Utah's "better safe than sorry" interpretation of a new federal child protection act is keeping some abused children in limbo instead of with relatives.

Placing abused children in temporary state shelters instead of immediately with kin while criminal background checks are conducted, as required under state law, is not an ideal situation for the family or especially the children, state child welfare agency workers and managers say.

But they note that a fine-tooth combing of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and ensuing changes in state statute really left them no other choice. The nationwide act, which was passed in 2006 with considerable fanfare and promises of streamlining services for the abused, as well as fostering cooperation and data sharing among state agencies, has actually put a hitch in the process.

The new law, named after a 6-year-old boy abducted and killed in Florida 25 years ago, mandates FBI background checks on all potential adoptive or foster parents, but it doesn't require screenings for temporary placement of an abused child with a relative. Lawmakers, on the advice of the state Attorney General's Office and legislative counsel, believe it does and changed Utah law to require it.

The result is that some children with relatives ready and willing to take them in have been kept in state custody, a few for as long as eight weeks, while the screenings are conducted.

"This is not something that we want to do," said Duane Betournay, director of the state Division of Child and Family Services, who along with state legislators is developing changes in the statute to be considered when lawmakers meet in January.

"The state is in full compliance with the act," Betournay said. "Federal regulators said we had more wiggle room than we took. But the Fed hasn't promulgated any regulations and few policy guidelines," he said adding that a "policy clarification" issued one week contradicted a clarification issued the week before.

Child welfare administrators in other states have had similar problems surface in trying to implement the law. Arizona, Idaho and Wyoming program administrators tell the Associated Press that the ideal of a joint effort has actually been more isolating to children, families and agencies in the system.

In hoping to clarify what Utah and most other states report as nebulous and even ambiguous language in the law, the Administration for Children and Families said that while backgrounds weren't required in all cases, states could lose federal funding for foster care if the checks aren't done.

The law requires that if a child has lived out of the state more than five years, a criminal background check is required. If the child is from California, for example, information must be tracked down to the individual county.