As federal immigration authorities ramp up what President Donald Trump has characterized as the largest deportation operation in U.S. history, a growing number of states are enacting legislation aimed at preventing children of detained parents, who lack other family or guardian support, from entering the foster care system. This proactive legal response underscores a deepening concern over the potential humanitarian consequences of intensified immigration enforcement, particularly for vulnerable minors.
The federal government does not maintain a comprehensive registry detailing the number of children who have entered the temporary care system as a direct result of immigration enforcement actions. This lack of centralized data makes it challenging to ascertain the full scope and frequency of such family separations. However, scattered reports and anecdotal evidence suggest a significant and growing problem.
In Oregon, as of February, two children had been placed in temporary foster homes after being separated from their parents during immigration detention cases, according to Jake Sunderland, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Human Services. Sunderland noted that such placements were virtually unheard of prior to the autumn of 2025, indicating a recent and alarming trend.
The surge in detentions is substantial. As of mid-February, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was holding nearly 70,000 individuals. This figure represents a dramatic increase, with January setting a record high of 73,000 detainees, an 84% jump compared to the previous year. A ProPublica investigation revealed that by August 2025, parents of approximately 11,000 U.S. citizen children had been detained since the beginning of the Trump administration. More recently, the media outlet NOTUS reported in February that at least 32 children of detained or deported parents had been placed in foster care across seven states.
Sandy Santana, executive director of the legal advocacy organization Children’s Rights, expressed skepticism about these reported numbers, suspecting the actual figure is considerably higher. "That number strikes us as truly very low," Santana stated, implying that the reported figures may not capture the full extent of the crisis.
The psychological and developmental toll on children separated from their parents is profound. Research consistently shows that such separations are deeply traumatic, often leading to a range of mental and physical health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Prolonged and intense stress can weaken a child’s immune system, making them more susceptible to infections, and can impede healthy development. This "toxic stress," as described by KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), a non-profit organization dedicated to health information, can also cause damage to critical brain areas responsible for learning and memory.
Legislative Responses and the Shifting Legal Landscape
In response to the growing crisis, several states are enacting or considering legislation to provide a legal framework for parents to designate temporary guardians for their children in the event of immigration enforcement actions. During the first Trump administration, states such as Maryland, New York, Washington D.C., and Virginia modified existing laws to allow guardians to receive temporary parental rights in immigration-related cases. With Trump’s return to power in the past year, the renewed focus on immigration enforcement has catalyzed a fresh wave of state-level legislative action.
New Jersey is currently considering a bill that would amend a state law traditionally used by parents to designate temporary guardians in cases of death or incapacitation. The proposed revision would explicitly include separation due to federal immigration enforcement as a valid reason for such designation.
Nevada and California both passed legislation in the preceding year to shield families affected by immigration enforcement actions. California’s "Family Preparedness Plan Act" allows parents to appoint guardians and share custody rights, preventing their rights from being automatically suspended during detention. Importantly, if parents are released and reunited with their children, they regain full parental rights. This proactive approach aims to ensure continuity of care and minimize the disruption to children’s lives.
Navigating the Complexities of Child Welfare and Reunification
Juan Guzman, director of the juvenile and guardianship court at Alliance for Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization in Los Angeles, highlighted significant legal hurdles that arise once a child enters the state’s child welfare system. If a child is placed in foster care and neither parent can participate in required court proceedings due to detention or deportation, their chances of reunification are considerably diminished.
The scale of the potential impact is immense. According to research from the Brookings Institution, an estimated 5.6 million U.S. citizen children live with at least one parent or relative who lacks legal immigration status. Within this group, a staggering 2.6 million children have both parents without legal status. This demographic reality underscores the vast number of children at risk of separation and potential entry into the foster care system.
Santana of Children’s Rights anticipates that family separation cases will escalate as the Trump administration advances its immigration agenda, thereby increasing the number of children vulnerable to foster care placement.
While ICE directives stipulate that the agency should endeavor to facilitate the participation of detained parents in family, child welfare, or guardianship court proceedings, Santana expressed uncertainty regarding the agency’s adherence to these guidelines. ICE officials did not respond to requests for comment for this article.
Preemptive Planning and Ongoing Challenges
Prior to California’s legal reforms, the primary reason a parent could share custody rights with another guardian was a terminal illness. Guzman explained that under the current California law, if parents proactively prepare a plan and designate a trusted individual to care for their children in necessary circumstances, the state’s child welfare agency can facilitate the transfer of custody to that individual without initiating a formal foster care case. This process aims to keep children within familiar networks and avoid the trauma of the state system.
In Nevada, while lawmakers expanded an existing guardianship law to encompass immigration enforcement actions, the process requires parents to submit notarized documentation to the secretary of state’s office. Cristian González-Pérez, an attorney with Make the Road Nevada, a non-profit providing resources to immigrant communities, noted that this administrative requirement can be financially burdensome. Furthermore, González-Pérez pointed out that some immigrants hesitate to complete government forms due to fears of ICE accessing the information for enforcement purposes. He works to reassure community members that state forms are confidential and are typically accessible only to hospitals and courts.
The Trump administration has pursued unprecedented measures to access sensitive information through various federal agencies, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This broad data acquisition strategy can contribute to immigrant families’ apprehension about engaging with any governmental process.
Both González-Pérez and Guzman believe that many immigrant parents are unaware of their rights. Designating a temporary guardian and establishing a family plan, they argue, is a crucial step in empowering these families and mitigating feelings of powerlessness.
"People don’t want to talk about that issue," Guzman reflected. "For a parent to have to talk to a child about the possibility of separation is scary. It’s not something anyone wants to do." The emotional weight of these preparations, coupled with the systemic challenges, highlights the critical need for continued legal advocacy and public awareness surrounding the human cost of immigration enforcement policies.
