S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications: transcript

Yes. Uh, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee. You guys have a heavy agenda today. Um, sorry, this is not an easy bill to present. This is Gavin Peterson and, um, this is a Gavin Peterson bill. This is a young boy from West Haven, Utah. DCFS interacted with Gavin between 2013 and 2024. There were multiple reports. There were concerns, there were red flags, and yet for a year, for the last year of his life, DCFS was unable to get eyes on him. I serve on the Child Welfare Legislative Oversight Committee alongside Representative Acton from this committee and other members of the legislature. We were brief on given, um, Gavin, um, Gavin Peterson's case. There's some details, uh, due to privacy laws we can't, um, share, but I, I will share the following, which is, uh, public information. When Gavin arrived at the emergency room on July 9th, 2024, his body had shut down. He was malnourished to the point that his organs were failing. His small body was covered with bruises from physical abuse. He died of sepsis due to pneumonia, dehydration, and infection. He was found wearing a saturated diaper at the age of 12. Even with the years of, of reports of abuse, there was no legal tool for DCFS to compel access and physical, um, to physically see him during this final year of his life. This is not just a loophole, this is a failure of the state of Utah. We failed Gavin for one entire year. No one saw him. We can only imagine what he in isolation. This is not hypothetical because we have heard of this gap before. The day when the Gavin Peterson died, which was July 9th, 2024. There was a meeting of the child welfare legislative oversight panel. We were meeting in the Capitol fourth, uh, fourth floor. And we had Mr. Kevin, um, Kevin Frankie actually attend our meeting. It was a public meeting. I'm gonna read Mr. Chair a quote from that meeting from Mr. Kevin Frankie, In the aftermath of my wife's and Jodi's arrest, I have come to learn that Jodi masterfully coach Ruby in navigating the child welfare loopholes in the state. In a nutshell, all they had to do were three things. One, keep the children isolated from the world. Two, ignore all the phone calls from DCFS workers. Three, not answer the door when DCFS or the police knocked. That's it. Those three things were all were required for all the train wreck that you have seen play out in the media for the past year. Because of the complete isolation of my children, there was not sufficient evidence based on our current loss for the government to intervene. Despite the clear red flags reported by our close friends and neighbors and family as well. This allowed Jody and Ruby to emotionally and physically terrorize my children behind closed doors. Even those that were the closest to the situation were screaming repeatedly to authorities for help. And those authorities claim to be powerless in the situation to intervene. Representatives laws need to change in the state end of quote three things. Mr. Chairman and Committee isolation, ignore the calls and don't answer the, the door. That is the loophole under current law. DCFS can sometimes be powerless even when credible threats of harm exist. That's what SB 1 24 is trying to do here is closing that gap. This bill creates a narrowly tailored investigative warrant that allows a court not DCFS alone, but a court to authorize limited access to a child when there is credible evidence-based concern for serious harm. Access to the child has been denied and removal is not yet warrant. This is not a removal tool. It does not expand automatic state power. It does not erode parental rights. It requires a judicial review. It requires probable cause. It is specific and time limited. It is simply ensures that when a credible threat exists, a caseworker and officer can lay eyes on a child, save eyes on children. That is all this bill does. It protects family integrity while ensuring that isolation cannot be used as a shield for abuse. We cannot bring having Peters back, and we cannot erase the years of abuse of Frankie children and endure. But we can make sure the law never again allows a child to disappear behind a closed door simply because no one answers the door. And without Mr. Chair open for questions.

Good evening, chairman and committee. My name is Natalie Clark. I am in Salt Lake City, Utah, and I sit to you as a master social worker, but more importantly, a young person that grew up in the foster care system here in Utah. I co-founded a nonprofit to support young people across our state that are impacted by child welfare. And I am one of those kids that sat for years in a home that was not safe because closed doors. Uh, I would just, I really want you to know, my support for Senator Escamilla ass Bill is rooted in the belief that we have to stop treating child welfare as a binary choice between doing nothing and removal. Our young people need your eyes, they need you, your ears, and they need your protection. And this bill does exactly that. I urge a favorable recommendation for the bill. It's compassionate, it's common sense, and it's reform that protects Utah's most vulnerable youth. And I wanna thank Liz Escamilla for the care compassion you took in this bill. You're saving so many young people that will never know your name and you won't know theirs, but I'm working with them every day and I, I want them to know that you care about them. So please support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Hey, my name is Maria Evans and today I speak on behalf of Utah PTA. We support s SV 1 24 as a balanced and responsible approach. Accurate and timely assessments are essential in protecting our most vulnerable children. As you know, delays were called out as a consistent problem in the recent audit, and this speaks to those delays. Investigative warrants help caseworkers correct some of those delays. Additionally, it helps them to avoid unnecessary escalations as well as provide them with sufficient information to pursue further action once circumstances indicate a child is not safe. Ultimately, better information drives better decision making. We think Senator Escamilla and her senate colleagues for collaborating with one another on this. Bill, please vote in favor of SB 1 24. Thank you.

Thank you. Marlene Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission. We are in support of this bill. We appreciate Senator Escamilla Hass work on it. And we know other legislators have been involved in conversations specific to this over the last session as well. And we are appreciative of that. Um, for obvious reasons. The vulnerability of our young children has to be paramount in our minds as policymakers and as those supporting you in your policymaking efforts, um, so that we can protect them, that we don't have this as a continuing and escalating problem as it seems to have been. So thank you. We're in support of it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Olivia Dawn. I'm representing Utah Eagle Forum and we rise in opposition to SB 1 24, specifically the investigative warrant provisions that are in subsections three, three B and the related enforcement language that's in c, d, and E. Um, I speak not only as an advocate, but as a mother who's experienced the child welfare system firsthand after the unfortunate tragedy of Gavin Peterson. We all agree that there should never be another child put in that situation. My situation was that a false report was made against my family alleging medical neglect because we sought primary care outside of mainstream approaches. However, when our child became seriously ill, we Uintah the hospital without hesitation. While there, A-D-C-F-S agent followed up on the report but did not identify herself, which is not allowed. A week later, I received my first notice of any allegation. I agreed to provide medical information and was asked for a written list and asked for a written list of what was needed that was never provided to me. Three months later, we were summoned to court under the threat of removal for UNC cooperation. After nine additional months, multiple hearings with a newborn and a one-year-old in tow and nearly $100,000 in medical and legal expenses, the judge dismissed the case without even hearing our side finding. The state failed to present any convincing evidence. The trauma did not begin with the threat of removal. It begins with intrusion. This bill authorizes entry into a home examination of a child and interviews based on a credible threat, even when no crime has been charged, it permits forced entry and physical examination without parental consent. After court began, DCFS attempted to contact us at my mother's home where we do not live, but we receive mail. They would have been allowed forced entry into my mom's home, causing trauma to an additional family. Not even part of the report being put forward. The home has the highest constitutional protections. Parents have the fundamental interest in the care, custody, and control of their children, and expanding state's powers based on predictive concerns rather than demonstrated abuse risks, serious harm to innocent children. For these reasons, Utah Eagle Forum urges a no vote on this bill. Thank you. Thank You.

