What the Law Says. What It Was Meant to Do. What Is Actually Happening.
Home › Memphis Child Custody › Eli’s Law
The Law
Eli's Law — TCA § 37-1-188 — took effect July 1, 2021. It creates a legal presumption that any child born to a parent from whose custody a prior child was removed for dependency and neglect — and that prior child remains in DCS custody — may be dependent or neglected. When DCS learns of the subsequent birth, they must notify the court that adjudicated the first child. The court must then immediately schedule a hearing.
That is what the statute says. Three words matter more than any others: may be dependent. Not is dependent. The legislature chose "may." That word is the difference between a presumption and a finding — and a presumption, unlike a finding, can be rebutted. Most families facing Eli's Law proceedings don't know that. Most show up to that hearing without an attorney and lose by default.
Legislative Intent
Eli's Law was written by Republican legislators and passed unanimously — 28 to 0 in the Senate — in 2021. The story behind it was compelling: a five-pound newborn sent home from the hospital to the same household that already had a child in foster care for dependency and neglect. The question was obvious: if the home was unsafe for one child, why was a newborn being released into it?
Nobody voted against it. You cannot vote against protecting children. That is the nature of laws written in response to genuine tragedy — they pass easily because opposing them looks monstrous, regardless of what the fine print says or fails to say.
What the fine print fails to say is significant. The statute does not define what progress a parent must show to rebut the presumption. It does not define how DCS learns of a subsequent birth — there is no hospital reporting requirement written into the law, no mandatory database cross-check, no specified mechanism at all. It does not distinguish between a parent who has completed every service plan requirement and a parent who has done nothing. It does not distinguish between a child removed for physical abuse and a child removed because a caseworker deemed the home unsafe for reasons the parent disputes. The presumption applies the same way in every case.
Laws written in response to compelling stories are not always written with the care needed to prevent misuse. Eli's Law gives DCS significant power over a family's most vulnerable moment — the birth of a new child — with almost no guidance on how to exercise it.
Shelby County
Tennessee's General Assembly is controlled by Republicans. The legislators who wrote and passed Eli's Law represent communities where the families most likely to benefit from its protections look a certain way — religious, conservative, skeptical of government overreach. The law was written with those families in mind.
DCS in Shelby County is staffed predominantly by people with a very different worldview. That is not an accusation — it is a demographic reality in a majority-Democratic urban county. It matters because the statute gives individual caseworkers enormous discretion. What constitutes an unsafe home is a subjective determination. What constitutes sufficient parental progress is a subjective determination. Whether to pursue Eli's Law proceedings aggressively or cautiously is a caseworker's call.
When the people writing the law and the people enforcing it have fundamentally different values — different views on parenting, on medical decisions, on what a household should look like — the gap between legislative intent and real-world application becomes a constitutional problem. A family whose parenting choices differ from a caseworker's expectations is not the family Eli's Law was written to reach. But the statute doesn't make that distinction, and without an attorney who understands the gap, that family has no way to make it either.
Attorney William Young has seen this firsthand in Shelby County Juvenile Court. He has represented parents facing Eli's Law proceedings where the underlying basis for the original D&N adjudication was, at best, a legitimate dispute about parenting philosophy rather than evidence of genuine abuse or neglect. The law can be — and in this city, sometimes is — used as a tool to enforce conformity rather than protect children.
The Notification Problem
The statute requires DCS to notify the court "upon learning of the birth of the subsequent child." It says nothing about how DCS learns. There is no hospital reporting requirement. There is no mandatory vital records cross-check. There is no database system specified by the law. The mechanism is completely undefined.
In practice, the most likely trigger is a hospital notification — a nurse, a social worker, or an intake system that flags a parent's name against an open DCS case. But this is not a legal requirement under the statute. It is an informal practice that varies by hospital, by staff, and by circumstance. Some parents slip through. Others do not. The difference often has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with who happens to be working that shift.
