Barbara Feaster spent sleepless nights anticipating the sounds of her father's footsteps: "When I was 14, out of desperation I stole a lock and started locking myself into my bedroom at night so he couldn't sneak in and violate me."
These citizen activists testified Wednesday that while the emotional scars they carry are no less painful than bruises or broken bones, the physical evidence of the abuse they survived was scant. Under a sweeping 101-page child welfare reform bill that redefines abuse as causing "physical injury" or "actual harm," the state would be barred from intervening in such child-abuse cases.
House Bill 202 received its first public airing Wednesday. Republican leaders of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee postponed voting on the bill to allow more time for public comment and debate.
Opponents warned legislators to think twice before endorsing a bill they say will set the child welfare system back 30 years and negate years of progress in abuse prevention.
But frustrated by yet another delay for legislation now two years in the making, proponents argued it's high time that balance be restored to a child welfare system that tramples parents' rights under the banner of protecting children.
"Removing a child from the home is a traumatic experience. They leave kicking and screaming. Children die in foster care," said Joyce Kinmont, head of Utah Families, an organization that offers legal advice to parents who are "falsely or frivolously" accused of abuse.
"We had a 2-year-old girl returned home [from foster care] who had such bad cavities that all her teeth had to be removed," Kinmont said.
Daren Jensen, the man who refused chemotherapy for his then-12-year-old son Parker and whose case launched a raft of child welfare reform bills last year, also testified in favor of the bill.
"I was taken to court two years ago under the imminent danger clause by officials saying my son was going to die. He's still alive and well," Jensen said. "Parents like me refuse to be lumped in with the bad ones."
In addition to redefining abuse, HB202 would require the state to prove in civil child welfare proceedings that the perpetrator had "criminal intent" at the time of the abuse. It exempts caregivers from "accidental abuse" if they didn't intend to harm a child.
The measure also deletes "failure to provide psychiatric services" as a cause for medical neglect charges.
And it raises the burden of proof needed before a court terminates a parent's rights from "clear and convincing" to "beyond a reasonable doubt," the high standard used in criminal cases.
Sponsoring Rep. Wayne Harper proposed similar changes last year. But the West Jordan Republican's bill was killed after legislative leaders assigned it for study over the summer. No such study occurred.
Harper said the new bill "is a far superior legislation" drafted after taking input from "all sides" in the child welfare debate.
"We're much closer to respecting what we value as a state and honoring a tradition of protecting families," Harper said. "Children have a right to be brought up and raised in a safe and secure environment. And parents have the right and duty to honor and protect families. This strikes a balance to protect everyone's rights."
Harper has made some concessions to appease child advocates and DCFS officials. The bill clarifies that a parent who unknowingly commits abuse under the influence of alcohol or drugs could still be held responsible. He also backed off raising the evidentiary standard for shelter hearings, where judges rule on the temporary placement of children.
But DCFS Director Richard Anderson says the legislation could do more harm than good and could prevent the state from offering services to help parents keep their children, such as domestic violence and substance-abuse counseling.
kstewart@sltrib.com