Hello, uh, my name is Amy Winder Newton, and I'm the director of the Utah Office of Families. Our most important duty in government is to protect vulnerable citizens who cannot protect themselves, especially our children. This bill is intended to ensure clearer legal standards for child welfare investigations and interventions, balancing child safety with protections against unnecessary intrusion into families. The current law is ambiguous, and as you've heard, it allows a small number of high risk parents to obstruct access to their child and remove them from community visibility. This bill creates a clear legal path for DCFS to act in the most critical situations when there is no other way to visibly see if a child is safe. DCFS would submit rigorous, credible information to a judge with a high threshold threshold of evidence before a warrant for investigation is issued. This ensures that an intervention is well founded and truly necessary for a child's protection. The warrant is a tool for assessment to get eyes on the child, conduct an interview or gather information. It does not allow them to remove a child from the home. This conservative approach balances parental rights with our most important duty to protect the life of a child. I urge your support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Thank you. Committee Delaine England. Uh, I just wanna say that my heart is just filled with pain for Gavin. Something like that should absolutely never happen. I do have concerns about parts of this bill because I do feel that DCFS has such a great deal of power already. They are able to visit homes. Um, I think, uh, sadly they did fail. Gavin. I do not feel that it is a law that failed him, but I do feel like DCFS did fail, fail him. Um, I'm very concerned about Alliance 1 62, reasonable person. I'm very worried about the definition there because what is the definition of a reasonable person? I think everybody thinks they're reasonable. And I do think that this particular bill, the way that is written, does cross the line of family integrity and it can be used as a weapon against people with a false accusation. So I ask you to reconsider this bill needs some work before it's passed out. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Tanya Meyer. I'm the director for the Division of Child and Family Services and DCFS and the Department of Health and Human Services are in support of Senate Bill 1 24. This is an important bill that provides a clear pathway for DCFS to seek an investigative warrant through the juvenile court. It reduces confusion and provides a stronger legal, legal foundation for action needed to assure child safety. It supports DCFS efforts to protect children when they have been removed from the visibility of the community. There is sufficient reason to believe they are unsafe and parents are refusing to allow DCFS to assess the child's safety. And again, to clarify, this is for purposes of fact finding, not removal. This is a measure of last resort enabling essential and limited action. It allows DCFS to view the child, conduct the interview, and gather additional information that is needed to, um, conduct the most accurate and thorough safety decisions possible. So again, we are in support of the bill and we appreciate the efforts of Senator Escamilla to ensure that the most vulnerable children in Utah are protected from Harm. Harm. Thank you.

Seth Stewart from American Fork, representing myself. Um, I, I strongly oppose this bill on, on grounds that it is not narrowly tailored. Um, the DCFS powers are already overbroad and this mingles and conflates those egregiously with law enforcement powers. Uh, it would put child welfare workers in harm's way, uh, by essentially laundering the evidence requirement to obtain entry to a home. Our state constitution requires probable cause in order to issue a warrant. And that probable cause has a very specific meaning, probable cause of an actual statutory violation. A crime in, in other words, it's not sufficient to say there is probable cause to believe that there exists a credible threat to a child's health, safety, or welfare. As those are very nebulously defined, they're not tied to any actual statutory violation. Instead, it's just left to the discretion of a judge. There. I could say that I have probable cause to believe that I'm hungry and I need to eat a cheeseburger, right? So probable cause has to be tied to its constitutional proper value. And furthermore, this, uh, this intrusion is it hazards, as I mentioned, it hazards putting people in harm's way and is really not appropriate because it does not satisfy the probable cause requirements of our constitution. And if there is a specific articulable crime as there was in the case of Gavin Peterson, then there already exists a criminal investigative and warrant procedure to prosecute that and to death to investigate that. So the question is, why was DCFS acting as a lightning rod for those complaints? And why weren't they routed properly? This power already exists and it should have been exercised. Thank you.

All right. Hi, my name's Jennifer Stout. I'm with Voices for Utah Children, but I'm also here representing myself. When I was a, at the age of five till the age of 13, I lived in West Jordan, Utah. My mom remarried a man who is emotionally and physically abusive. Like many children, I didn't want my friends to know what was happening at home, so I stayed quiet about the abuse. For years, I lived wondering if my stepdad would follow through on his threats to kill me. Eventually, I started speaking up DCFS and police officers came to my home multiple times, but every case was closed 'cause there wasn't enough evidence. They said we needed blood and bruises. We were told to document anytime that happened. So my siblings and I kept notes. We took pictures of the bruises from him, gripping us so hard, but before anyone returned to check on us, the notebooks were shredded and the photos deleted by my stepdad. The final straw came when my stepdad grabbed my arm and tried to force me out the house. My sister held onto my other arm trying to pull me back. I was stuck in the middle like the rope in the tug of war game. He was stronger as he shoved me toward the concrete stairs. I had a very clear thought, if he pushes me hard enough, I could hit my head and die right now. So I began to scream. I survived. I believe I survived that day because a neighbor happened to be riding past our house on that exact moment. He heard me shrieking and ran in. The police were called. There had been stronger preventative checks on ongoing oversight. I would not have had to depend on coincidence to survive. Need to pass SV 1 24 to protect the children who are not standing here right now and are face are facing situations far worse than this did. Thank you.

