H.B. 372 Child Welfare Changes: transcript

Thank you. Okay. Over the interim committee and I'll just present from here if that's okay. Uh, we talked broadly about these issues and we had a committee bill file that resulted, but as we were discussing that committee bill file, there were other pieces that were floating, um, around in the ether, uh, that I had opened up a bill file and we talked about in committee that, um, we could just, uh, plug some things in. So as from, from the November meeting until now, I've been working on that and I'm committed to continue to work on that. I've sent drafts to all the stakeholders, the stakeholders have. Um, I've asked for feedback and some of the stakeholders have provided that, although a lot of it, um, just arrived today or, or hasn't arrived yet. And so, um, just know that I'm committed to continue to work on this bill, uh, in the weeks that it will take for it to be heard on the floor. So, um, and, and at the outset of this conversation, I also wanna talk about, uh, kind of what I mentioned before, which is these cases are gut wrenching and so difficult. And, um, when the state gets involved in such a very personal thing as family life, it creates such, you know, so many feelings around that for all parties. And so I want to ensure everybody here that I am very thankful for the good work that is done by the stakeholders in the child welfare space. Um, this bill, particularly HB 3 72, implements a finding from the recent audit regarding providing unredacted information to the Child Welfare Legislative Oversight Committee and the Guardian Ad Litem Oversight Committee. And that's language that Representative Acton had in a bill and is doing yeoman's work to try to lessen the number of bills we pass in this session by adding it to this bill. And, and I, I find that as a friendly amendment, and that is in the second sub. Um, also in speaking to the second sub, this enhances the oversight by the Guardian Ad Litem Oversight Committee and addresses some best practices for the gals in Utah, starting on line 3 84 of the bill. It requires the GAL to represent the expressed interest of a child over eight and preserves the best interest language for children under eight. And to, just to note for the committee, about 22 states have some form of an expressed interest model, um, or a hybrid of that, like what is in this bill that is age-based. So, um, we would be joining the 22 states, we would be the 23rd to have something like that. It provides for a discovery process and equal access to information that is being used to make recommendations to the court for both defense and the A ags and the gals, they all have, they do not all have information that information now, but the a AGS and gals do, the defense does not. So, um, defense doesn't have any ability at this time to test the Independence of the independent investigation that's required in code or to test the competency of the investigation. So we've introduced in the bill rules of discovery. Currently, the gals do not provide discovery even when they are petitioners or movement movements in court. So theoretically, this could violate a parent's due process rights because they can't litigate against a state agency that doesn't have to provide any information. Furthermore, I think one of the other issues we're seeing is that hearsay, hearsay is permissible and admissible in family court, which is a difference from regular courts. GS have very broad access to information and interpret the code to disallow discovery of any kind. Um, currently they have access to various documents. They also have court email addresses. And I'm told that, um, there are potential assumptions that are perhaps being made when, when law enforcement or somebody gets an email from a GAL asking for information that maybe even the a a G would have a hard time getting. But because it comes from a Utah courts.gov address email address, that information is shared readily with the GAL. And so, um, so because of that, we have included the changes that I just spoke about. The changes also provide a more balanced process. Every policy in this bill has been adopted in at least one state outside of Utah. So we are not innovating here, we're just trying to create a more balanced system in the courts. I want to note that there may also be a sixth Amendment confrontation clause issue here as well. The parent should have the opportunity to face a witness to test the accuser's honesty and truthfulness. But if a GAL has minimal contact with the child and the defense doesn't have any information about the independent investigation, how can the defense test the honesty and truthfulness of the recommendations from the state? So this bill provides the information that the GS have to, and that the a ags have to family defense counsel as well. And then the last piece of the bill is cross references in code that cite 80 dash two a dash 2 0 1 and 80 dash four dash 1 0 4. And those code sections are fairly similar. I think they're almost identical. There's just a few differences. And in part, those state and I, I'm just gonna say outright, this is the longest presentation I've ever made in committee on a bill. And I know I'm usually quite succinct, but I feel so passionately about this issue and about trying to get at how we can protect families, but also protect children. And so, um, this in part, those code sections that were cross-referencing state, the parent has the right obligation, responsibility, and authority to raise, manage, train, educate, provide, and care for and reasonably discipline the parent's child. And the state's role is secondary and supportive to the primary role of parent. It is the public policy of this state that a parent retains the fundamental right and duty to exercise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing and education of the parent's child. A parent retains the right to have contact with the parent's child when the child is placed outside of the parent's home. And parent time should be ordered by a court so long as the contact is not contrary to the best interest of the child. And a child has the right to have contact with the child's sibling when the child is placed outside the home and apart from the child's sibling. And sibling visits should be ordered by a court unless the contact would be contrary to the safety or wellbeing of the child. So the only reason we want to cross reference these in the bill is that currently there's no, no reference to these in court. And I've heard from multiple defense attorneys that when they bring this up, most judges aren't even referring to that section of code because it's not directly tied to the language in the other sections of code. And so we want to make sure that this is top of mind for all those who are stakeholders who are working in this space to make sure that the policy interests that are stated and have been stated for decades in the state of Utah are followed by every stakeholder. Um, and so with that, I'm open to questions. I think there's going to be some robust public comment on the bill, which I look forward to. And again, just reassure the committee that there is still some work to be done on this bill, and I'm committed to do that. Thank you. Representative Lisonbee.

