Despite the emotional hand-wringing by some opponents over the possible implications of HB338, lawmakers endorsed the child-welfare measure, and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed the legislation on Tuesday.

Several groups were vehemently opposed to the proposal by Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, which sets in statute language from two U.S. Supreme Court decisions acknowledging constitutional protections related to parental rights.

Repeatedly during the 2005 Legislature, Christensen made impassioned pleas about the need for Utah law to incorporate that recognition into its laws dealing with child welfare, arguing the code fails miserably in assuring parents of their importance.

The statute declares that there is a "fundamental liberty interest of a parent" concerning the care, custody and management of their children and that the interest does not cease to exist if the child is placed in state custody.

Moreover, it states until the state proves parental unfitness, the child and the child's parents share a "vital" interest in preventing an erroneous termination of their relationship.

While some critics dismissed the measure as nothing more than preaching from a soapbox, others feared the premise of the bill jeopardizes the state's ability to wrest itself from continuing federal court monitoring. Court oversight was imposed as part of a settlement to a class action lawsuit brought in 1993 by an Oakland, Calif., civil rights group against the state's child welfare system.

The suit alleged that children in Utah's foster care system were not safe and perhaps endangered by the state's child protection system.

Many accountability measures have been put into place as a result of that lawsuit. Although the state Division of Child and Family Services and its related child protection agencies are far from perfect, a court-appointed monitor reports that the system is far better today than it was 12 years ago.

State officials have been hopeful a federal judge will release the system from the mandates of the settlement decree as early as 2006, but at least one attorney is concerned HB338 will derail that.

"My position has been very clear," said Alain Balmanno, the state's lead attorney helping to get Utah out from under federal oversight. "This is not a good bill and should not become law."

Balmanno said even though some merely view the measure as "philosophy" it does require those in the child welfare system to use the "least restrictive means" in accomplishing the state's interest.

"That is a very specific test used by the courts to determine the constitutionality of legislation," he said, adding the "strict scrutiny test is usually fatal to whatever the government action is."