"The standard needs to be high," he said. "I think if there is an area in the state where we fall down it is on presuming parents are guilty . . . The burden should be on the government, rather than on parents to prove that they are innocent."

Harper adds there is good case law supporting such a change. Opponents still have those concerns and say the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Santosky v. Kramer already ruled that a lower standard, that of "clear and convincing" is sufficient.

"It is a huge bill that makes lots of changes to the system," said Adam Trupp, a policy analyst for the state Division of Child and Family Services.

"It is an awful lot of tinkering with the system that could have significant impacts."

Alain Balmanno, the lead attorney for Utah in litigation brought against the state 10 years ago by a national children's advocacy group, agrees.

"By raising the level of proof necessary in these cases, this bill is trying to weaken the amount of protection the state grants to children who are at risk," he said. "I don't know why they would want to take away protection for children."

Balmanno said the state is "very close" to getting out from under federal court oversight, but sweeping legislation could change that.

"If Mr. Harper or any other legislator decides to get involved in the child welfare process at this point, it could not only derail the progress that has been made, but it could seriously hamper the state getting out from under the litigation."

---

E-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com