Targeting the Utah Office of the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), a division of attorneys appointed to represent the best interests of abused children in juvenile court, the bill was stripped of what some consider its most significant piece - a provision that would give parents leeway to fight to remove a GAL attorney at any stage in the proceeding, subject to a judge's OK.

But sponsoring Rep. LaVar Christensen was unfazed, saying the heart of the bill survived intact.

House Bill 338 still requires a court to notify parents of a GAL appointment and gives them the opportunity to dispute it.

Most importantly in Christensen's eyes, it also repeals a section of state law that says, when a family poses a threat to a child, "the state's interest in the child's welfare is paramount to the rights of the parent." Parroting U.S. Supreme Court language, it requires that child-welfare workers use the "least restrictive" means when intervening to protect a child, and only when parents pose an "immediate" threat.

The Draper Republican downplayed the bill as simply "codifying" the status quo. Officials with the state Division of Child and Family Services are neutral on the bill.

House members were split over whether the bill will improve or do damage to the state's child-welfare system.

Said Logan Republican Scott Wyatt, "This is simply LaVar staying up late at night reading Supreme Court cases and adding language that may or may not have any meaning."

But Salt Lake City Democrat David Litvack questioned the benefit of approving meaningless word changes when there is a risk they could put abused children at risk. Under the bill, the state is no longer required but "may" intervene to protect an abused child.

"As a state, are we willing to take action or not? Are we willing to say we have a responsibility when a child's life is in danger?" His motion to change "may" to "shall" failed.

HB338 now heads to a Senate committee.

kstewart@sltrib.com