PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S9933-9939)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 12, 2005
Working to Enhance Courts for At-Risk and Endangered Kids Act of 2005 - Amends part E (Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) with respect to courts for at-risk children.
Provides or revises requirements for: (1) collaboration among state IV-B (Child and Family Services) and IV-E agencies; (2) outcome performance standards for abuse and neglect courts; (3) court model standards; (4) state flexibility for public access to courts; (5) orderly and timely processing for interstate placement of children; (6) complete background checks, including child abuse registries, before approval of any foster or adoptive placement; (7) health and education records; (8) the right to be heard in foster care proceedings; (9) court improvement; and (10) use of interjurisdictional resources.
Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to allow courts access to the Federal Parent Locator Service to locate parents in foster care or adoptive placement cases.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends SSA title XI part A (General Provisions) to require each state administering a program under SSA title IV part B or part E to establish a permanent, multidisciplinary, broad-based commission on state child welfare programs.
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for loan forgiveness for: (1) family law, juvenile law, and domestic relations attorneys who work in the defense of low-income families, individuals, or children; and (2) child welfare workers.
Amends the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 to reauthorize at increased levels the Court Appointed Special Advocate Program, including such programs in rural and underserved urban areas.
Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Chief Justice for each state and other state court leadership should take the lead in providing for the health, safety, and permanency of children before state abuse and neglect courts.
People & committees
Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S9933-9939)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9932-9933)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1679 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1679 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1679 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1679 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.