Representative Miller, Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, has, uh, the guardian ad litem been able to, uh, work with the bill sponsor, uh, to develop this bill? Do they have a position on the bill as far as you know?

So the guardian ad litem, um, reached out to me, I think yesterday evening. And so they reviewed the sub that obviously the initial bill was, has been online for three weeks, I think, um, and has language directly affecting the guardian ad litem. But I didn't receive any contact regarding that language. I did receive contact from the A-A-G-D-C-F-S and DHHS and had meetings with them, um, per their request. And, uh, we had a really good discussion. And then I've asked for feedback and I'm still waiting for the fee, the, the specific feedback on the bill. Um, so that's why I'm asking for the committee since we have time between now and when it will be heard on the floor to pass it out today. And I will continue working with those stakeholders, including with the gs.

Lisa Locken. Um, we are counsel for parents in the third district, uh, court here in Salt Lake County. And we are in support of House Bill 3 72. For over 30 years, we've represented parents and families in the child welfare proceedings in Salt Lake County. We work every day with the parents involved with DCFS, and we see firsthand how the system functions in practice. The guardian ad litem is appointed to represent children in these cases, and the guardian ad litem should serve as an independent representation for children, ensuring children are protected, ensuring DCFS is meeting its responsibilities and complying with court orders, ensuring a child's voice is heard, and when appropriate, ensuring timely family reunification. Unfortunately, that's not what we're experiencing. Instead, we are seeing an alignment with DCFS, lack of transparency and an inability to meaningfully examine the basis for a guardian ad litems recommendation. We are experiencing an imbalance in access to information. Frankly, the Guardian ad litems office has become unfriendly to families when it should be an ally. Many of our child welfare laws were shaped by the adoption of the Safe and the Adopt adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Aafsa emphasizes permanency, accelerated adoption, and strict timelines. Importantly, aafsa focuses on termination of rights because of a time trigger, not necessarily because termination is required for a child's wellbeing. In 2018, Congress passed the family's first Prevention Services Act, and in fact, Utah was the first state in the nation to receive the federal approval for its prevention plan. Families first shifts the focus away from removal and accelerated adoptions, and it moves to prevention, family preservation, reducing congregate care, and engaging families in planning and services before breakup of the family occurs. Despite that shift, the guardian ad litem system still operates largely under the 1997 AFSA mindset, uh, one that can incentivize removal and adoption and prevent, uh, reunification. I can answer additional questions if anyone desires.