Uh, thank you to the Committee for the opportunity and the chair to speak. Uh, my name is Martin Munoz. I am the Kids Count director with Voices for Utah Children. I'm here to express my organization support for SB 1 24 Child welfare modifications. I have voices for Utah Children. Our mission is to advocate for and promote policies that benefit all Utah children. Uh, voice for Utah children support SB 1 24 because it straightens Utah's child welfare system by creating a more transparent, more balanced approach to child safety. The bill authorized courts to issue investigation, investigative re warrants that allow professionals to assess a child's safety when there is credible concern without automatically resorting to removal. By establishing a defined legal path and reinforcing that protective custody must be necessary to prevent substantial harm. SB 24 promotes careful court supervised decision making that protects children while respecting family integrity. This legislation helps ensure that that, uh, responses to child safety concerns are proportional, transparent, and prevent preventative focus prevention focus by clarifying the law. Strengthening judicial oversight. SB 1 24 builds trust in the system, supports early engagement with families before situations escalate. Voice of Utah Children believes this measure approaches advance, advances child protection while upholding fair process. As we are support, as we are support. Proud to support the passage of SB 1 24. I ask you, please advance SB 1 24 favorable recommendation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hello, my name is Sarah Strub and I am the legislative chair for the Utah Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. We are in strong support of this bill because reinforcing the safety of our children should be our highest priority. By authorizing these specific investigative actions, we are ensuring that when a child's welfare is at risk, the state has a clear legal pathway to step in and verify their safety as mandated reporters. We thank Senator Escamilla for her attention to this issue and urge your favorable recommendation for this common sense safety measure. Thank you.

Good afternoon committee. My name is Tiana McCall. I am here representing na, the National Association of Social Workers, the Utah Chapter. Um, NASW Utah supports this bill because it strengthens due process protections while maintaining child safety as the paramount concern for social workers. This matter matters deeply. Um, clear legal standards, protect families, constitutional rights guide, ethical decision making in high stakes situations, and supports our professional obligation to pursue the least restrictive safety-focused interventions possible while still acting decisively when a child is at risk. Uh, we urge you to support this bill and move it forward. Thank you.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. My name is Tina Horlocker. I'm from Davis County. Um, and I also have very personal experience. It is true. Children suffer in horrendous ways and our heart goes out to those who suffer. But so do families who DCFS has entered in and removed children when it was unnecessary. And this has happened often in our situation. Lies were told threats were made and collusion happened. We, we had a full blown court case. I'm the mother of Olivia who testified earlier, and it took an entire year, a hundred thousand dollars, bankrupting their family and causing much trauma and stress. Um, since that time, I have had at least a dozen people reach out to me in similar situations where they were trying to, to find their way out over the heavy hand of DCFS. DCFS had no problem having access to us. We didn't want them to have access. We knew that we, that our children were not in harm's way, but they did force their hands. They had no problem with that. And our case was the same time that Gavin was starving to death in Roy. We know that they received many phone calls that they did not act upon. It was not because they did not have this warrant power for, for causes that are not criminal. They have the power to act, they have the power to take children and everything that that woman said earlier, the families do not have those powers. We have to protect the rights of family members. If this warrant had been in effect in our case, they very well could have taken our children, open my daughter's children away from us. We have to, we have to maintain a standard where families are protected. And so I urge you to vote no on this, on SB 1 24.

Thank you. It's amendment number one under my name. Um, and it, what it does, it, it raises lines 7 21 to 7 23. That was not necessary. It was more of a drafting situation. We really do not need that language. I'm trying to make it as clear as possible what we're trying to do, and be very, uh, precise on that investigative tool only for investigative purposes, not for removal.

Thank you. Uh, did we adopt the amendment or do we need

It's, I'd like to make a motion that we, um, adopt the amendment to SB 1 24 first substitute.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we favorably recommend SB 1 24 first substitute as amended to the body of the house.

Yes. I just wanted to say that I certainly support the sanctity of parenthood, the sanctity of the home, but the opponents to this bill have not offered any solutions that would have saved Gavin. And this bill would have saved Gavin. Gavin, his family members or his perpetrators, would not allow anyone to see him. And if they had seen him, they would've seen the condition that he was in. Um, so DCFS does need the power of this investigative warrant. I'm very happy that it does not involve removal at all. That's not part of it, it's just an investigative warrant. Thank you.

Um, thank you Mr. Chair. I know it's late and I just wanna thank the time. Um, our legislative Child welfare oversight panel took two years on how to address this issue. It was not easy. Um, the Senate had a lot of feedback from our, um, judiciary committee and all of our attorneys. This took a minute to get us here. Uh, there was a letter that we shared last year, all of our, um, panel to all of you as colleagues on how we needed to take action. And we have two very, um, public cases. Some have multiple, um, you know, series and documentaries, but these are children's lives we're talking about. And there is a role of government to keep them safe. This is very precise to just to have safe eyes on children. And that's what the bill does. We'll ask for your support. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I should also mention that there's an increasing number of child torture cases in our state, and that is exactly why this is needed. And that's all. Thanks.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so SB 1 24 is not new. We actually started this conversation last year in, in the house, and the sponsor was Representative Watkins. And, and as you guys, I emailed some information to the all of you and we're distributing it again with the, the letter that we, that child welfare legislative oversight panel, um, was making reference to the same language that we have now. And this is very simple, Mr. Chair. We've seen an increase of, um, just very tragic cases of child abuse. And it is in our responsibility that we make sure that we do everything. We have, um, tools available to provide to our agency that oversees the Child Protective Services and child welfare to make sure that we're, um, taking every, you know, case seriously and addressing them in a professional manner and helping and making sure children are safe. SB 1 24. Um, we will provide DCFS with an extra tool, um, to get a faster legal tool to, um, con, you know, be able to confirm situations, uh, for children in terms of if we see if it's escalating. This bill does not expand any removal authority, uh, at all. It creates a measure court supervised mechanism, um, to prevent exactly some of the very, very high profile unfortunate cases where even children have lost their lives. And the bill basically does, is gives juvenile court warrant authority to move procedures for executing warrants. And the bill authorizes, uh, a new investigative warrant to allow peace officers and child welfare case workers to assess child safety if a credible threat exists in prior attempts to check on the child have been unsuccessful. So what triggers this type of action will be is they've been trying to get to see this child, especially if there's a history and it's not, you know, they can't get in because they're not answering the door. There's nothing, um, they're not allowing them. This is really allowing alliance warrant authority with existing practices and abuse, neglect and dependency and juvenile justice proceedings. And it will be, again, two, um, with judicial approval to view the child's, um, safety child's home environment and examine child for possible abuse or neglect. Uh, the probable cause requirements is created that is a credible threat to the child's health, safety, or welfare. And I'll say this 'cause I've been now multiple years in this child welfare legislative oversight panel, and we get to see a lot of the more difficult cases. We actually get access to information, um, in a closed door meeting because there is a lot of privacy issues. But we are very all aware because media has been covering some of the worst and most difficult cases of child abuse through media. Um, and it's in the letter that I shared with you guys, uh, in the last couple of years. But I also will say today the Legislative Audit Committee subcommittee, which is, you know, presiding officers, majority minority leaders, are gonna be reviewing A-D-C-F-S, um, audit. And it's not public, so I can't share a lot of the info, but it will be public at 4:00 PM And I think this just provides another mechanism to support DCFS in their ability to really intervene when needed. And I encourage all of you guys to read the audit and see the, and snapshot of the state of our child welfare. 'cause I think if one responsibility is important for the state, is the child welfare and children being safe. Um, without Mr. Um, chair, I was say, Mr. President, Mr. Chair, I'm open for questions.

