Unaccompanied Minor Foster Care Bill

Summary#

The Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Placement Amendment Act of 2026 is an introduced bill that would amend the District’s child-neglect law and the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act of 1977. Its stated goal is to allow more children referred through the federal Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program to be considered for District foster care, while reducing the risk of unsafe contact with family in their country of origin. It is not law.

  • A child referred by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for placement through the District’s ORR program, and in the United States without a parent, guardian, or custodian able to care for them, would be included in the legal definition of a “neglected child.”
  • That change could give the District a legal basis to seek court-supervised foster care for qualifying children who do not fit the current definition. It would not require that every referred child be placed.
  • In a neglect case involving an unaccompanied refugee minor, the court could choose a method of serving notice on a party in the child’s country of origin that it finds appropriate and consistent with due process and safety. The court could also waive service.
  • A covered agency’s policy requiring a search for a child’s parents, relatives, or significant non-relatives could not require direct outreach to people or institutions in the child’s country of origin.
  • The sponsor’s letter says the existing program is administered through District and federal agencies, with foster care provided through a contract with the Child and Family Services Agency and day-to-day operations overseen by Lutheran Social Services. The bill does not create a new independent organization.

What it means for you#

  • Children referred to the program: The change could make more children eligible for a neglect case that allows foster-care placement. A referral would not guarantee a placement or other service.
  • Families in a child’s country of origin: A court could waive service on a party living there in a neglect case. The bill also limits what a covered agency’s required search policy can demand; it does not ban all contact.
  • District agencies, courts, and providers: The bill changes the legal basis for a placement and gives courts options for notice. It does not set out a new referral, placement, or review process.
  • Taxpayers: The bill does not itself appropriate money, change a tax or fee, or set a payment to families.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s fiscal impact is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill says the Council adopts the fiscal impact statement from a committee report, but that report was not supplied.
  • The sponsor’s letter says the existing program receives federal funding and that its FY2027 funding supports 20 placements. It gives no estimate of the bill’s added cost or of how many additional placements it might support.

What is unclear#

  • The current D.C. Code and parent Acts were not supplied, so the existing definition of “neglected child,” the rules for parental notice, and the meaning of “Agency” could not be verified against current law.
  • The bill uses the federal definition of “unaccompanied alien child” but does not explain how that definition applies alongside ORR’s referral and placement decisions.
  • The bill does not specify how many children would qualify, how placement decisions would be made, or what happens if available foster-care capacity is limited.
  • It does not set standards for when a court should waive service, beyond requiring consistency with due process and the party’s safety where notice is served.
  • The bill does not state its added cost, funding source, staffing needs, or how it would interact with other child-welfare placements.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address a gap: some children referred to the federal program may lack a legal basis for a District neglect petition under the existing definition.
  • Including those children in the definition could give the District a route to consider foster care and supportive services instead of leaving placement options limited.
  • Allowing a court to choose a safe method of notice—or waive service in a neglect case—could reduce risks from contacting a person in a child’s country of origin.
  • The search-policy limit is narrow: it applies to required direct outreach to people or institutions in that country, not to every search or every form of contact.

Case against#

  • The bill would treat qualifying children as “neglected” based on their referral and lack of a caregiver able to provide care. That could bring children into neglect proceedings without the bill requiring a separate finding of abuse or neglect.
  • Waiving service could mean a party in the country of origin receives no notice of a neglect case. The bill leaves the decision to the court but does not give detailed criteria for when waiver is appropriate.
  • The bill does not provide funding or explain how the District would handle more eligible children if referrals exceed available placements.
  • The limits on direct outreach do not spell out how agencies should balance family searches with the stated safety concern.