House debate centers on bill to bar coercive "holding" and restraint practices for licensed therapists

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House spent the better part of the morning and early afternoon debating First Substitute House Bill 5, a measure to prohibit coercive restraint practices by licensed mental-health therapists, commonly described in the record as "holding therapy." Proponents said the bill is necessary to stop abusive techniques and protect children; opponents warned the language could close off treatments some families consider a last resort.

Sponsor Representative Mike Thompson urged passage, citing professional endorsements and safety concerns. "This bill will stop forms of child abuse and will ensure that Utah does not become the first state in the nation to legalize child abuse under the guise of therapy," Thompson said on the House floor. He listed organizations that had voiced opposition to coercive methods and cited recommendations from the Disability Law Center and others.

Opponents and those urging a narrower approach pressed on definitions and exceptions. Representative Farron, who proposed substitute language argued to preserve certain noncoercive contact in clinical settings, said he had observed sessions where holding brought measurable improvement for severely troubled children and warned that banning all holding practices could push families into "underground" options. "We've got people out there who don't have any other choices," Farron said, urging the chamber to consider a third substitute that would remove explicitly dangerous practices while leaving other clinical contact allowed.

Members also debated precise statutory language. Representative Lawrence asked whether language that bans "covering the entire face" or "full-body contact" might be read too narrowly or leave dangerous loopholes; Representative Pace asked how "undue force" would be defined in practice. Supporters responded that the bill targets practices that restrict breathing, cause physical pain or use full-body compression, and leaves brief, safety-oriented holds and ordinary parental contact to other law and clinical standards.

The floor record includes several highly charged references to past incidents. One speaker recounted the death of Candace Newmaker in Colorado and described how adults "covered her with blankets and pillows" during a treatment session; other members noted that some investigations had not resulted in criminal charges in specific local cases and urged careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences.

Procedural motions punctuated the debate. Representative Curtis moved to "circle" a separate Senate childcare bill earlier in the day; on HB 5 members moved and debated substitute language and a motion to proceed to the third substitute. The House opened the vote on the first substitute to ban holding therapy outright, and several members declared conflicts of interest, but the final roll-call tally on the substitute bill is not recorded in the provided transcript.

Why it matters: the bill addresses the boundary between allowable therapeutic contact and practices that child advocates and many professional organizations consider abusive. Lawmakers are balancing child-protection obligations and concerns from some families and clinicians about limits on therapeutic options for severe cases.

The House recessed for lunch and returned at 2:00 p.m.; the transcript ends before a final recorded disposition of the substitute to House Bill 5 is included.