Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes first substitute to tighten adoption and foster-placement rules, rejects judicial-exception amendment
Summary
The House passed First Substitute HB103 to add statutory standards for foster and adoptive placements, prioritize married couples, and bar adoption by cohabiting persons; several amendments were debated — a proposed judicial-exception failed while a rulemaking amendment passed.
The Utah House on Feb. 23 passed First Substitute House Bill 103, a measure that changes how the state places children in foster care and adoption cases and adds statutory preference language for married couples.
Sponsor Representative Nora B. Stevens told the House the bill is aimed at improving outcomes for children in the custody of the state and said it "is about children, not about adults." The bill requires children in state custody to be placed only in homes that have been deemed qualified to adopt following a home study. It also instructs courts to make a "specific finding regarding the best interest of the child" in adoption proceedings and states that the Legislature finds it is not in the child's best interest to be adopted by persons who are cohabiting.
The House considered multiple amendments. Representative Carlson moved Amendment 8 to allow a judge to permit an adoption by a nonmarital cohabitant when there is "clear and convincing evidence" of a significant parental relationship and that adoption is in the child's best interest. Carlson argued the amendment would allow courts to protect children already living in those households and provide them the safeguards of adoption. Opponents, including Representative Stevens, said the higher standard would do little to protect children and that nonmarital cohabitation is a higher-risk environment. The motion to adopt Amendment 8 failed after a recorded division: 20 yes, 40 no.
Representative Dave Cox offered Amendment 9 to require the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) to submit policy changes through the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act. Cox said the amendment would bring DCFS into consistency with other state divisions and help avoid litigation. Stevens acknowledged the problem but recommended a broader statutory fix; nevertheless, Amendment 9 passed on the floor and was adopted into the bill.
Another amendment that would have explicitly allowed a blood relative to adopt in certain circumstances was debated but failed on a recorded vote (27 yes, 39 no).
Representative Stevens closed by saying the fiscal note was zero and reiterated the bill's purpose to protect children in state custody. The first substitute passed the House by a vote of 49 yes to 19 no and will be sent to the Senate for consideration.
The House debate included repeated references to research materials distributed to members and several personal anecdotes about family placement scenarios. Lawmakers also raised procedural questions about definitions in the bill (for example, how "cohabitating" or the "moral climate" of a placement would be interpreted by judges) and the potential for legal challenges if the language were vague.
The House will transmit the amended bill to the Senate for further action.
