The "Parker Jensen bill" - the single child welfare bill vetoed this year - is on the rebound.

And the bill's sponsor, Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, remains adamant that the bill will not have the negative consequences that Utah's governor, juvenile court judges, child welfare officials and family law attorneys predict.

Christensen, speaking to the five-member Legislative Child Welfare Oversight Panel on Thursday, argued that the 34-page bill's most controversial feature, the mature-minor clause, is so narrowly drafted that it would not open the door for children to defy the wishes of their parents.

Opponents of the bill say the definition would allow children access to contraceptives, abortion, substance abuse and mental-health treatment and end-of-life decisions that may be contrary to their parent's decisions.

"There's no way on earth a mature minor could walk in and get an abortion," Christensen said. "It's against the law."

The mature-minor definition was drafted to exempt some parents from allegations of medical neglect in child welfare cases by allowing a child "who reasonably demonstrates the capacity to make reasonable health care decisions" to make medical decisions.

Daren Jensen, Parker's father, said the bill does not give children the ultimate decision-making power.

"It doesn't mean the child has the final say," said Jensen, who did not attend the hearing. "It means [the child] should at least be heard."

And that's what made the difference in his case, Jensen said.

"The judge made up his mind to force chemotherapy - until he sat down and talked to Parker."

In the summer of 2003, Utah's Division of Child and Family Services and the state's Guardian ad Litem's Office (GAL) levied medical neglect allegations against Daren and Barbara Jensen when the couple declined chemotherapy after a tumor was removed from Parker's mouth. The Jensens were charged with kidnapping after fleeing the state with the boy to avoid forced treatment.

While the case was resolved - the state backed down arguing the chemotherapy would be deadly without family support - it became a lightning rod for the parental-rights movement and generated 32 bills designed to mandate systemwide changes to the state's child welfare agencies.

Parker, now 13, is cancer free and has never undergone chemotherapy, Daren Jensen said.

In addition to the mature-minor section, Christensen focused on the GAL, which he argued failed to represent Parker's own opinion in the case.

The most troubling spot of the bill, however, was the mature-minor definition, child welfare officials say.

"We have a lot of questions," said Robin Arnold-Williams, the director of the Utah Department of Human Services. "We think these are things [lawmakers] want to have answered if you craft a mature-minor statute."

And those concerns seem to all stem from the possibility of a child disagreeing with his or her parents. If that happens, questions such as who pays, who is liable and who protects that decision, would arise.

"The intent was not as big as this has become," Arnold-Williams said. "What we didn't see was a mechanism to close those doors."

Christensen, as he did when his bill was passed by lawmakers earlier this year, disagrees.

"I don't see any of those in the scope, the parameters, of the bill," he said.

Christensen also said he regrets not pulling the mature-minor clause out of his bill but maintained the other issues are vital to protect family rights in child welfare cases.

He predicted much of the bill would be re-introduced during the 2005 Legislature - possibly without the mature-minor clause.