New York Assembly Bill A09244

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/7/25
• Refer: 11/7/25
• Refer: 1/7/26
• Report Pass: 3/17/26
• Refer: 3/17/26
• Report Pass: 5/5/26

Caption

Allows a person a second hearing to seal their child protective services records upon a significant change in life circumstances.

Impact

The impact of Bill A09244 could potentially lead to a significant alteration in the management and sealing of child protective services records. By allowing for a second hearing, the bill encourages a more rehabilitative approach to individuals who have faced challenges and may have reformed their behavior. This not only aligns with modern rehabilitative philosophies but also addresses the concerns regarding the permanence of public records that may unfairly affect individuals seeking to move forward with their lives. If passed, the bill would amend existing laws to facilitate this new process, making the law more supportive of personal growth and transformation.

Summary

Bill A09244 introduces a provision to amend the social services law in New York, allowing individuals the opportunity to request a second hearing to seal their child protective services records after demonstrating a significant change in life circumstances. The aim of this bill is to provide a pathway for individuals who have previously sought to seal their records but may have experienced rehabilitation or improvements in their situation that warrant a reassessment of their case. This legislation focuses on the belief that individuals deserving of a second chance should have the ability to demonstrate their changed circumstances, which could include completing rehabilitative services or maintaining mental health care.

Contention

As with many legislative efforts concerning child welfare, there may be points of contention associated with Bill A09244. Critics may argue that the process for sealing records must remain stringent to protect children and ensure that only deserving individuals have their records sealed. There may be concerns regarding the criteria for what constitutes a 'significant change in life circumstances,' and how that determination is made. Additionally, the effectiveness of this process in practicing forgiveness and providing second chances versus the potential risks involved in altering child welfare history could be debated among stakeholders, including child advocacy groups and social service agencies.