This ambiguity matters legally. "Upon learning" is the trigger for the entire notification chain. If DCS learns of a birth and fails to act promptly, if their notification to the court is delayed, if the process that led to DCS learning of the birth was itself improper — all of these are potential avenues for a prepared attorney. The statute's silence on mechanism is not just a policy failure. It is a procedural gap that can be exploited in the right case.
The Hearing
When the court receives DCS's notification, it must immediately schedule a hearing "to inquire into the effect of the subsequent child's birth upon the case before the court and to address any further needed steps to protect the safety and well-being of the family." The statute says "the family" — not just the child. That language is not accidental.
This hearing is not a formality. It is not a rubber stamp for whatever DCS recommends. It is a judicial proceeding where evidence is taken, where progress can be demonstrated, where the circumstances of the new child's home can be shown to be different from whatever gave rise to the original adjudication. It is, in the right hands, an opportunity to end the case before it begins.
Most parents who face this hearing show up alone. They do not understand the presumption. They do not know it is rebuttable. They do not know what evidence would be relevant or how to present it. They accept whatever DCS recommends because they do not know they can fight it. That is how Eli's Law operates in practice in Shelby County — not because the statute requires that outcome, but because most families cannot afford an attorney who knows how to prevent it.
Your Attorney
William Young · Of Counsel · Juvenile Court & DUI
Attorney William Young has practiced in Shelby County Juvenile Court for over 15 years. He has represented parents in Eli's Law proceedings and understands both the statute's language and the gap between how it was written and how it is applied in this county. He knows the rules of evidence and civil procedure as well as anyone in that building — and he knows how to use the hearing the statute creates to protect a family rather than surrender to a DCS recommendation.
If you have a prior dependency and neglect adjudication and you are expecting a child or have recently had one, do not wait for DCS to contact you. Call first.
Learn more about dependency and neglect cases in Shelby County →
Common Questions
Eli's Law, TCA § 37-1-188, creates a legal presumption that any child born to a parent from whose custody a prior child was removed for dependency and neglect — and that prior child remains in DCS custody — may also be dependent or neglected. When DCS learns of the subsequent birth, they must notify the court. The court must immediately schedule a hearing. The law took effect July 1, 2021.
It means the presumption is rebuttable. The legislature chose "may" — not "is." That is a legal distinction that matters enormously in the hearing the court schedules. A presumption can be overcome with evidence. Most parents don't know this and show up to that hearing unprepared to fight it.
Yes. A prepared attorney can use the required hearing to demonstrate changed circumstances, parental progress, and that the home is safe for the new child. The statute's language — "to protect the safety and well-being of the family" — contemplates a family that stays together, not automatic removal. Most parents who face this law lose because they appear without counsel, not because the law requires that outcome.
The statute doesn't say. There is no hospital reporting requirement written into Eli's Law. There is no mandatory database cross-check specified. In practice the most likely source is a hospital notification, but this is not mandated by the law. The mechanism is undefined — and that gap is legally significant.
No. TCA § 37-1-188 requires that the previously removed child still be in DCS custody for the presumption to apply. If the first child was reunified with you, Eli's Law does not create the presumption for a subsequent child.
The law was written to protect newborns from genuinely dangerous homes. It passed unanimously because no legislature can vote against protecting children. But laws written in response to compelling stories are not always written with care for how they will be enforced — or by whom. In Shelby County, the gap between what the legislature intended and what an ideologically motivated caseworker can do with the statute is real. That gap is what William Young fights.
The court inquires into the effect of the new birth on the existing case and addresses steps needed to protect the safety and well-being of the family. It is a judicial proceeding — not a DCS administrative decision. Evidence matters. Progress matters. A prepared attorney can use that hearing to protect the family. A family without an attorney almost never does.
Yes. Immediately. Do not speak with DCS. Do not sign anything. Call Attorney William Young at (901) 578-1515 before the hearing occurs. What happens at that first hearing shapes everything that follows.
Call before you speak to anyone. Attorney William Young — Shelby County Juvenile Court.