Utah House approves option for jury trials in parental-rights termination cases, 46-27

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on March 3 approved first substitute House Bill 3 18, a contentious measure that would give accused parents the option to request a jury trial in proceedings to terminate parental rights. The measure passed 46-27 and now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Representative Paul Christiansen, the bill sponsor, framed the legislation as an effort to restore a layer of process to what he called an accelerated system that can permanently sever parent-child relationships before a full defense can be mounted. "It's about limited government, limited government representatives, and family preservation," Christiansen said in opening remarks, citing audits that show roughly 700 parental-rights terminations per year and arguing that time limits tied to federal funding pressure the system.

Supporters said the option would allow parents to seek a jury when they believe it would yield a fairer outcome, and that court capacity already exists because district courts use juries and juvenile matters can be transferred. Representative Johnny Anderson, who chairs the Child Welfare Oversight Panel, told colleagues that "when we get to that point that we are ready to actually terminate a parent's rights...I think we should be looking at that with the same consideration that we give a criminal proceeding, and that should be the consideration of a jury." Representative Hutchings urged members to focus on policy and fairness rather than fiscal notes.

Opponents warned of practical and child-safety risks. Representative Nelson called it "one of the major policy decisions" of the session and argued juvenile court judges are specialized to weigh sensitive evidence in termination cases. Representative Menlove highlighted trauma risks for children and cited experience from other states that tried jury trials and later reversed course. "We're putting a child in a setting where that child gives testimony and that child can be cross-examined," Menlove said, urging caution.

Members questioned the bill's fiscal note, which was listed at a little over $3 million. Sponsor Christiansen disputed the net cost projection, saying district courts and existing jury pools provide flexibility and that many juries are never called to decide a case. Debate also addressed whether juvenile courtrooms could physically accommodate juries or whether transfers to district court would be needed.

Debate lasted through lengthy floor exchanges, with members weighing trade-offs between parental due process and the state's obligation to protect children from abuse and neglect. After a motion to call the previous question ended debate, Christiansen offered a final summation urging colleagues to give parents an extra option; the House then approved the measure 46-27.

The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration. No amendments to change the bill's jury-option provision were recorded on the House floor during final passage.