Thank you Chair members of the committee. Um, my name is Lindsay Boone. I'm a protective mother of four children. Uh, over the last several years, my family's been involved in both divorce and juvenile court proceedings. Throughout that experience, I've seen firsthand just how much influence a guardian ad litem has and can have in shaping what a court believes about a child's wishes, safety and wellbeing. In my case, critical decisions affecting my children were influenced by guardian ad litem, interpretations of what my children allegedly said or felt. Yet there was no documentation of their exact words that matched those reports. No ability to confirm that my children's expressed wishes were accurately conveyed to the court. And no ability to question the guardian ad litem's claims when a child's voice is filtered rather than directly represented. Transparency is lost. Children lose trust in the adults that they rely on. Parents lose confidence in the system, and judges are often left making life altering decisions without a verifiable record. HB 3 72 clarifies the role of a guardian ad litem as the attorney appointed to convey the child's expressed wishes to the court not independently determined best interest. A GAL is a legal advocate. They're not a therapist or a child development expert. Custody determinations are among the most consequential decisions a court will ever make. If everyone here paused to consider your own family's, the question is simple. If life altering decisions were being made about your child's safety, emotional wellbeing, and long-term development, would you want those decisions and recommendations guided primarily by an attorney or instead made by child experts? Therapists, psychologists, medical professionals who are trained in trauma attachment and child development attorneys are trained in advocacy, not in diagnosing trauma or assessing developmental harm. HB 3 72 restores clarity by ensuring that legal advocacy does not replace qualified expertise when it comes to making recommendations. This bill strengthens the integrity of the process by clarifying G's role to provide clear reporting of a child's expressed wishes, defines scope and oversight for JL appointments, and ensuring documentation when there often is not, and none. When the state restricts parental rights and removes children from their homes. The process must be transparent, reviewable, and accountable. It protects children in due process at the same time. I respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to this committee for the opportunity to comment on support of this bill. My name is Leah Moses. As I've stated before, I'm a protective parent with several years of experience of a long time court patron Children who experience family violence are too often the forgotten minority in legal proceedings. They're caught between and often beneath layers of overpowering adult voices that do not consistently fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to represent the best interest of the child. A private guardian ad litem was ordered and involved in my family's contested custody case for over four years before my 16-year-old son was murdered by his father. Specific access to abuse evidence was abundant. Prior to that, child Protective Services had investigated his father for more than a decade, but declined to open a juvenile court case dismissing reasoning that the family court matter was ongoing and expecting that the guardian would fulfill a duty to listen to the children and protect. Yet throughout these years, minimal attention was given by the Guardian to my children's own voices addressing listening to the child. Um, I'll say that even as a small child, my son repeatedly asked, when did the kids get to talk? By the time of his murder at age 16, he had learned to withdraw or or alter his opinions for self preservation. So I deeply understand the challenge of, um, child stated interest and best interest. But if he had been heard as a younger child, we might have, we might have averted some of the drawn out trauma and maybe even fatality. I think the main issue here is that guardians ad litem hold extraordinary authority carrying sig significant weight with the court and operating with broad immunity with that authority must come. Transparency, accountability, and clear standards for ensuring children's voices are genuinely represented. Requiring appropriate use of this power is in a more defined scope, would be a very meaningful step to protecting vulnerable children and restoring, uh, trust in the system meant to safeguard them. And I urge you to support this. Thank

Ga e Zika with Utah Eagle Farm. For many years I have been involved in this issue and, and I say many years, you know, 25 years and have watched so many things happen that are just frustrating and watched parents have to fight to, to try to, to save, you know, their children and keep their children in their own home. Recently I was involved with a case where, uh, the, I Uintah the court several times with this family. It went on for several months. They were just, it was having to do with thinking that it a little happy, chubby little baby was too small. And as I sat there during court that lasted several days, the ag, I mean the ga rather GL and the, and the, uh, ag a a g all set. They sat together, they were at the table against the parents who were sitting over there with their attorney. I, it was very frustrating. And as I was looking at this language that I certainly support as part of this bill, it talks about the United States Constitution and the constitution of the state of Utah states that a parent possesses fundamental liberally I liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the child's care. I didn't see this happening. This a a g was just determined that this child, that these parents should lose their child. And so after several months and then several days in court and, and watching them not try, they weren't even interested in, in defending the parents, I mean, and helping the parents and, and, and making sure the parents could keep their child. It was like they had to win at all costs. So after watch, listening to all of that and, uh, feeling so frustrated, uh, when after they, they had finished their five or six days, I guess it was, of, of presenting their case and all the doctors they brought on and everything, the, uh, the attorney for the defense, um, made, made a motion to dismiss. And the judge dismissed just like that after all those days and all that money. $50,000 later, we had to listen to, to these a a g want to take that child away. And yet the judge dismissed after all of that.

