DeWitt named Majority Floor Leader, other leadership changes made

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Dale DeWitt has been named the next Majority Floor Leader of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

House Speaker Kris Steele named DeWitt, R-Braman, to the position Friday to replace outgoing Floor Leader Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, who is leaving office later this month. DeWitt will become Floor Leader effective Dec. 1.

Rep. Dale DeWitt
R-Braman

“Dale DeWitt is a true leader whose talents and wisdom will serve Oklahoma extremely well as the House’s next floor leader,” said Steele, R-Shawnee. “His effective work this year in crafting the House redistricting plan is something that united our entire chamber when it could have easily turned into something highly contentious and divisive. This is the type of positive dynamic I know Dale will bring as floor leader.”

As Floor Leader, DeWitt will be responsible for assigning bills to committees, scheduling bills for floor hearings and running business on the floor during session. In addition to serving as Floor Leader, DeWitt will continue serving as chairman of the House Redistricting Committee. He will also maintain his current membership on other House committees. The responsibilities of the position of Majority Leader, which DeWitt previously held, will be distributed among other House leadership positions.

“I am honored and excited to serve in this new capacity and pledge to do everything I can to serve the entire House,” DeWitt said. “I recognize this is a unique privilege and intend to treat it as one.”

Steele made a handful of other changes Friday to caucus responsibilities.

“These changes are all about putting the right people in the right place at the right time so we can build on the success of last session,” Steele said. “Our caucus is full of diverse talents and it is our responsibility to maximize those talents in the best possible ways.”

Rep. Harold Wright, R-Weatherford, was named Deputy Floor Leader. As Deputy Floor Leader, Wright will assist with the duties of the Floor Leader’s office.

Rep. Jason Nelson, R-Oklahoma City, was named chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Human Services. Nelson has been leading the bipartisan group of House members that is reviewing the Department of Human Services.

“Given the importance of the work Representative Nelson is leading on DHS, it’s logical for him to serve as chairman of the committee most responsible for the agency’s budget. Having him in this role will be a big help to the House DHS reform group’s ongoing development of organizational, structural and resource allocation reforms for DHS,” Steele said.

Rep. Ron Peters, R-Tulsa, was moved to the chairman position for the House Committee on Energy and Utility Regulation.

“Ron’s valuable experience in the energy sector and as a committee chairman will serve the House extremely well as he takes on his new role,” Steele said.

Foster Care System Improvement Task Force Bill Passes House

Rep. Ron Peters
R-Tulsa

A House bill that creates the Foster Care System Improvement Task Force passed the full House today 92-1. 

The purpose of HB 1359 by Rep. Ron Peters, R-Tulsa, is to review the state’s foster care system and to make recommendations to the Legislature and Governor on the areas of the system that need improvement.

The recommendations will include identification of desired outcomes for children and families in the system, best practices to assist in achieving the outcomes, accountability standards used to measure success in meeting the outcomes and an estimated cost for implementing the recommendations.

The measure now goes to the state Senate for consideration.

Rep. Peters responds to negative comments by DHS commissioners about foster care law, child deaths

A front page story in the Sunday Oklahoman by Randy Ellis reports that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Oklahoma Human Services Commission are blaming a new law for the recent deaths of two children that were not removed from their homes by DHS and the courts.

Rep. Ron Peters

Rep. Ron Peters, R-Tulsa, is the Chair of the House Human Services Appropriation and Budget Committee and authored the new law. He issued the following statement today addressing the comments by the DHS commissioners:

After continuing to see Commissioners Wilkinson and DeVaughn blaming this child's death on HB 1734 I wonderif they have ever read the bill. They continually state that the law "requires officials to determine there is an imminent safety threat to the child before it can be removed."

Although it is difficult to fully assess the actions taken (or not) without fully reviewing the case file and investigation notes, the information provided by the OCCY report makes it difficult to understand why protective action, including removal of the children, was not taken much earlier in this family situation.

I do not believe that the problems in this case resulted from the Statute, but rather from the interpretation and decision-making regarding what constitutes a “safety threat” in a case involving drugs.

Under the Statute, "Investigation" means

a response to an allegation of abuse or neglect that involves a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the child, making it necessary to determine: (1) the current safety of a child and the risk of subsequent abuse or neglect, and (2) whether child abuse or neglect occurred and whether the family needs prevention- and intervention-related services.

The changes to the Oklahoma Statutes do not actually define “imminent safety threat,” the term used by the Commissioners to describe what went wrong in this case. However, a similar term “safety threat” is defined as meaning:

the threat of serious harm due to child abuse or neglect occurring in the present or the very near future and without the intervention of another person, a child would likely or in all probability sustain severe or permanent disability or injury, illness or death;

Also, the definitions of child abuse and neglect referenced in this definition were not changed from previous law.

Oklahoma Statutes require “a safety evaluation of a child’s situation by the Department using a structured, evidence-based tool to determine if the child is subject to a safety threat.”

In Oklahoma and around the country, a safety assessment tool is used for this purpose. The tool generally lists 12-15 factors that identify the presence of imminent danger. It is then up to the investigator to determine whether there is reason to believe that the factor exists and creates imminent danger. I have no idea on what basis, certainly not based on HB 1734, a person could say that evidence of drug abuse is not sufficient grounds to remove a child “without a DWI or a syringe in reach of a child to meet ‘imminent safety threat.’" This is obviously not in statue and it is difficult to believe it is in any of the internal standards that DHS may have developed. If so, the standards should be reconsidered.

For this family, clearly the substance use was the primary issue that impacted the safety of the children. There is general agreement in child protection agencies that, in families where substance use is occurring, there are two primary factors that must be taken into account when assessing for a safety threat or imminent danger.

• Is the use of the drug, including overuse of prescription drugs, impacting the parent’s ability to provide for the basic needs of the children – supervision, protection, and care? The extent of the negative usage and impact, the ages of the children, and other environmental factors are taken into consideration. OR
• Is the type of drug used considered so dangerous that imminent danger exists even when there is no clear information about the effects on the parent’s ability to provide for the children’s needs? Usually methamphetamine, crack, and heroin are identified as the drugs that automatically create imminent danger because of their highly addictive nature and the overwhelming evidence that parents are not able to function at an acceptable level when using these substances.

In addition, children who have no ability to fend for themselves, such as those under one year of age, are always considered at greater risk. When any of these factors is present, the investigator should have only two choices: put a safety plan into place that is well-structured and closely monitored or remove the children. It appears that neither occurred during any of these investigations, and it wasn't as the Commissioners have alleged, due to language in HB 1734.