Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Hb60 Guardian Ad Litem topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate advances HB 60 after debate on Guardian ad Litem electronic access to DCFS files

Utah State Senate · February 25, 2004
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

House Bill 60, which narrows and clarifies Guardian ad Litem access to the DCFS management information system for court‑appointed cases and increases foster‑parent screening standards, passed to third reading on a 25‑0 recorded vote amid questions about safeguards against unauthorized 'grazing' of records.

The Utah Senate voted to advance House Bill 60 to third reading after an extended floor exchange about how the Guardian ad Litem office will access Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) case records electronically.

Sen. Davis, speaking for the bill, said HB 60 ‘‘does a couple of things that ensures safe and secure [placements] ... House bill 60 does this by holding foster parents as employed by the state to a higher standard.’’ He explained the bill also limits Guardian ad Litem electronic access to cases where the office has been appointed by the court to represent a child, and that the bill does not give the Guardian ad Litem access beyond what courts already authorize.

Sen. Stevenson asked how the office would be prevented from 'grazing' or looking beyond the child they represent. The sponsor and Sen. Bell responded that access would be case‑specific and governed by the court: ‘‘They have to have a reason for access and it has to be granted by the court,’’ and the bill ‘‘lets them look at the particular file which they're entitled to as the attorney for the child... This allows them on a case specific basis not to have random access to the DCFS files.’’

Sen. Thomas raised questions about whether the bill requires a court order or simply an appointment; the sponsor clarified that appointment by the court is the trigger for access, and Senators asked staff to verify procedural safeguards for electronic access. The sponsor agreed to gather technical answers before third reading.

The clerk reported House Bill 60 received 25 aye votes, no nay votes and 4 absent; the bill passed to the third‑reading calendar.