Hi. Thank you. My name is Jordan Putnam. Uh, I'm a colonel, defense attorney in Salt Lake County, and also the President of the Utah Family Defenders Association. I appreciate representative Liz and Bee's comments on, on this bill and in and in support of House Bill 3 72. Juvenile courts are designed to be problem solving courts, but meaningful problem solving requires equal access to information. Currently, parties are unable to meaningfully review or test the basis of guardian ad litem recommendations. This bill provides greater transparency so judges have a fuller, more balanced record when making life altering decisions for families in Utah. Importantly, this bill moves toward an expressed interest model. Best interest is a subjective and often unclear expressed interest is clear and inherent to, uh, the representation of a client. When a guardian ad litem is required to say, my client says the child's own voice is cl clearly heard, and it is free from substituted judgment, the court can weigh the child's express wishes alongside all other evidence. This approach increases clarity, preserves judicial authority, and ensures that a child's voice is meaningfully considered the National Association of Council for Children and the American Bar Association both recommend and express interest approach and has stated the equity and meaningful consideration of a youth voice are better achieved under a client directed model. Additionally, there has been recent concern regarding our Division of Child and Family Services. This bill also reinforces that the guardian ad litem should help ensure compliance with court orders by all agencies involved that promotes accountability across the system and strengthens confidence and outcomes. House Bill 3 72 enhances transparency, clarifies roles and supports Utah's commitment to prevention, uh, and family stability while maintaining child safety as the priority. It provides balance in information, balance in advocacy and balance in ensuring that every child's voice is heard within a transparent and accountable system. For these reasons, I urge your support. Thank

Maryanne Christensen, executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch, and I'm here to speak in favor of HB 3 72 as well. Um, I have a couple of experiences that I was, um, able to be involved with that makes the, um, the child being able to express their wishes. The most important part of the bill for me. Uh, many years ago, the Rodriguez family here in Utah, they lost all four of their children over what was called educational neglect. It all happened because they had two children without disabilities that they sent to school. Two more children that with disabilities that they were homeschooling. They tried an experiment to send the children with disability to school to see if they could have more improvement there. And they didn't. They digressed instead of progressed. And so the children took them back home. And that triggered a, a, a charge of educational neglect against the parents. They took all four kids and they were a loving family. Those kids had loving parents. They spent all of their time begging, begging their parents to take 'em back home, begging their foster parents to let them go home. And, um, not in the best interest of the children. They kept them in foster care for years. Second experience is a friend of mine who, um, a terrible divorce and a husband who kind of went off the rails and she was ordered to send her little girl to her husband. And the little girl would beg her every time, please, mom, don't make me go, don't make me go. And she then she would say, mom, come with me. And she couldn't, the mom couldn't go. She had to send the little girl, or she would risk losing her. So the, the ex-husband, um, treated that girl with neglect at best and with psychological harm at worst. And, um, so it's just really important children know where they're gonna be the happiest. So that, that element of the bill is so important.

