House approves child-welfare bill

While state administrators don't believe it will have much impact, another child welfare bill, asserting the rights of parents, cleared the House 48-20 and now awaits Senate approval.

For the state Division of Child and Family Services, HB338, sponsored by Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Sandy, is more philosophical stance than an alteration of child protection.

"The bill is just a statement more than changing any policy or practice," said division director Richard Anderson. "It's what we do anyway."

Despite the division's stance on the measure, debate was lively among certain lawmakers who questioned the effect of what they perceive to be a policy shift.

"The devil is in the details," said Rep. Susan Lawrence, R-East Millcreek. "They may seem like little words, but they are hugely significant . . . I think this does change the way we will be doing business in Utah."

Those "little words" represent a change in a statute from "are" to "maybe" and altering "will" to "may" when it comes to the state's recognition of its responsibility to safeguard children.

Specifically, the bill, as approved this past week, states that there may be circumstances in which a parent is not rendering care or protection to a child, and, in those circumstances, the state may take action.

For Lawrence and Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, that is the wrong message to send.

"We need to recognize abuse as a reality," Litvack said, ". . . And when we do come across it, say we will take action."

The "may take action" bothered Litvack, who sought to amend the bill to the stronger language but failed.

But Christensen said the bill simply incorporates language from two separate U.S. Supreme Court cases emphasizing the "fundamental liberty interest" that parents have in the care, custody and control of their children.

Such language is a scarcity in Utah code and needs to be inserted so parents have a clear blueprint that affirms their rights.

"The language says the state has a paramount interest" in protecting children, Christensen said. "But paramount to what? Paramount to the thinly disguised and vaguely defined rights of the parent?"

Lawmakers deleted a section of Christensen's bill that would have allowed any party to a child abuse or neglect case to petition the court for the removal of the guardian ad litem, an attorney appointed to represent the best interests of the child.

Again, Christensen admitted he included the language in the bill to ensure parents know their rights, but several lawmakers pointed out that option already exists in court proceedings.

---

E-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com