Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves major revisions to Utah Adoption Act, expanding procedures and clarifying fathers’ rights
Summary
The House passed House Bill 56, a recodification of the Adoption Act that clarifies procedures for attorneys and adjusts how putative fathers’ rights are recognized. The bill passed the House 69–3 after amendments and expert testimony.
The Utah House on Jan. 15 approved House Bill 56, a package of Adoption Act recodification amendments designed to clarify procedural steps for practitioners and to define the rights of putative (biological) fathers. The bill passed the chamber by a recorded or voice tally reported as 69 affirmative votes and 3 negatives and was referred to the Senate.
Representative Hugh D. Rush, the bill sponsor, told colleagues the measure was the product of a task force that included legislators, attorneys, adoption-agency staff and judges. He said the bill aims to give a clear, step‑by‑step procedure for lawyers and to reconcile statutory language with recent Utah and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The sponsor emphasized the bill’s chief change: listing the circumstances in which a putative father will have rights to notice or to present a case to the court.
Members debated multiple technical and substantive amendments. Representative Valentine offered a multi-item pink‑sheet amendment covering 21 technical points that the sponsor and committee described as largely technical “hole‑filling”; the House adopted those amendments by voice vote. Representative White proposed additional friendly technical revisions that were also adopted.
Floor members pressed the sponsor and outside witnesses on a central issue: whether and how a biological father can preserve rights to contest an adoption if the mother places the child shortly after birth. Representative Smedley and others proposed language (to change 'developed a substantial relationship' to 'demonstrate a desire to develop a substantial relationship') intended to allow a father to show an intent to establish a relationship; sponsors and task‑force participants warned that such language could create a practical veto and leave children in legal limbo, as birth mothers might decline to place children for adoption if threatened by such challenges. Legal counsel and draftsmen testified in a brief committee of the whole and said the bill attempts to balance the mother's interests, the child's best interest, adoptive parents, and the biological father.
After debate and a failed amendment attempt to alter the 'developed' language, the House passed HB 56 as amended and sent it to the Senate for further action.
