Attorneys for the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) said they will meet with Utah child welfare officials this week for an update on the overhaul.

They plan to discuss the "untold" and potentially "harmful" consequences of House Bill 338.

The NCYL could petition a judge to nullify the bill if it becomes law, but for now it is simply urging Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. to veto the bill.

"These sorts of bills are counterproductive and disruptive to the progress being made under the settlement, and they harm kids. Utah's Division of Child and Family Services has created its own blueprint for systemic improvements. They need to stay the course," said NCYL attorney Leecia Welch.

HB338 grants parents broad rights to raise their children as they see fit and seeks to protect parents against false accusations of abuse or neglect.

The NCYL sued Utah in 1993, alleging children languished for years in substandard foster homes.

A year later, the state settled the case, agreeing to a consent decree that mandated wholesale changes to the child welfare system.

For more than a decade, the DCFS has been under federal oversight to ensure it complies - oversight that could be prolonged if HB338 becomes law, said Welch.

Welch's objections echo similar concerns voiced on the final day of the legislative session by Alain Balmanno, an assistant state attorney general, who represents the state in the NCYL dispute.

The problem, according to Balmanno, is language that mandates the state use the "least restrictive" means to intervene to protect children.

"Least restrictive" is a strict test applied to determine the constitutionality of a law.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. LaVar Christensen, said he adopted the bill's wording from two U.S. Supreme Court rulings and that it is largely philosophical and should not change how caseworkers do their job.

"We have pages and pages and pages of language in our code that set forth the compelling interest of the state. But we don't have any type of advancement of the parents' interest," said the Draper Republican. "A private organization in Oakland sued the state, and rather than defend ourselves we settled, thinking that would be the end of it. But now we're in bondage to this organization."

But Balmanno says attorneys for parents could seize upon the bill as an opening to challenge the removal of a child from the home.

"That's the first thing I would do - raise the standard and say DCFS violated it by going too far," Balmanno said.

Christensen said DCFS officials and the state Attorney General's Office helped draft the language, and he calls Balmanno's concerns the "opinion of one attorney, which doesn't even match up with the heads of his own office."

DCFS legal analyst Adam Trupp said state attorneys are still reviewing the bill.

"We will defer to their legal interpretation," Trupp said. "But we have looked at the bill a number of times and talked to the sponsor about his intent. We just don't see how it will have us doing our work any differently."

Assistant state court administrator Rick Schwermer said the judiciary also takes no position on the measure so long as it doesn't impede justice.

But Trupp acknowledged the true effects of HB338 won't likely be known until it's tested in court.

"One juvenile court judge could say it means one thing, and another juvenile court judge could say another," he said.

kstewart@sltrib.com