Thank you. Yeah. I'm Seth Stewart, uh, representing myself from American Fork. Um, uh, my main concerns with this bill have to do with the fact that, uh, we're starting from a program that was created by the legislature, the Guardian ad litem office, and we're pointing to its faults as, as though that means that we now need to shore up with additional structures and additional delegation of powers. Um, and in particular, I have some concerns about the composition of the oversight committee. Uh, it includes, uh, an individual with experience working with or advocating for youth and foster care, individual with lived experiences, parent involved with the child welfare system, an individual with lived experience with a child or youth involved with the child welfare system. Um, I, I, I think that, uh, just the lack of safeguards around determining how that selection process works, um, opens the door for, uh, additional bias rather than eliminating bias in the process. And I will further submit that, uh, you know, it was raised that, you know, there's at least one other state that has a similar program, um, in place right now. And I, I don't think that, uh, we have to innovate here either. Um, just reference our own state constitution that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. And, uh, it, it sounds like what we're attempting to describe as an impartial panel here, um, could properly be filled by a jury that doesn't suffer from, from the selection bias and process here of, uh, institutional professions that are licensed by the state, that creates a conflict of interest. So, um, essentially what we're seeing here, um, and also just in the, the reference to the, uh, best interest definition in statute, this creates a circular conundrum where, uh, essentially the government is just saying, this isn't the child's best interest because we said so. And, uh, I think it's plain as print that the proper way to resolve what is truly in the child's best interest is to resort to an actual citizen jury, people acquainted with everyday life and who have random selection, rather than being left to an undefined, uh, panel selection criteria. That who knows who, uh, makes that determination or what goes into that process. So for transparency, for equality, for uniformity of, of, uh, outcomes, in terms of fairness, I would strongly urge that that, uh, counsel be replaced with, uh, a jury actually weighing the facts and making that determination. So I urge, uh, opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much, committee. I really appreciate your time. I think everything, most everything I wanted to say has been said. I do support this bill as the state is both the prosecutor and the judge. In these cases, it is very important that the parents have some protection and that their voice is heard and that we take into consideration what is in the best interest of the child. So I wanna thank the sponsor for this bill, and we do think some improvements can happen and I'm really grateful for her work on it and, um, support it. Thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

I'd like to make a motion that we, um, adopt the second substitute to HB 3 72.

This, this just added to this bill that, um, the language from my bill, which was HB 4 34, which was very simply, it just removes the, um, it, it informs the, how do you say this, um, the office that creates the lethality review that they, it tells them that they should not redact as much as they were redacting. It made it very difficult to read the narrative. And, and I think we had all worked it out with DHHS and so forth. But anyway, it was just a small part of the child welfare equation. And so it fit well into this bill. And because we do want to limit the number of bills and so forth, um, and get it through before, hopefully by the end of session, I thought it would be good to combine.

I'll waive on this sub,

I'd like to make a motion that we pass out favorably HB 3 72 second sub to the body of the house.

I just, um, I think we heard a lot of really interesting, you know, comments and some really good points. Um, and I think it's just, it sounds like that we need more balance, um, in the courtroom. Uh, more not a solitary voice for children, but more of a balance with parents' voices as well. So I think it's a needed bill. Thank you so much Representative Acton discussion to the motion to favorably recommend second substitute HB 3 72.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I appreciate the robust discussion and the concerns, uh, brought before the committee. Um, and, uh, I'm, I'm likely a yes on this, uh, on the floor, but today I am a no. And I wanna articulate the, the sole reason for that is, uh, this is a very substantive change to the Guardian en litem's office and, and they are not here for input. And that concerns me. The original bill, uh, wasn't as substantive, uh, change, uh, as the second substitute, which is, uh, uh, a dramatic change in the way that the Guardian ad litem's office would be governed. Um, while I was sitting here in committee, I did get a text message from the director of the Guardian ad litem's office, Stacy Snyder, um, who indicated to me that, uh, they were not informed of the second substitute, uh, until yesterday at one four 2:00 PM uh, has submitted a memorandum and opposition, uh, that she hopes to be part of the record. And I can send that, uh, to the chair to, uh, adopt as part of, uh, the discussion today. I won't read this into the record, but I will point out that the Guardian ad litem's office, um, has concerns here about the shift from the best interest model. They have concerns about constitutional violations, due process violations that could potentially come with this bill. Um, violations of, uh, Utah Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6, rule 0.1, uh, one point 14, um, and some concerns about simulation of powers and child safety. Now I'm not saying that I adopt these concerns by any way, shape, or form, but I want to hear, uh, discussion and input about what, uh, what they mean to articulate before we advance a bill like this. Um, I think it's important when we are in committee to work these bills before we advance 'em to the floor. So on that basis, I'll say no. Um, but, uh, I like the bones of the bill, so I'll likely say yes on the floor.