Thank you. I I have a few, um, they're friendly questions though. Um, so right now, uh, does a juvenile court judge not have the authority to issue a warrant?

Can I have DCFS? Yeah, please. Because I think they're the experts. I don't wanna Thank you, Tanya.

Hi, good afternoon, Tanya Myra. I'm the director for the Division of Child and Family Services. And thank you for the opportunity to, um, speak to this and we appreciate the efforts of Senator Escamilla. Um, to answer your question, the, the process right now, there currently is a pathway for the investigative warrant and it's been in place for years. The challenge is that it directs and points back to the criminal code. And that is what is creating some confusion and some barriers in our ability to access this, is it doesn't really clarify or provide clear direction on what's required. And, um, so the criminal code requires that the information is, um, the, the person has, uh, reasonably related to the matter being investigated. And so this has been a challenge for attorneys and for them to determine what really is necessary in those cases when the warrant's been sought. So we have run into barriers in cases where we've had concerns we've really needed to get eyes on the child, and some judges have been hesitant to approve the investigative warrants because of the way that the statute is currently written. And, um, so I hopefully that explains it. So we are and have been successful in some cases, but it is causing some confusion and we have not been successful in getting cases, um, in all of those situations where we believe we need to see the child in order to assess safety.

Alright, thank you. That's helpful. Um, either one of you can answer this question. So my policy is when it's my bill, I answer the easy questions and I let other people answer the hard ones. But, um, have the courts been part of this discussion for this bill? Michael Drexel, or anybody? No. Okay. Okay. Is Michael here, but, but

Can I check with if DCFS had talked to them? I'm sorry, I'm just answering

For me. Let me just double check with my attorney to see if she's had conversations. Okay. No, we have not. Okay,

Um, so the, so I'm just clear what, what the, kind of, the meat of what precedent this would set. The bill creates a court approved, uh, investigative warrant. So child welfare workers can lawfully enter if access is refused and they don't have a removal order. Is that, have I got that right?

That, that's correct. It would not be taking the child into custody. We would just clarify in the request what information we need in order to assess safety. So that may just be getting, um, eyes on the child, being able to see if there are any, um, bruises, other signs of abuse or neglect. It may require maybe, uh, visibly looking at the home and interviewing the child. So these are the cases where, um, typically a parent has just refused access and we just need a little bit more, um, ability to gather enough information.

I get, I get it. I'm just wanting to make sure where we were and where we're gonna be on the, the the, what we're allowing the investigators to do. So be, if this bill passes and, and access denied by the parent and they don't have a removal order, this would allow them to do everything you just said. That's where we'd be moving from into, right. I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand where we're moving from into, and that's, and I'm, I've got it.

Right, right. Yes, yes.

Okay. But just to clarify, Mr. Chair, if I could add to the answer to that question from the senator is that, um, a, a mechanism within the criminal code is already in place to do this type of interventions. What was happening is, was delaying the ability for the agency to go to get to this war judicial, um, investigative warrants faster. So, and, and when you're seeing the cases of those children, time is of the essence. So I, oh, go ahead. I wanna make sure that it's clear because I think the senator asked that question, um, the chair, is that not possible right now? And I would say yes. It's just very confusing in a different part of code, and it's not providing that mechanism to get us there faster. So it will, it will in away make an extra tool available for the agency, in this case, the division, to move into this warrant. Um, so not that it's impossible and that that is not happening right now. Now I do have an amendment and I'll explain. I think that's important because I think there was some concern about the language that was, uh, making it almost blurry that they can remove children. The amendment will say they cannot remove children, they're just trying to check on the child. And I think, you know, I, I shared with you all in my email, you know, there's a very, very, um, visible case because it got a lot of media attention with the, uh, you know, the, the homicide of Gavin Peterson, the very young child where they're not, you know, we, they tried, they were going there and they couldn't see the child and it was delaying this opportunity of potentially intervening in a really, really critical case. So this is just an extra tool and why the panel, the child welfare panel committee was really adamant to, we will hear the cases and we can't do anything. Our hands are tied. We're like, what can we do in, within the framework that already exists, help you provide that extra tool. So, I, I just wanna clarify that part. Thank you, Mr.

Um, alright, so I, I, I understand that and, and I understand your circumstances. We we're just, we, we have to balance parents' rights and we, we always talk about these extreme circumstances where I'm really familiar with the case you were referring to, um, and the tragedy, no doubt, but we're always balancing, you know, how much do we gonna infringe in parental rights here and, and privacy. And, and I'm inclined to, I'm inclined to move it forward, but we can't do it just, just because there's really hard to hear stories. We have to balance that, right? So what, what, this is gonna reveal some of my ignorance here. Um, so we go from one standard to somewhat of a, a lesser standard. We go from order for child removal and deny of accessibility to a warrant that allows you to investigate and see if the child's welfare right. What is it, what is it gonna take, what is it? What triggers that? What take me through a ground rubber meets the road process that triggers that.

