Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Family Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate passes adoption restrictions targeting convictions or civil findings on specified statutes

Utah State Senate · February 19, 1990
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 2 27, restricting adoption where a person has been convicted of or found by preponderance to have violated listed statutes (including bigamy), passed after intense committee‑of‑the‑whole debate featuring social‑service testimony and constitutional concerns about due process.

Senate Bill 2 27, which would prohibit adoption by anyone convicted of—or found by a court by a preponderance of evidence to have violated—certain specified statutes (including bigamy), passed the Utah Senate after heated debate and public testimony.

Opponents in a committee of the whole warned the bill appeared tailored to affect a pending Supreme Court case and urged the legislature not to legislate for a single case. Attorney Steven Snow told senators that the bill "is specifically designed to dispose of a single case now pending before the Supreme Court" and urged legislators to allow the courts to finish their review.

Supporters said the bill protects children from placements the witnesses described as unsafe. Social‑service witnesses described concerns about household arrangements in certain communities and argued adopting children into those environments would not be in their best interest. Some senators expressed discomfort with creating a civil standard (preponderance of evidence) to determine violations of criminal statutes in adoption decisions; others said the measure is a reasonable safeguard for children.

Senator Steele moved under suspension and the Senate passed SB 2 27 on a roll call (reported 23 ayes, 4 no, 2 absent). The bill was sent to the House for further action.

Senators and witnesses urged careful review in the House and noted potential constitutional and due‑process issues raised on the floor.