House Bill 202 also would impose a higher standard of proof for child removal and the termination of parental rights and make it harder for the state to prosecute medical neglect cases.

A draft of the highly anticipated bill was released Tuesday evening by sponsoring Rep. Wayne Harper and got its first reviews Wednesday - some of them pans.

The West Jordan Republican says the measure has the same goal as last session's defeated version: restore balance to a juvenile justice system that he claims tramples parental rights in the interest of children.

"This will protect kids while preserving the rights of families," said Harper, who sent copies of the 32-page bill to parental rights and child advocates for input before it comes up for its first public hearing, possibly two weeks from now.

But Division of Child and Family Services [DCFS] officials have taken a hard-line stance against many the provisions on grounds that they will hurt children - and that isn't likely to change by session's end.

"There is some good in this bill. But it gets lost under the weight of the rest," said Adam Trupp, a DCFS legal administrator.

Among the sections that DCFS fears would jeopardize children is the redefinition of accidental abuse as being "when a person is not aware that he is engaging in the conduct."

Before removing a hurt child from the home, the state must already prove that the injuries were not sustained in an accident, said Mark May, chief of the Utah Attorney General's Child Protection Division. "Now we are required to show what the parent was thinking about when he did it. What if the parent was under the influence of drugs and claimed he didn't know what he was doing?"

But Harper's resolve on this matter is firm.

DCFS "would prefer if there were no allowances for accidents. But we have to go back to the fundamental right that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

"Parents do the best they can. Everyone makes mistakes, and you shouldn't lose your kids, because you make a mistake."

Harper's bill also calls for raising evidentiary standards that juvenile court judges use in ruling on the placement of children.

Of most concern to May is a provision requiring a judge to find "clear and convincing" evidence to find the state was justified in removing a child.

May called the requirement "unreasonable," adding, "We have 72 hours to assemble this evidence for shelter hearings.

HB 202 also raises the bar from "clear and convincing" to "beyond a reasonable doubt" before a judge can permanently terminate a parent's rights. That standard, required for criminal convictions, is a step higher than that judged appropriate by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982.

Also alarming to May is a section of the legislation that says parents can't be accused of medical neglect if they try to obtain "nontraditional treatment."

"It doesn't define what that might be. Everything could qualify as nontraditional. Are we talking aromatherapy?" said May.

Harper said he was unwilling to budge on the medical-neglect provision.

"There are just certain areas where we're going to disagree," he said.