Yeah. And to clarify, this would be used in very rarely, um, it would just be the circumstances where a parent is refusing access and we have reasonable belief that the child is at risk. And so again, a judge would review the information that we have, determine if weighing that, that parent's, right, that you talked about. And the judge would approve the investigation and, uh, the investigative warrant and giving us the outline of what information we were, um, we're going to have access to. So it may be a case where if, um, if we have tried to see the child, there's allegations of serious abuse or neglect, and we have, um, a parent saying, no, you're not allowed access, um, not allowing us to interview the child or see the child. And so again, we do not see that this would be used very often, but it would be used in cases where, um, the children may not be visible in the community. So they're not at school, they're not in daycare, and there may be someone who, um, is viewing the child in the home and has concerns for that child. So again, just enough credible evidence that we need a little bit more information in order to really assure the safety of the child.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. Um, if I can just maybe make reference to the lines of what will that probable cause be in, in statute senator will be lines one 20 to 1 26 within the bill that says, what could trigger that? Because I think your question is correct is it can be a, a blanket everyone come and, and use this. So it will have to be credible threat to the child's health. I mean, there is like a threshold, which of course the agency has even policies and ruled a, a authority making that you've been through all of that because you already have this in place. So I just wanna make sure it's not just blanket. And I think the other good question that the Senator asked about numbers, right? Because it's, it's about, you know, the cases, the very more visible cases that got a lot of media attention, maybe some that are in their old tragic as as explained, but I, that's why ex hopefully you guys get to read the audit that will be public at 4:00 PM on DCFS. 'cause that audit, I think will just, it just tells you that we do have, we live in a society unfortunately where, um, child abuse happens. And we, we have to balance those rights, I think, like the senator mentioned, of parental rights and protecting families and at the same time just protecting children. So I, this is a, I personally think this puts us in a place where we're protecting all of that and still be, um, 'cause our number one priority is the welfare and safety of a child. So thank you Mr. Chair for allowing me to answer that.

Alright. Hello, committee chair. My name is Jessica Black and I'm from the Utah Mental Health Counselor Association. And, um, from a mental health perspective, um, removal can be incredibly traumatizing for a family and a child. I believe that this particular bill, um, could prevent that traumatic experience because it would allow people, um, caseworkers and officers to put eyes on the child, assess the envi environment, evaluate the environment, and gather accurate information. A lot of times these are based on complaints and concerns, and this bill would allow actual accurate information, um, before making any kind of decisions that could be deeply traumatizing for the family and the child. Um, this supports a trauma-informed, um, approach. Um, one that protects children while also preventing any unnecessary removal, because of course, we don't want to do that if we don't have to. Um, this bill also strengthens the coordination between caseworkers and law enforcement, which is very critical in these high risk situations. Um, it also allows for deescalation, which also may be needed, um, very minimal fiscal impact. SB 1 24 gives Utah a clearer, safer, and from my perspective, a more clinically sound, uh, framework for responding when a child may be at risk. It helps ensure that decisions are guided by evidence and not guesswork, and that children and families experience the least possible harm during already very stressful interventions. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Tina Horlocker. I'm a Davis County resident, represent Davis County Conservatives, but also myself. I have a very personal experience with DCFS that started in 2024 when my daughter, who had a 15 month old baby who was small, had a seizure related to a fever. It was a scary one. She took her to the hospital and they treated her. They said, you should go to Primary Children's to find out why this happened. And they complied. I would've not complied because I've had 10 children and I know that children that have fevers will sometimes have seizures, but they were scared. So they Uintah make a very long story short, what ended up happening was DCFS was summoned. Um, they ended up sending her some kind of a notice. I can't remember all exactly the exact wording of all of it. Um, and right about this time, she and her husband were scheduled to go to England. So there was some, some interaction there. They Uintah England for like four weeks. They came back with a notice telling them that D-C-F-D-C-F-S was going to be coming and taking the child. They declared to be an imminent danger. Um, to make a very long story short, a year later and almost a hundred thousand dollars, the the judge reprimanded DCFS for lying and colluding with Primary Children's Hospital in an attempt to take my daughter's children away. This is a very serious deal. Um, it might not be fiscally, um, heavy for DCFS, but it is for a young family who had lost their vehicle, has not been able to move into a home and many other repercussions. So I urge you to not send this forward. Thank you.

Marice Jones. I'm the Director of the Victim Services Commission. We've taken a support on this bill. We appreciate the eyes on it by Senator Escamilla and Representative Watkins as they've worked together to protect these kids. Um, they're unfortunately our situations where our children who should be the most cherished, are also the most vulnerable. And within a familial setting, they can also be the least accessible. So I appreciate the limits on this bill to not step over and, and cross lines that are important for parenting. Uh, but we very much appreciate this early intervention to have eyes on children and make sure that they are in fact okay. So we support it. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jackie Warren. I have dealt with DCFS. I have dealt with their, um, illegal maneuvers. Um, this bill, they say it's going to be used very rarely, but from my own experience and having grandchildren who were being investigated for abuse or my my daughter being investigated for abuse, I know for a fact that this law, this bill will get used on an every single phone call situation. I know because I've had multiple calls from my daughter to DCFS doing welfare check on my grandson. And my grandson has gone off on DCFS over it because we know what's going on. But DCFS doesn't care. My children or my my grandchildren have spoken to DCFS. They cannot stand DCFS because they're nothing but lies that, that interact with them. We need to protect our families. And yes, unfortunately children are abused, but a family is more important than having DCFS be allowed to enter a home that is a private and sacred place for a family to raise their children. And I urge you, please don't put this bill through because there are gonna be so many children removed from a home that have no business being removed from a home and investigations being done that had no business being done because of malice and evil intent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Olivia Dawn. I'm representing Utah Eagle Forum and I live in Davis County. Um, I am would be there in person, but I am experiencing recovery from postpartum just this week. So that's why I