BI appreciate the conversation. Uh, Stacey sent her memorandum to the entire committee. Um, and, and I appreciate her feedback. And like I said at the beginning, I'm committed to working, continuing to work with her and all stakeholders on this policy. I just, I want to share a story, uh, in conclusion, and I think each of us can, can relate each of us here, our parents, we care deeply about our ability to parent. Um, so over the summer, a parent reached out to me, aan, who, um, had been contacted by DCFS. She had her children removed from her home, and she subsequently spent over a period of approximately 10 months, about $150,000 to try to get her children back. I arranged for a meeting with her, with some of the stakeholders in this space. And after the meeting when she left, I was told by the stakeholders, there are just some things you don't understand about this case. If you only could know what we know, then you would understand why her children have been removed. This person received her children back and is now $150,000 poorer three weeks ago. So again, we need checks and balances in the system. We want to protect children. We want to keep children safe, but we also want to make sure that the process is fair and consistent for all involved when we are dealing with something so fundamental as the right recognized in Utah Code to be a parent. Um, and so with that, I would ask for the committee's support, with the commitment and the knowledge that I will continue to work on this issue. Thank you.

I'll waive. Thank you. We'll go ahead and do a roll call.

I would love to Child welfare changes. Okay. Thank you. I'll be really brief on this and I apologize for taking the committee's time. Um, so HB 3 72, actually there was some controversy over in the house and so we removed the language that dealt with private gals, so that's no longer in the bell. So this, what it does now is it provides extra transparency to the courts by the GS regarding their interactions with minors and custody. It references existing best interest language in 80 dash two a dash 2 0 1 and 80 dash four dash 1 0 4 with definitional sections regarding best interest in other sections of code. It adds elements of discovery into the family court process in an effort to level the playing field. And it includes language that's responsive to the recent audit that was done by olag. And it also increases transparency for the fatality review committee. We took out the language that provided for expressed interest of a minor. So now it's best interest of a minor, but there's some more cushioning language around that to provide better transparency for the courts. That's, thank you. I really like the changes to this bill and I wanna co commend you and compliment you for listening to the stakeholders. And I'll just tell you before, uh, we go to, um, public comment.

Okay. Uh, good afternoon. Erin Jamison, director of Public Policy with the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition. We, uh, are in support of this bill. We were in stronger support of it before the changes were made in the house to take out, um, any kind of improvements to the private guardian ad litem system. It is one of the most common complaints that we hear from survivors who are going through, uh, divorce and custody cases, similar to what the chair was just saying. We, um, we feel that this is a system that Dr that needs real study and real, um, improvements, hopefully that can be done over the interim so that we can continue to, um, make sure that there's more information presented from the Guardian ad litems as well as accountability for situations that we've heard about today. So we support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi, I am Heather Richie again, and I am just an advocate and I've seen these things fall through the cracks for children when they, um, have, I guess when they don't have proper support. And so I would just forward, um, I would ask for your approval on this bill to help help with this situation, to help be, um, kind of a bridge for these children. Thank you.

Thank you. L Lisa Locken. Um, I'm court appointed counsel for parents, uh, in child welfare proceedings. Um, first of all, I just wanna thank Representative Lee and beyond all her hard work on this bill, we've really appreciated her support on this. Um, I regularly interact with the child welfare system and we do it on a daily basis. Um, we support this bill because it creates accountability and transparency at the Guardian ad litem's office. It gives children a meaningful voice without dictating the incomes, I'm sorry. Outcomes, uh, ensures Independence from DCFS influence and it supports family preservation. Thank you Lisa.

