Committee staff explained House amendments that restore language limiting how a parent's failure to pay child support may be used in contested adoption proceedings, while keeping a separate rule that DCF may not treat poverty or unpaid support as a reason to terminate parental rights in DCF termination proceedings.

Staff said the language being reinstated addresses an unintended drafting consequence from last year: family‑law practitioners noted that removing the provision inadvertently prevented courts in contested adoptions from considering a parent's child‑support history when evaluating which parent should have custody or whether a contested adoption should proceed. The House language re‑enacts the adoption provision so that child‑support history is available for family courts in contested custody or adoption disputes.

At the same time the House and DCF agreed language clarifying that in DCF termination‑of‑parental‑rights (TPR) cases child‑support nonpayment and poverty remain excluded from the factors DCF may consider. Committee staff described the change as a compromise requested by family‑law practitioners and DCF to align the statutes with their intended, distinct applications.

Committee members discussed the policy implications — one member said he found it troubling that poverty could ever lead to loss of parental rights but acknowledged the House language was a technical fix that restores practitioners’ intended access to child‑support history in contested private proceedings. The committee did not make further amendment at this session; staff said the House changes reflect agreement among DCF and family‑law stakeholders and would be included in the final bill text.