Thank you. That's why I'm, I don't look as presentable as I would like to be. Um, but I just wanted to raise a few concerns with this particular bill. Um, one of the things that it does on line one 20 is that it mentions a credible threat, which is not defined anywhere in code as the reason that will it allow for this particular investigative, um, warrant to be in, uh, enforced or, or requested. Um, force can be used to enter a home for this investigative warrant. In a personal experience of mine, I had a false allegation made against me, against my child saying that I was starving her and that I was neglecting her because I didn't take her to all of her well child checks because I had access to things that I didn't need to go into a, a doctor's office to be able to get information for. And the, the, when we ended up in a hospital situation, because she was sick, the DCFS caseworker who was following up on that false allegation, lied, came into the hospital to lay eyes on the child without identifying herself, which is against the policy of DCFS. She was able to see that our daughter was sick and, and did not at any point make any requests for further information. I received a phone call a week later asking for information and I said, I'm happy to provide that. Give me a list of everything that you need. She said she would. Three months later, we were being summoned to court being told that our child was going to be removed because told to provide information that she had requested, but she never gave us that list. So we never got that. She did knock on my mother's door numerous times trying to find us, but we don't live with my mother. And so she was never allowed in the home. My mom's door could have been broken down because they were not allowing A-D-C-F-S agent to come into the home with this particular thing. And who's to decide what a credible threat is when it's not defined anywhere in code? That's one of the many concerns that we have with some of the language in this bill. And I urge you to vote. No

Yeah. Seth Stewart, representing myself. This bill erases the warrant requirement for forced entry into Utah's homes every home of any child at any time. It defines a so-called investigative warrant. There is no such thing as an investigative warrant. Our state constitution requires probable cause to issue a warrant notice, bait and switch on line one 19. Investigative warrants may issue if there is probable cause to believe that. And there are three possible conditions. Number one, there is a credible threat to the child's health, safety, or welfare. I repeat probable cause to believe that there is a credible threat. Those are two completely different standards of evidence. Credible threat has no precise meaning. A claim that has a 5% chance of being true may be credible, but it is not. Probable probability is precise. It means that more than 50% of the time you are right by failure. To define a threshold perception of credible threat cannot be falsified. There is no check condition. Two, it is necessary to view, examine, or interview the child to ensure the child's health, safety, or welfare. Again, there's no given definition of necessary probable cause to believe that something is necessary conveys only a subjective belief. There is no test of erroneous decision making, no threshold to, to falsify. And again, again, no real check condition. Number three, the officer or worker has made diligent efforts to access the child, but was not permitted to do so. This line does not even require a triggering reason. It says we've been trying to reach you about our extended warranting and because little pig, little pig, you have not let us in yet. We are going to huff and puff and give ourselves access to your children at home. No probable cause. No real warrant. Probable cause does not mean that you feel a certain way or merely believe something. Probable cause means a certain kind of crime is probable based on evidence already lawfully perceived with accountability when those suspicions are wrong. HB 1 24 is a child trafficking bill. It grants the state power to invade anyone's home and gain access to their children without probable cause of any crime and without meaningful checks or balances against abuse. This will risk the safety of officers, caseworkers, parents, and statewide by failing to satisfy any real warrant requirements. The provision on Line 1 31 also allows caseworkers and LEAs to recruit other persons to assist in these warrantless home invasions with which further risks escalation and further harm. I urge you to oppose this bill. Thank you.

Maryanne Christensen, Utah Legislative Watch and I am here to speak against the bill. I've been involved in politics since the late nineties, early two thousands when we had a real problem with DCFS in the state of Utah. Gail Ika and Joyce Mont formed the organization, Utah Families, with the only purpose of helping families that were trying to get to navigate problems with DCFS. Um, around that time, the New American magazine published an article called Beware the Child Protectors, where Utah DCFS was the example state for what they called excessive authority and intrusion. There was also an article in the New American, or not the new, the New Yorker, around the same time called the Protector. And one in the Desert news called overzealous that highlighted the problem that we had. Since then. Senator Harper, to his great credit, helped us to, to amend the code to, to resolve a lot of the problems. Um, Representative Watkins on the house side, she's worked a lot on that also. But since then, in 2011, we all remember the Parker Jensen case where DCFS ordered his removal from his home. The parents tried to get a second opinion and DCFS blocked them from even being able to get a second opinion from a doctor. And, um, all these years later, he hasn't had the illness that they said he had. That was the reason why they had to remove him and force treatment on him. In 2022, more recently in Idaho, baby Cyrus was removed from his parents because he was having a, a bout with chronic illness losing weight. And although they had been in and out of the doctor's office and in and outta the hospital, the um, child Protective Services took him. We don't want Utah to go in back in that direction. When we let people into our homes, a lot of times they come in as a hammer. When they do, they see, see everything as a nail. And so we urge you to vote the bill down. Thank you.

You Mr. Chair. I do have, um, an amendment that I need to move on the bill.

It's, um, just adds the subsection or parentis a to make sure that, I know that was confusing on the language we wanted to clarify. There was no interest of removing children. I mean, it's just to assess, um, safety after the whole process. So I had that ready since January 27th. So if we can, um, make

Yeah, I make the motion that we, um, amend SB 1 24 with amendment one under my name.

I am, I'm wondering, um, it looks like Title 78 a used to have some language. Uh, well, in response to public comment, I, I disagree that we don't have investigative subpoenas we call them or warrants. We call them search warrants. Those, those are investigative warrants. So that that's not a new thing. But it looks like we, we have or had some language in Title 78 A, um, that was different than the, than the language that you have from lines one 20 to 1 26. Um, and I'm wondering where the language from, from one 20 to 1 26 came from.

Um, yeah, this is language. We work with the agency and our committee. Maybe

We can invite Ms. Myra, uh, back up to, is She still here and the legal team? They have? Yeah, Tanya is still here. Okay. Um, it looks like that the code says, um, a peace officer or child welfare worker may not enter into the home of a child who is not under the jurisdiction of the court, remove a child from the home or school or take the child in protective custody unless A, there exists ex exigence exigent circumstances sufficient to relieve the, relieve the peace officer or child welfare worker, uh, of the requirement to obtain a warrant. B. The police, the peace officer or child welfare worker obtains a search warrant under subsection three or subsection six C. The peace officer or welfare worker obtain a court order. And then d uh, they obtained consent of the child's parents. So under three A, um, it said, it, it, it said that there had to be a, to get a warrant, there had to be a threat of substantial harm to the child's safety. It's necessary to take the child into protective custody to avoid the harm, um, that described above, or it's likely that the child will suffer substantial harm. So that appears to have been Utah law, um, as, as recently as 2018. So I'm just curious why we didn't take it. It does, I was prepared to defend the bill saying, look it, we already have investigative warrants and we already have the, the, the, the grounds to remove a child. But I'm wondering why this bill is using different language than what the legislature's approved, uh, in the past. Can you answer that, Ms. Myro?

