Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adoption Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House pauses HB 59 adoption amendment after sponsors correct scope; bill circled for further review
Summary
Lawmakers circled (held) House Bill 59 after sponsor Nora V. Stephens described changes to adoption evaluations and then corrected an earlier statement about whom the bill covers, prompting members to seek clarification on costs and scope before advancing the measure.
Representative Nora V. Stephens, sponsor of House Bill 59, told the House the bill is designed to speed and strengthen adoption placements by allowing courts to place a child into temporary placement for up to 60 days without a pre-adoptive evaluation and by requiring criminal-history checks for all adults in the adoptive home.
“In the state of Utah, we have 300 children in state custody who have the goal of adoption,” Stephens said, describing the bill’s tools to “promote permanency” and to ensure “safe, secure and stable” placements. She said the bill also narrows who may perform pre- and post-adoptive evaluations and allows a second evaluation if an initial evaluator rejects a family.
During questioning, Representative Dayton asked whether the measure applied only to children in custody. Stephens initially replied it did, but later corrected that account on the House floor: “I will have to retract my answer. I’m informed by Mister Baxter of the Adoption Counsel that this does apply to all adoptions in the state. So I have an error on that answer.” That clarification prompted concern from members about cost and scope.
Representative Tyler moved to "circle" the bill — a procedural hold to allow further review of its scope and fiscal implications. The House carried the motion to circle by voice vote; the clerk recorded the bill as circled for later consideration.
The bill’s sponsors said the measure seeks to balance timely placement and safeguards by (1) permitting temporary placements of up to 60 days without a completed preplacement study, (2) requiring criminal-history records for adults in the adoptive home to be filed within a year, and (3) listing which professionals may conduct evaluations. Members who opposed immediate passage raised concerns that shortening the valid period for preplacement studies and requiring more frequent studies could raise costs for prospective adoptive parents.
Next steps: HB 59 has been circled for further clarification; the House did not vote on final passage and will address the item after sponsors and committees resolve the questions raised on scope and cost.
