SB 200 Text

Introduced Version Senate Bill 200 History

DOWNLOAD wpd |

sb200 intr Senate Bill No. 200

(By Senators Tomblin, Mr. President, White, Bailey, Edgell, Unger, Love, Helmick, Minard, Minear, Harrison, Chafin, Facemyer, Caruth, Boley, Weeks, Yoder, Kessler, Deem, Guills, Sprouse, McCabe, Hunter, Barnes, Jenkins, Foster, Dempsey, Fanning and Sharpe)

____________

[Introduced February 16, 2005; referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary; and then to the Committee on Finance.]
____________

A BILL to amend and reenact § 49-5D-3a of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, relating to prohibiting out-of-state placements unless out-of-state treatment or service is in the best interests of the child or that the needed treatment or service is not available in the state.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That § 49-5D-3a of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
ARTICLE 5D. MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS.

§ 49-5D-3a. Recommendation of team to the court; hearing requirement; required findings; prohibition on out-of-state placements.

(a) In any case in which a multidisciplinary treatment team develops an individualized service plan for a child pursuant to the provisions of section three of this article, the court shall review the proposed service plan to determine if implementation of the plan is in the child's best interests. If the multidisciplinary team cannot agree on a plan or if the court determines not to adopt the team's recommendations, it shall, upon motion or sua sponte, schedule and hold within ten days of such determination, and prior to the entry of an order placing the child in the custody of the Department or in an out-of-home setting, a hearing to consider evidence from the team as to its rationale for the proposed service plan. If, after a hearing held pursuant to the provisions of this section, the court does not adopt the teams's recommended service plan, it shall make specific written findings as to why the team's recommended service plan was not adopted.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, In in any case brought pursuant to any provision of this chapter in which the court ~~decides to order~~ orders the child placed in ~~an out-of-state facility or program it shall set forth in the order directing the placement the reasons why the child was not placed in an in-state facility or program.~~ the custody of the Department or in an out-of-home setting, the court shall order that the child receive services and treatment within the state unless the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources determines, and certifies to the court, that out-of-state treatment or service is in the best interests of the child or that the needed treatment or service is not available in the state.

NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to prohibit out-of-state placements unless out-of-state treatment or service is in the best interests of the child or that the needed treatment or service is not available in the state.

Strike-throughs indicate language that would be stricken from the present law, and underscoring indicates new language that would be added.