had these qualifiers. So they had these rights, if DHS deemed they were age appropriate or if DHS thought it was in their best interest.

Now it is much more clear. The kids have their right. They have the right to see their siblings. And it’s a fundamental right. No foster parent nor DHS can interrupt those rights. In this version, only a judge can restrict sibling visitation rights. And if that happens, a kid would have that reason and they would have it in writing, and that would make it a lot more clear for them.

Miller: What did current or former foster kids say in testimony about this bill?

Dake: Oh, every time the kids with lived experience testify, it’s pretty intense and usually pretty heartbreaking. So, we heard from one kid who said she only saw her siblings four or five times in something like 11 years. She said that while crying, in the testimony in the legislative room. She said she basically lost connection with her oldest biological sibling, noting that she had missed this sibling’s wedding and most of his major milestones.

Then really what made it even more sort of messed up is she also said that her foster parents basically used visiting her siblings as a bribe and then threatened to take away that, when she didn’t behave, so as a way to control her behavior. That was a little bit upsetting.

Just in general, we heard how, for these kids, being connected to a member of their biological family or a member of a family that they grew up with, offers a sense of stability in an otherwise very unstable life.

Miller: It’s striking that one of the provisions of this bill is that these newly established documented rights would have to be posted in foster homes in a place where foster kids will be able to see them. It reminded me a little bit of labor laws that are posted in employee break rooms. If I’m not mistaken, it also says it has to be in language that even the kids can understand. Is the idea that these kids who are in such vulnerable positions to begin with, that they would be able to advocate for themselves?

Dake: Yes, absolutely. That is a big part of it. If you think about it, when a kid is removed from their home, it’s usually a very traumatic day for them. It’s a hard day. You’re not going to hand them a piece of paper or say, “here are your rights” and expect them to remember that. Also, these kids get moved to just like this dizzying array of placements. They’re just bounced around from hotels to treatment facilities to foster homes. So the idea that they have to be placed everywhere they go, goes back to trying to empower them to have this information.

Miller: What are the repercussions if a foster parent breaks these rules, goes against – assuming it’s signed and we’ll talk about that in a second – these fundamental rights?

Dake: I want to say immediately the kid in foster care is going to have justice. But really, this is kind of a baby step. It offers a phone number on the Bill of Rights. They can call the foster care ombudsman, they can make a report. If the ombudsman is good or if the kid has an attorney that’s good, which is not always a given, then something could happen. It gives them a chance to have some sort of recourse.

Miller: A spokesman for the governor said that Governor Tina Kotek will review any legislation that comes to her desk prior to signing. That sounds like just boiler plate language. Do you have any sense for where she’s leaning?

Dake: I think she’s going to sign it. I don’t think that there’s anything controversial at this point. She surprised us before, but I don’t anticipate that happening again.

Miller: So I want to turn to the bigger picture. The last time we talked, it was about Oregon’s beleaguered foster care system, once the state had finally settled a suit brought on behalf of current and former foster children. Can you remind us first what that settlement required?

Dake: That lawsuit cost taxpayers millions of dollars – upwards of $19 million. Basically, the agency agreed to pretty straightforward things. They’re going to reduce the rate of mistreatment of kids in their care. They’re going to improve the quality of placements for their kids in their care. That was a really big one. And it’s stipulated that a person would be appointed to oversee some of the reforms in the child welfare system. This person is a neutral. His name’s Kevin Ryan, and he is currently in there working to improve it.

Miller: How much has changed since then? I mean, I guess I’m wondering what difference that settlement you just described has made?

Dake: Just to back up for a second, as a reminder, the State was sued when it was placing kids in hotels years ago, right? It promised to stop doing that. It has not stopped doing that. The child welfare agency then sent kids to placements out of state where there was widespread abuse, a litany of problems in these facilities. The state then stopped that practice and then during the 2025 session, tried to get approval to start that practice again. That’s the bill that actually Sara Gelser Blouin was instrumental in killing.

So the question is have they managed to create better placements here in Oregon for kids so they can be in a home-like setting, so they are not in congregate care, not in an institution, not in a hotel, and not out of state? And what are they doing to create those spaces? That’s what they’re supposedly working on. I don’t think that we really have any major clarity on that yet. Are they getting closer? Are they coming up with some innovative solutions?

Kevin Ryan, the neutral overseeing the system, he’s not allowed to talk to reporters. We haven’t seen a report yet showing whether placements are improving or how they’re tracking that. He does have to file something to the court at some point and that will be publicly available. But right now, I’m just still kind of waiting to see what they come up with.

Miller: Lauren, thanks very much.

Dake: Thank you, Dave.

Miller: Lauren Dake is a member of OPB’s political reporting team.

“Think Out Loud®” broadcasts live at noon every day and rebroadcasts at 8 p.m.

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983.