The Senate Human Services Committee on Sept. 30 heard a step-by-step explanation from Department of Children, Youth and Families officials about how children move through Washington’s child-welfare system and how recent laws changed standards for removing children from their homes. Allison Gritzinger, the department’s chief of public affairs, and Vicky Ybarra, assistant secretary for Partnerships, Prevention and Services, told the committee the process includes intake, screening, investigation, shelter-care hearings, fact-finding hearings and subsequent dependency review and permanency hearings.

The department emphasized that screening in for an investigation or opening a case does not automatically mean a child will be placed in out-of-home care. “Of the total 130,000 or so interventions we received in 2024, 2,700 children were placed,” Gritzinger said, noting the overall scale and that placements represent a small fraction of calls to the intake hotline.

The committee was reminded that removal decisions follow different legal thresholds depending on the stage of the case. Gritzinger outlined the emergency shelter‑care hearing standard (where courts determine whether removal is necessary to prevent imminent physical harm), the fact‑finding standard (preponderance of the evidence), and the dispositional step that may require a higher showing (preponderance or clear, cogent and convincing evidence depending on the issue). At the shelter‑care phase, the court cannot order services, Gritzinger said: courts cannot mandate participation in services at that initial hearing; the department may offer services outside the court process.

The panel discussed two major statutory changes. The 2021 measure known to committee members as 12/27 (the Keeping Families Together legislation) raised the removal threshold at the shelter‑care stage from a prior “serious threat of substantial harm” standard to an “imminent physical harm” standard and emphasized placement with kin and suitable others. Gritzinger said that DCYF has increased kin placements and now places nearly 60% of children with relatives or pre‑existing caregivers when out‑of‑home care is necessary.

Committee members also heard how 2023’s Senate Bill 6109, passed in response to the fentanyl crisis, instructed courts to give “great weight” to the lethality of high‑potency synthetic opioids such as fentanyl when considering removal at that shelter‑care hearing. SB 6109 also authorized legal liaisons in each region to support caseworkers in court preparedness; those liaisons are in place, the department said. Allison Gritzinger and Vicky Ybarra told the committee some contracted services authorized in SB 6109 have not been implemented because of revenue freezes, and the department has submitted a decision package to restore those activities.

Committee members asked how the court receives information at hearings. The presenters said caseworkers and assistant attorneys general commonly appear and testify; foster parents may submit written material but are not parties to dependency proceedings and do not have counsel as parties do. The presenters also clarified that dependency can be ordered for one parent and not the other, and hearings and timelines can be continued by either side.

The department stressed that 12/27 was intended to make removal harder and to prioritize keeping families together when possible. It also highlighted kin placement improvements and warned that if courts were systematically failing to remove children who were demonstrably in danger, the problem would be judicial application of law rather than the statutory standard. Annie Chung of Legal Counsel for Youth & Children, appearing later in the panel, added that her organization’s private dependency petitions since 12/27 have resulted in removals in the cases they filed, and LCYC has not lost a case it brought alleging imminent physical harm.

Looking ahead, DCYF and the courts told the committee that a better shared understanding of evidentiary standards, court practice and available services would help frontline workers, parents and judicial officers apply statutes consistently across counties.

Less critical details: the presenters provided committee members a copy of slides and offered to follow up with additional briefings and data.