October 22, 2026

Children Can Become Big Business for Government
What is the “15 of 22” rule, and why did Idaho shorten it to 12 of 22 months?

By: Idaho Representative Heather Scott

I can’t imagine a child spending an entire childhood moving from foster home to foster home. Children need safety, stability, and people who love them. But I also cannot accept the idea of rushing a child away from his or her own family when a safe parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or other relative is ready and willing to help.

I recently learned more about a federal rule called “15 of 22.” Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, states generally must file a petition to terminate parental rights once a child has spent 15 of the most recent 22 months in foster care, unless an exception applies. The purpose was to prevent children from drifting through the system for years without a permanent home.

Idaho has now shortened that timeline to 12 of the most recent 22 months in the Department of Health and Welfare’s custody. Under the 2026 change, the Department generally must file a termination petition before the last day of the 12th month, unless the court finds a listed exception. That doesn’t mean a parent automatically loses their rights at 12 months as a judge must still decide whether the legal grounds for termination have been proven and whether termination is in the child’s best interests.

But this is where I have questions. If the state can move faster toward terminating parental rights, shouldn’t it also move faster to help safe families reunite? And shouldn’t it act just as quickly when a grandparent or another relative offers a safe home?

What About Grandparents and Other Family Members?

The Idaho Legislature has already recognized the value of keeping children connected to people they know. In 2025, legislators passed House Bill 245 to help create a faster licensing path for kinship caregivers. In 2026, Senate Bill 1266 expanded expedited placement eligibility to trusted kin. Those changes reflect an important principle: when children cannot safely stay with their parents, suitable family members and trusted people should be seriously considered, not treated as an afterthought.

So why do I continue to hear from grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins who say they were never contacted, were turned away, or were denied meaningful contact with children they love? A parent’s failure or mistake does not automatically mean an entire extended family is unsafe. Each person and each proposed placement deserves a fair, individual assessment.

I have also heard from Idaho constituents who say they offered to take children and later found records stating that no family was available. Others have claimed that statements made in caseworker reports were completely fabricated. These are serious allegations, not findings I can make from an email or a phone call. But when families bring forward documents that appear to contradict the state’s records, who checks the facts? How does the family correct the record before months have passed? And who hold a dishonest social worker accountable.

The state should be able to explain when relatives were contacted, which relatives offered to help, why a placement was approved or denied, and whether those decisions were reviewed. Families should not have to wonder whether the paperwork tells the whole story.

What Happens When the Clock Keeps Running?

When a child is removed from a home, the Department generally must work toward safe reunification. Idaho’s 12-of-22-month rule includes exceptions when the child is placed permanently with a relative, when compelling reasons show termination is not in the child’s best interests, or when the Department has failed to make reasonable reunification efforts.

Those exceptions matter. But what happens if counseling or visits are delayed? What if relatives are not promptly evaluated? What if parents are told to complete services but cannot get an appointment for months? The clock may keep running while the family is waiting for the state to act.

There is another issue. Idaho Code allows a court, under specific conditions, to consider a child’s strong bond with a substitute caregiver in deciding whether termination is in the child’s best interests. Of course, children form bonds with the adults who care for them. But if the state delays family contact or relative placement, could those delays help create the very circumstances later used to justify permanent separation? That is a fair question for legislators to examine.

And what about visitation? Parents may challenge efforts to restrict their visits under Idaho Juvenile Rule 47B, which calls for supporting affidavits and court review. Relatives do not automatically have the same visitation rights. Still, when contact with grandparents or siblings is safe, why should children lose those relationships simply because a parent is struggling?

Follow the Money And Follow the Records

I have also begun looking at the money involved in foster care, adoption, and guardianship. There are federal funds for foster care and adoption assistance, and federal law contains incentive formulas tied to qualifying increases in adoptions and some guardianships.

I continue to suspect that unrelated adoptions receive more bonus money than a relative adoption, but have not been able to confirmed this yet.

For example, an approved or licensed foster family may receive foster-care payments while caring for a child. An unlicensed relative may not qualify for the same assistance. Some guardianship funding has different eligibility rules from adoption assistance. Idaho’s state-funded guardianship assistance generally requires that parental rights have already been terminated or that the parents have died, along with documentation of unsuccessful efforts to place the child for adoption. That creates a legitimate question: are safe relatives being offered meaningful support early enough, especially when they hope to care for a child without permanently severing every legal family tie?

The federal formula also distinguishes among categories. It includes $5,000 for certain increases in foster-child adoptions and $4,000 for certain increases in foster-child guardianships, with additional calculations for older age groups. Those are state-level program formulas, not a flat payment for each child removed or a reward for choosing a stranger. The real question is how Idaho receives, budgets, and uses child-welfare funding, and whether those decisions support reunification and kinship care as effectively as adoption.

I would like to see the numbers: How many children were placed with relatives versus unrelated foster families? How many willing relatives were denied, and why? How long did approval take? How often did family visits stop? How much federal incentive funding did Idaho receive, and exactly how was that money spent? Taxpayers and families deserve answers grounded in records.

Know Your Rights Before a Crisis

Parents should also understand their legal rights. Idaho Code § 16-1649 requires notice of important rights, including the right to refuse entry into their home and to decline questioning, absent a court order authorizing the particular action. The Department itself tells parents they may refuse entry or an interview, but it may seek a court order or law-enforcement assistance if it cannot determine that a child is safe. Genuine emergencies can raise additional legal issues and parents should never obstruct a lawful order or emergency response.

If a child-protection worker comes to your home, remain calm, ask for identification, ask whether there is a court order, and consider speaking with a qualified attorney before consenting to interviews or searches. Keep copies of notices and written communications. Do not ignore a court hearing or deadline.

Parents can also make plans in advance. Idaho law permits a parent to name a guardian for a minor child in a will. A written family emergency plan can identify trusted relatives and important contact information. These steps may help a court or agency understand the parent’s wishes, but they do not override child-safety requirements or guarantee a particular foster-care placement.

I believe the state has an obligation to protect children from abuse and neglect. It also has an obligation to respect parental rights, follow the law, consider safe relatives, and provide honest information to the courts. Those duties should work together.

As a legislator, I want a closer look at whether Idaho’s faster termination timeline is matched by faster reunification services, meaningful visitation protections, prompt kinship assessments, accurate case records, and transparent use of public funds.

A child should not remain in danger simply because adults want to keep a family together. But neither should a child lose an entire safe family because a process moved too slowly, an important name was left off a form, a social worker fudged the data to favor a foster parent, or no one stopped to ask whether there was another way.

We should be asking one simple question: Is Idaho doing everything reasonably possible to keep children safe and connected to their families before making separation permanent?

In Liberty,

Rep. Heather Scott