And I am, I will first check to see if my attorney's able to answer a, um, specific questions to That. Okay.

My name is Deborah Wood. I am the Director of the Child Protection Division with the Utah Attorney General's Office. And our division, the Child Protection Division represents the Division of Child and Family Services. So, and, and Senator Waller, you're, you are correct. This, the language in three A has been in the part of the statute for many years. Probably I was gonna research this and I didn't, but I wanna say almost two decades. Um, because this is about the removal warrant. Um, and we were looking at the, the language of credible threat. You are correct, there is a difference between substantial harm and credible threat. Um, but this is not about circumstances to remove a child from the home. It is more as, as Es Senator Escamilla and Ms. Meyer have explained is about putting the eyes on that child, not removing that child, and hopefully doing that to a point of not having to remove that child because more accurate in information is, is gathered at that point in time.

Okay. And, and I'm just looking at the bill and The 78 a six that you were referring to. A lot of this is, the language has still been there, but it's, um, changed with the reification and moving things around an 80 dash It's made it difficult Yes. To try an 80 dash two eight dash 2 0 2 staff just alerted me. And if you flip back to page three of the bill, it's, it's there because that, that section is the same section that you're amending. Um,

And there is, the reason for putting it in 80 dash two A 2 0 2 is to specifically say that these warrants are are child specific. 'cause we've had judges say, you don't have that authority because it doesn't explain it. And referring us to the criminal code doesn't help us. Yeah. And so that's where, you know, we looked at looking at where was the best place to place it, and that's the reason.

Okay. It may It. Yeah. Okay. So as I look at the bill in lines 1 0 1, it's through 1 0 1 12. It's also there as well. So three A has, um, of that code has the standard, which I just quoted to remo, to, to issue a warrant to remove the child. But then three B, which is new, has a, I guess a lesser standard to investigate is, is did I get that right? It

Is a lesser standard, but it's still at a probable cause. It still have to marshal all three of those components, just the credible threat and the necessary to view or examine the child. And that there hasn't been a difficulty in obtaining, um, access to that child through other legal means. So it's, yeah,

And I think I'm okay with that. But let me ask you this question. Um, if under three b, if three B went into law and a juvenile court judge issued this investigative warrant, once the, uh, the office, once you were inside the home, could you then remove the child without a second warrant? I, I would argue that we would need a second warrant. Okay. But it doesn't say that. So that, I guess that gives me a little bit

Of, unless it's exigent circumstances in the sense that, that we go into the, you know, as

Exigent circumstances, that, that's that language is to get the warrant to remove. So what I'm concerned about is if you could get a warrant under a lesser probable cause standard and then use that to remove, so there you're, thereby you're avoiding the tougher standard. That's my question.

Got it. And I could see the, the, your concern on that, and that would not be our interpretation of this. No. We would seek a second warrant. Uh, the only reason I bring up ex exigent circumstances, if the child was, um, bleeding and needed immediate medical attention. That's, that would be an example of that is, Is what I was thinking. Sure, sure, sure. Um, otherwise I would say no, we would need a second warrant.

Okay. And, um, let me just ask you, if, if you got a warrant under this, what I'm calling a lesser standard, and you went in and it was bad, how, how long would it take if you were standing like in the child's bedroom and made a phone call? How long would it take you to get a warrant under the higher standard?

Um, it, it would also depend on the circumstances, but it could take anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours. Okay. And that would be, no matter what time of day it is, That is the removal. This, this warrant currently would not be accessible 24 7. The removal warrants is a 24 7 process. Right.

Yeah, I'm curious on the three, A standard that's currently in existence. How many times in the last year has DCFS been denied a warrant that they've requested This kind of warrant or a removal warrant? A three a warrant, A three day warrant? Three A. It's a removal. Oh, A three A, I'm sorry, A three. It's a Removal, Um, in the last year. Yeah.

Do you ever get denied? I don't know that I have that information off the top of my head. Head.

We can obviously get, can you think back to, can an instance where you've been, where DCFS has been denied a warrant?

Yes. Okay. Oh yes.

I'm trying to understand, you know, how much the threshold is because, you know, we haven't, I'm, I'm in the courts enough with regards to, you know, I'll occasionally be there on the civil side with regards to stalking injunctions. And I find that the courts are quite permissive on anything to do with protection of the public, whether that's issuing warrants or stalking injunctions or anything like that. And so I'd kind of be surprised at, you know, how off, you know, if you're denied warrants very often they seem to be pretty permissive.

We would on it, we have been denied removal warrants under section three A as Yeah, you've referenced, and under the prior section as Ms. Meyer has indicated that we have sought that even when the court, the juvenile court has had this authority for many years to issue these investigative warrant subpoenas. Um, and we have been denied those as well. There's been a handful that we've gotten, but it's been pretty rare.

Now, have you ever had an instance where you've gone in on a removal warrant and you've seen the conditions and thought this actually isn't what we thought and you just did not remove the child?

Not that I'm aware of. Okay.

But I'm not saying that. But there's nothing preventing you from doing that.

There is nothing that is Okay. That is correct.

Because one of the things that you said is on three B, part of the reason you want this is to not have to go in and remove the child. Correct. But you don't have to remove the child if you meet three A and go in and decide that it's not meeting the criteria. Correct. Okay. Thanks.

