Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes child-welfare code changes to codify parental-rights standards from U.S. Supreme Court
Summary
Lawmakers approved first-substitute HB338 to add U.S. Supreme Court parental-rights language into Utah child-welfare code after extended floor debate and multiple amendments; the bill passed 48–20 and will go to the Senate.
Representative LeVar Christiansen, sponsor of first-substitute House Bill 338, told the House he drafted the measure to place in state code language that courts already use from U.S. Supreme Court decisions about parental rights. "Parents have what's called a fundamental liberty interest," Christiansen said, summarizing the standard he lifted from Troxel v. Granville and Santosky v. Kramer. He said the bill seeks to ensure that courts apply "heightened protection" and the least-restrictive means when the state challenges parental custody.
The floor offered extensive debate. Representative Litback and others sought to make the statutory language more pro-active for child protection by proposing changes from "may" to "shall" in certain lines; that amendment failed in committee and again on the floor. Supporters of the sponsor argued the draft merely restates controlling Supreme Court doctrine and does not change removal standards; critics warned that wording changes in multiple lines could shift practice or hamstring courts and child-protection agencies.
Amendment activity included a successful motion to narrow language governing guardian ad litem removal during cases: the House approved deletion of a provision that representatives argued could be used to remove a guardian ad litem without sufficient cause. In his summation, Christiansen read a passage the House record attributes to the Supreme Court on the imbalance of resources between the state and a parent in termination proceedings: "The state's ability to assemble its case almost inevitably dwarfs the parent's ability to mount a defense."
Voting concluded with the first substitute as amended receiving 48 yes votes and 20 no votes; the House passed HB338 and the measure will be sent to the Senate for further consideration. Sponsors and floor members repeatedly framed the bill as codification of existing case law rather than a new substantive departure from current practice.
