Don't rush child welfare law

It does not escape notice that Daren Jensen is urging that Utah lawmakers proceed cautiously with the dozens of proposed bills that would amend Utah's child welfare statutes.

Jensen is the father of Parker Jensen, whose conflict with state child welfare officials, the Guardian ad Litem's Office and the 3rd District Juvenile Court captured headlines last summer. The Jensens fought the state's attempts to require the Jensens' son, Parker, to undergo chemotherapy after he was diagnosed with cancer. The state eventually backed off, contending that cancer treatment probably would not be successful if the boy did not have the support of his family.

Although the Division of Child and Family Services and other agencies charged with ensuring child welfare in this state are always a lightning rod because of the adversarial nature of their jobs, Parker Jensen's case was the catalyst for this deluge of legislation. Some of the bills, as Daren Jensen observes, are piecemeal approaches to what some people perceive as systemic problems. Others involve significant changes to the law that are intended to empower parents, but the unintended consequences may leave children in harm's way with no reasonable tools to protect them.

The sheer number and complexity of the child welfare bills on Utah's Capitol Hill (one of them is 109 pages long, seeks to amend some 50 statutes and to repeal two others) require careful consideration. Child welfare agencies, attorneys and others who work on behalf of children deserve an opportunity to fully explain how existing law works and how it doesn't. These officials should have a chance to educate lawmakers about reforms the DCFS and others implemented under the Child Welfare Reform Act and subsequent amendments and the settlement agreements in the David C. v. Leavitt lawsuit that challenged the treatment of children in Utah's foster care system. DCFS has made steady progress in complying with the settlement agreement and seeks to eventually free the state from federal oversight, although wholesale changes to state child welfare laws could potentially alter that course.

There are some occasions when legislators establish task forces to postpone difficult decisions and diffuse controversy. There are other occasions when the issues before them deserve more time and attention than can be reasonably expected during a jam-packed legislative agenda.

In this case, we find many reasons to tread lightly on major changes to child welfare statutes, the least of which is society's obligation to protect children when their families and other loved ones fail to do so. No changes should be made without careful study and contemplation. That can only be achieved by a task force that takes a lot more time than the 45 days allotted for the legislative session.