WA Keeping Families Together

A debate raging in Washington state captures in microcosm the controversy throughout the country about the child welfare system can balance the safety of children against the trauma of unnecessary removals. In 2021, Washington state lawmakers passed the Keeping Families Together Act, with the goal of reducing unnecessary removals of children from their homes and addressing racial disparities in the child welfare system. The law raised the legal threshold for emergency interventions, requiring clear evidence of “imminent physical harm” due to abuse or neglect before a child could be removed. Supporters hailed it as a step toward equity and family unity, but recent data showing a spike in child deaths and near-fatalities has fueled intense criticism.

Background on the Keeping Families Together Act

The Keeping Families Together Act was designed to reform Washington’s child welfare system by prioritizing family preservation over immediate removal. Prior to the law, factors like parental substance abuse or housing instability could prompt the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) to intervene and place children in foster care. Under the new Act, these factors alone are no longer sufficient grounds; instead, the state must demonstrate that removal is necessary to prevent imminent harm. The legislation aimed to safely reduce foster care placements and tackle racial disproportionality, where Black and Indigenous children are overrepresented in the system—often twice as likely to be removed as their white peers.

According to official DCYF information, the Act encourages providing services to families in crisis rather than separating them, with the intent of supporting parents while ensuring child safety. Supporters argue that over-removal can traumatize children and exacerbate systemic biases.

The Data and Arguments

However, by 2025, alarming trends have emerged. The Office of the Family and Children’s Ombuds (OFCO) reported 92 cases of child deaths or near-deaths in the first six months of the year—47 in the first quarter and 45 in the second—many involving families with prior DCYF involvement. Nearly half of these cases involved child maltreatment factors, including 36% linked to neglect and 18% to physical abuse. Six incidents saw children aged 0-3 accidentally ingesting fentanyl in homes where DCYF had been previously engaged.

Critics, including foster parents, healthcare workers, and Republican lawmakers, point directly to the Act as a contributing factor. In emotional testimony at a DCYF Oversight Board meeting, foster parent and nurse Jamie Williams described the law as a “failure,” stating, “We are sending our most vulnerable children back into the most lethal environments. A 200 percent increase in critical incidents is not just a statistic, it’s a failure.” Another speaker, Kristina Johnson, bluntly said, “The kids are dying because of this law,” arguing that children wouldn’t face these dangers if removed from high-risk homes.

Specific cases underscore these concerns. In 2024, a newborn in Port Townsend, born with fentanyl in his system, was placed with his father, Jordan Sorenson, despite Sorenson’s history of substance abuse. Sorenson later fled, and the baby was found dead, abandoned in bushes. Jefferson County Prosecutor James Kennedy called it a “foreseeable result,” noting that under the Act, substance abuse alone doesn’t qualify as imminent risk. Similarly, 4-year-old Ariel Garcia was allegedly stabbed to death by his mother, Janet Garcia, days after her own mother sought custody due to drug-fueled erratic behavior. Despite warnings, no removal occurred.

Editorials in outlets like The Seattle Times have called for action, noting that nearly 40% of 2024 child fatalities followed voluntary family services without removal. Advocates argue the law’s higher threshold ties DCYF’s hands, leading to “state-sanctioned negligence.”

Not everyone agrees the Act is to blame. DCYF has pushed back, stating that data and analysis do not support claims linking HB 1227 to the 44% increase in fatalities. The agency attributes the rise to external factors like the fentanyl epidemic, which has driven accidental ingestions nationwide, rather than changes in removal standards. Supporters point out that the Act has successfully reduced foster care entries by focusing on supportive services, and that removals still occur when imminent harm is evident.

Child welfare reformers emphasize the harm of unnecessary separations, which can lead to long-term trauma for children and perpetuate cycles of poverty and bias. They argue for more resources for prevention and treatment rather than rolling back the law, noting that Washington’s child welfare system was already under scrutiny for over-removing kids from low-income and minority families before HB 1227. 17

The Path Forward

This debate about the Keeping Families Together Act highlights the tough balance between preserving families and protecting children in a state grappling with a deadly drug crisis. While critics like Williams warn, “We’re not just failing these kids—we’re burying them,” supporters urge a focus on systemic fixes. The problem is that “systems” rarely have room to focus on individuals, and vulnerable children rarely have time for systems to change. Treating poverty as neglect leads to unnecessary removals, while treating substance abuse as mere poverty seems to be leading to more deaths and serious injuries. As data continues to emerge, Washington likely will need to swing the pendulum back to ensure it keeps families together safely.