We must not sacrifice due process in child-custody cases

My organization believes agencies like the Utah Department of Children and Family Services take away too many children. We believe changes should be made in state law. We believe the current administration at DCFS means well, but good intentions are no substitute for due process.

But the bills proposed in the wake of the Parker Jensen case were disappointing. Even more disappointing, however, was the campaign of fear and smear used to target anyone who dared suggest that the power of DCFS be curbed in any way.

The campaign was an enormous success, unless you happen to be a child, needlessly torn from everyone loving and familiar because your parents' poverty was confused with neglect. In that case, you were let down by both sides, neither of which was willing to search for middle ground.

Some of the so-called "Parker Jensen bills" did indeed go too far. For example, the so-called "omnibus bill," while going overboard to prevent DCFS from intervening in the relatively few cases of alleged "medical neglect" did almost nothing to curb the broad, vague definition of physical neglect in Utah law, a definition that makes it easy to remove children primarily because their parents are poor.

Indeed, some of the so-called "parents rights" legislation was infected with the same class bias that permeates child welfare agencies.

I wondered why people who would gain little from its passage supported it. I'm not wondering anymore.

For months now, anyone who has dared speak up for any curbs on DCFS power has been vilified. A reporter for this newspaper declared the omnibus bill was "considered one of the most ominous and terrifying." Considered by whom? The reporter, I guess.

A television station declared that because it found a case in which a child died despite warnings to DCFS, that means they have "uncovered evidence that, instead of being too aggressive, (DCFS) may not be doing enough."

I wonder what it was like to watch that story for a parent whose child is trapped in foster care because she can't afford decent housing.

DCFS chimed in with its oft-repeated claim that it takes away children at one of the lowest rates in the country. Not true. The real measure of a state's penchant for removal is to compare the number of children taken over the course of a year to the number of children living in poverty. By that measure, Utah's rate-of-removal is nearly 20 percent above the national average.