House rejects conference report on Senate Bill 113 after extended debate on parental rights and child-welfare protections

The South Dakota House of Representatives voted 39-31 on March 12, 2025, to reject the conference committee report on Senate Bill 113, a measure that sponsors described as affirming parental rights and opponents warned could create doubt about the state’s child abuse and neglect laws.

Supporters said the bill restated constitutional protections for parents and would strengthen parents’ ability to assert placement preferences in child-welfare cases. Representative Schwanns, the bill’s floor sponsor, asked members to adopt the conference committee report and return the bill to its original intent. Representative Hughes defended the measure on the floor as “a correct statement of federal constitutional law,” saying it would set a statutory baseline for parental liberty claims.

Opponents — including Representative Reich and lawmakers with experience in child-protection work — said the conference report removed clarifying language that Department of Social Services officials and others had requested to make clear the bill would not be used to undermine abuse-and-neglect statutes. Representative Reich criticized the conference committee’s changes and moved a substitute motion “that we do not adopt and do not reappoint,” arguing the committee ignored concerns from child-protection authorities. “The conference committee said, we don't care. Apparently, the senate is smarter than the house,” Reich said during remarks on the floor.

Lawmakers who urged rejecting the conference report said the bill as returned from negotiations would create legal uncertainty for child-protection workers and judges. Representative Stevens said removing the clarifying sentence would give defense attorneys “an opportunity and a defense to say those rights of the parent supersede,” potentially hampering efforts to protect abused or neglected children. Representative Fitzgerald, who previously worked for the Department of Social Services, said she believed the current statute was adequate and that the conference report “would hurt children.”

Supporters pressed that the bill would not change existing statutory authorities to protect children, that constitutional rights are not absolute and that South Dakota case law already imposes high evidentiary standards for terminating parental rights in many Indian-child cases. Representative Hughes and others argued the measure would reinforce parental rights without eliminating child-protection tools.

After extended debate and a substitute motion by Representative Reich, the House voted on the Reich motion to “do not adopt and do not reappoint” the conference committee report on Senate Bill 113. The motion carried 39-31, and the clerk announced: “The conference committee report on Senate Bill 113 is not adopted, and no committee will be reappointed.”

Votes at a glance - Senate Bill 113 — Conference committee report not adopted (Reich substitute motion passed 39-31). Outcome: report rejected; no committee reappointed. - Senate Bill 91 — Conference committee report adopted (house vote later recorded after motion; tally displayed as 70 ayes following a correction). Outcome: adopted by the House. - Senate Bill 68 — Conference committee report adopted (vote displayed as 66 ayes, 4 nays). Outcome: adopted by the House. - House Bill 12-18 — Conference committee report adopted (vote displayed as 56 ayes, 14 nays). Outcome: adopted by the House. - House Bill 10-46 — Committee on joint appropriations reported the bill be amended and do pass; the House adopted the related committee report later in the session.

What changed and what’s next The immediate effect of the March 12 vote is that the conference committee report on Senate Bill 113 was rejected on the House floor and no conference committee will be reappointed to resolve differences between the chambers on that bill. Lawmakers on both sides of the debate said the measure is important to them, but no floor statements in the transcript specified whether sponsors will seek to revive the bill in a different form or at a later date.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the March 12 House floor session and are recorded in the public transcript for that day.