So, uh, I'm Seth Stewart, representing myself from American Fork. And, uh, as per usual I just have the question of why isn't a jury involved in these determinations? As long as we're creating a panel, uh, it seems like those in in power can stack the panel how they want and that doesn't really guarantee that it's gonna be in the child's best interest. We need juries to hear these cases and we need those cus custody arrangements be to be, uh, favorably decided by those who actually are members of the public without a government position or aren't hand picked for that role. So appreciate the time to speak. Thank you.

Maryanne Christensen, Utah Legislative Watch. I'm hearing in support of this bill, I, I think it just does a really great job of creating more of a balance between all of the interests that are in that child welfare court. So please vote for the bill. Thank you.

Yeah, I would recommend Favorably House Bill 3 72 fifth substitute. Is that the number we're on? Yes. At this point, are there any, Uh, as Senator Thatcher used to say, that means it's a, it shows it's a good bill. Can we go for a sixth? Um, I mean, if you really want to, So fifth, substitute the Substitute. That's right. All right.

Waive. Thank you so much for your time.

Motion is to circle. We'd like to speak to it. Uh, representative floor sponsors not present.

Yes. Just briefly. I'd like to adopt the sub and then leave it for our members to review. It will also address the fiscal note issue. Um, and then Recircle.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move Sub four

Yes. So it significantly changes from the original bill. It removes the recording provision in the all the private guardian ad litem provisions. And it is just really, um, it, it basically should move the fiscal note to zero.

Uh, thank you. I just wanna commend, uh, representative Libe, uh, as we continue to work through these issues. And my understanding is as we adopt the sub, we'll circle it and continue to work on these issues and come to a good spot where everybody feels really good about this important subject. So I would support the, uh, adoption.

I waive. Thank you. Commission is waived.

Uh, thank you. I just wanna commend, uh, representative Libe, uh, as we continue to work through these issues. And my understanding is as we adopt the sub, we'll circle it and continue to work on these issues and come to a good spot where everybody feels really good about this important subject. So I would support the, uh, adoption.

