House debate adds six‑month reviews and limits grounds for terminating parental rights in proposed HB226

Representative Throckmorton moved to replace the first substitute with a third substitute for House Bill 226, stating the measure aims to stop courts from terminating parental rights solely because parents failed to complete a court‑ordered treatment or service plan.

The sponsor told the House the change arose from child‑welfare oversight concerns that overly detailed service plans effectively set unattainable conditions; under the bill the court "may not terminate the parental rights of a parent because the parent has failed to complete the requirements of a treatment plan," shifting the burden to the state to demonstrate unfitness under existing statutory grounds such as abandonment, neglect, abuse or incompetence.

Throckmorton also described a provision brought by Larity and Associates (the Salt Lake County parental‑defense contractor) to prevent the state from citing its own failure to provide court‑ordered reunification services as a basis for termination. The substitute requires courts to hold a hearing within six months to determine whether the state is making "reasonable efforts" to comply with reunification orders; if the state later proves a new incident of abuse or neglect occurred, termination proceedings may proceed despite earlier service‑delivery failures.

Representative Tyler proposed adding the word "solely" so the statute would read that the court may not terminate a parent's rights "solely because" the parent failed to complete a treatment plan; Tyler argued the amendment preserves termination where abuse or neglect still exists. Throckmorton opposed the amendment, saying related sections (78‑3‑8408) still make substantial failure to complete a plan evidence of parental adjustment and thus preserve enforcement "teeth." Representative Beck supported inserting "solely," saying treatment plans were created to give parents a clear path to reunification and the amendment protects that federal reunification intent.

Members asked procedural and evidentiary questions about "reasonable efforts," six‑month reviews and whether the substitute carried a fiscal note; the sponsor said courts already hold periodic reviews and that the six‑month provision elevates one review to a fact‑finding hearing rather than creating a new recurring expense.

The discussion focused on balancing protections for parents who fail to complete technical plan requirements against state obligations and evidentiary paths to termination based on unfitness. No final roll‑call on adoption of the third substitute or final passage of HB226 is recorded in the provided transcript extract; the House proceeded to other business after floor debate.