I waive. Thank you. Commission is waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt sub five. That motion is in order to like speak to It. Yes, I would. So this motion is, or this sub is responsive to all of the concerns of all the stakeholders, including DCFS, the A, a Gs, our colleagues in the house, um, and some senate input to make sure that the bill is a consensus bill. It removes the language that stipulated, expressed interest for those over 12 and it re reverts back to the original language in the bill or in the code. Excuse me.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill only addresses GS in the juvenile court space. It does not address GS in the district court space. Um, so no private gs it, uh, it cross references existing language in two code sections 80 dash two a dash 2 0 1 and 80 dash four dash 1 0 4 to best interest definitions in the code. It adds elements of discovery into the family court process in an effort to level the playing field. And it's responsive to the recent audit increases transparency for the fatality review committee. Um, and we need to give credit to the good representative from West Jordan who had a bill file that combined with this bill file. So we have fewer bill files, um, for that change. It requires the GAL director to evaluate the performance of gals, including tracking the frequency of their visits and their interactions with the minor in person, electronic or through a volunteer. And it requires them to report their latest visit to the court when they are presenting. Um, the independent investigations will support GAL input and this requires the gals to advance court directions and findings. And with that, I'm open to questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this great bill. Um, I could stand here all day and tell you stories, um, about gals and the things that they have or have not done. And, um, there are some port very important provisions in this bill. And I'm, I'm not gonna go through all of 'em, I just know with the work that I've done, uh, as the chair of the, uh, child welfare, uh, oversight panel and plus what I have done with hundreds of constituents, how important this bill is, and I urge you to support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this bill. I've watched the sponsor listen to concerns, uh, uh, from those involved in the family courts and come to a compromise and I appreciate her efforts improving the family court system.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, a rise in support of this bill. Been working with the sponsor, had some, uh, big concerns with the initial bill. She's worked with us, so I'd like to thank the good sponsor from Antelope Island close to Antelope Island for her support and willingness to work on, uh, getting to a good spot in this bill. And we look forward to keep working on things.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I rise in support of this bill. There are levels of the bill that, um, I know the sponsor has worked, um, with those who are affected and have been affected within the courts. But one thing to consider is, is children are affected within the court system and, and with the D-D-C-F-S findings and audit, I think this is a good, um, marriage in between the two to really help, um, solidify that we do not continue to put our kids in danger in the future. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Other than saying that I fully accept the title of representative from Antelope Island, I will waive.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt sub five. That motion is in order to like speak to It. Yes, I would. So this motion is, or this sub is responsive to all of the concerns of all the stakeholders, including DCFS, the A, a Gs, our colleagues in the house, um, and some senate input to make sure that the bill is a consensus bill. It removes the language that stipulated, expressed interest for those over 12 and it re reverts back to the original language in the bill or in the code. Excuse me.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill only addresses GS in the juvenile court space. It does not address GS in the district court space. Um, so no private gs it, uh, it cross references existing language in two code sections 80 dash two a dash 2 0 1 and 80 dash four dash 1 0 4 to best interest definitions in the code. It adds elements of discovery into the family court process in an effort to level the playing field. And it's responsive to the recent audit increases transparency for the fatality review committee. Um, and we need to give credit to the good representative from West Jordan who had a bill file that combined with this bill file. So we have fewer bill files, um, for that change. It requires the GAL director to evaluate the performance of gals, including tracking the frequency of their visits and their interactions with the minor in person, electronic or through a volunteer. And it requires them to report their latest visit to the court when they are presenting. Um, the independent investigations will support GAL input and this requires the gals to advance court directions and findings. And with that, I'm open to questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this great bill. Um, I could stand here all day and tell you stories, um, about gals and the things that they have or have not done. And, um, there are some port very important provisions in this bill. And I'm, I'm not gonna go through all of 'em, I just know with the work that I've done, uh, as the chair of the, uh, child welfare, uh, oversight panel and plus what I have done with hundreds of constituents, how important this bill is, and I urge you to support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this bill. I've watched the sponsor listen to concerns, uh, uh, from those involved in the family courts and come to a compromise and I appreciate her efforts improving the family court system.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, a rise in support of this bill. Been working with the sponsor, had some, uh, big concerns with the initial bill. She's worked with us, so I'd like to thank the good sponsor from Antelope Island close to Antelope Island for her support and willingness to work on, uh, getting to a good spot in this bill. And we look forward to keep working on things.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I rise in support of this bill. There are levels of the bill that, um, I know the sponsor has worked, um, with those who are affected and have been affected within the courts. But one thing to consider is, is children are affected within the court system and, and with the D-D-C-F-S findings and audit, I think this is a good, um, marriage in between the two to really help, um, solidify that we do not continue to put our kids in danger in the future. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Other than saying that I fully accept the title of representative from Antelope Island, I will waive.

Thank you. This bill addresses the, uh, guardian ad litems consideration of a minor's best interest, uh, changes and strengthens the child's voice in the court process, uh, by requiring explanation of the court and the child. The details of the already required independent investigation, uh, goes through and enhances transparency, uh, goes through and clarifies and, uh, strengthen the guardian ad litem oversight committee's duties. Uh, uh, clarify some of the duties of the director of the guardian of ad litem go through and, and requires within the bill, uh, recommendations that the uh, point of guardian ad litem has personally received. Uh, not just, uh, hearsay or third, uh, hand reports, um, goes through and disclose the details of the, uh, investigation and then goes through and talks about the responsibilities of the parties, the courts, and, uh, the, uh, people who are testifying to ensure that they, they consider the best interest of the minor. Thank you Senator for the presentation. See no questions.

Thank you. I'd move that fifth substitute house bill 3 75 under suspension of the rules pass.

Uh, motion to circle. Just waiting on a little sub. That should be out Quickly. Motion to circle. All in favor say Aye. Aye. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule. That motion passes the bill of Circle

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, as we went through the social service, uh, budget and the, uh, recommendations of the committee, there were several points that needed some, uh,