Yeah, Mr. Chair and I, I know this is a very complex issue and I appreciate the questions. We're trying to find, uh, ways to, to make sure we keep children safe. And I I think there are some questions that we need to clarify, um, on some language. I, I heard from some of my colleagues and I, I wanna be very careful on that, the thread of that needle. Um, especially where, um, I think the question, Mr. Chair, that you asked about, will you need an an extra, a different type of warrant at that point if there's gonna be a removal? This is about more intervention and prevention than actual, um, moving into removal children. I mean, families are important and we wanna keep them healthy and safe. Child welfare and their safety is critical. I will ask Mr. Chair that, um, make a motion that we pass SB 1 24, understanding that there'll probably be more changes to the piece as amended. Uh, that there'll be some changes to language to clarify that there was no one, no interest in, um, having removal. If that's not clear, to make sure that's there, that the three A is needed, uh, to proceed and, and do what they have to do. We're again, for what we've experienced in our child welfare panel and our and committee as we see the most, you know, difficult cases, and we actually review a lot of that process. To me, I just hope that we recognize that there are times where the state has to intervene and help. And I respect all of the families and, you know, DCFS is, it's an ongoing, they probably have the most difficult job in the entire state of Utah. I recognize that. And, and it's an ongoing process to get them to a place of, you know, that customer experience makes sense as they're working through this process. But we need tools to help them. So I hope I can get the support. We'll work on the floor. I mean, I'm committed to working with all of you if there are specific issues that need to be addressed. But that'll be my motion, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. So I'm, I'm gonna, I'm gonna ask you a question. I, I'll, I will support your motion and vote yesterday and I'll explain why. If you'll commit to working with me to add some language to make sure that the investigative standard doesn't bleed over into a removal, um, process. 'cause I, I don't wanna lower the standard and then have that become the default. So can I get That commitment? Absolutely, yes. And I just wanna tell the public, um, I believe that the investigative warrants are already lawful. And so I understand there's some natural mistrust and, um, hard feelings against DCFS, especially when your family's been impacted. Unfortunately, there are real cases of child abuse and we have to have some tools in the toolbox to deal with those. Even though sometimes DCFS gets it wrong, I don't know that that means we take tools outta the toolbox. Um, I mean, that child and Ogden that was starved to death. Um, you know, they DCFS got a lot of criticism because there had been two prior reports, but they weren't reports that they could act on. And that's, you know, I'm gonna defend DCFS on that 'cause we don't want them acting without evidence. And unfortunately, um, that child died. But I don't blame DCFS for that because they got reports, they investigated them and there wasn't enough there. And I, I want it to be a high standard to remove a child. So with that, I'll go to Senator Mikel.

Thank you. And, and Senator Esee. I'm in the same boat as Senator Weiler. I'm gonna support it. I think I have the same concerns, but, um, a as I sat here, Senator Chair Weiler, I was thinking about that case. Gavin, I looked it up. Gavin Peterson. I think you're right. I think, you know, it feels like DCFS probably did the right things, but I also think about the Ruby Frankie case and a number of these cases. These cases are tough and I think this is a tool that needs to be in place, but it needs to be very, very limited and careful. But I I, I think there's some merit to moving this forward and continue the discussion.

Yeah. And let me just go one step further. It's easy to criticize the judge or DCFS after a child dies. What's harder is to go back and put yourself in those shoes with the information that was available at the moment. Because one thing our judges don't have, and one thing DCFS does not have is a crystal ball that predicts the future. So after the child dies, then everybody's quick to criticize saying, well, they should have seen this coming. Well, sometimes you can't see around corners and that, that's a tough standard.

My gosh. For the reasons stated by the chair. Aye.

Um, I was headed on this. I'm gonna vote yes, but only the Senator and I have spoken and in, and the credible threat makes me nervous. And I think if we can find that in code, that would make sense to me. And I've made suggestions and if we can work that through, then I, I'd be satisfied. So yes.

Senator Vickers in that committee. So I do have the sub, and if I wanna make a motion, Mr. Um, president pro tem that we substitute body and title SB 1 24 and be to be replaced with first substitute SB 1 24. Thank

Absolutely. So the, in the changes, basically, Mr. Presser, Punam, what we did is we first define what credible threat is. And that definition is in page five of the new version of the bill. Lines 1 61. Uh, number two, it actually connects directly with, um, another definition of threat that's already in our, um, juvenile code. So that's why the bill increased significantly on pages is because it made that reference. And it actually adds very explicit provision that when we're doing an investigative warrant, um, that is a judiciary custody warrant, that we're not removing a child, it makes it so it's very clear on the, on the, on the statute that if there is enough, uh, evidence that something else needs to happen, they have to go through another judiciary process. So this now differentiates that investigatory component of a warrant that is only to put eyes on a, a child to know, to know that the child is safe. And that's what this bill is all about. The intent is to make sure that we just have this extra tool in the toolbox for that. That's the difference on the bills. Mr. President Pro temp, Thank you for that presentation.

Okay. Thank you Mr. President ProAm. This is a, this is a complicated topic and it started, um, I serve with Senator John Johnson as well. Our, we're part of the child welfare panel and, you know, we had, uh, some terrible cases since 2024. One of them was, um, you know, the, the child that passed away Gavin Peterson, and we learn a lot through that process of what we can do to be more proactive and provide DCFS with the tools they need. This last, um, month, we had, uh, DCFS had a, a very complex, um, performance audit that was presented in multiple committees. I think many of you guys have read and participated in some of the committees that read the audit. And what we're learning, Mr. President Pro Temp is that sometimes even if DCFS is engaging and trying to, um, is getting information that is, you know, increasing the level of concern that when they don't have access to see the child, it makes it really, really hard for this kiddos, um, to be potentially saved. And this bill, what it does, and we work very closely with DCFS and the Department of Health and Human Services and other advocacy groups, is just try to find a way where we can see the child. So we know they're okay. In the case of, of the Peterson case, Gavin Peterson case, this, this young, young boy, there was about a year where they was not, there was not ability to see the, the child. So for a year, we didn't know if the, if this boy was okay. And all this bill is trying to do is create that extra tool, which is for investigation, the purposes only, and that's what it does. And with that, I'm open for questions. Mr. President Pro Temp,

Wa summation and call the question.

Senator Plumb. Thank You Mr. President ProAm. I just wanted to speak to the dire need for tools to help the child welfare space and to help the people who care about the safety and welfare of kids and I the amount of work that has gone into this and the amount of thought. I know this is a difficult space, but I'm really grateful for the work that Senator Escamilla has put into it. And with that, I'm a yes.

This bill, um, creates a very narrowly tailored legal tool that would allow courts to authorize, uh, limited access to, uh, have children be seen when there's serious evidence-based concerns for the child safety. So it creates an investigative warrant. Um, this is in response, uh, from the child welfare panel for the last couple of years after the terrible loss of Gavin Peterson in October 10th, 2024. And we're just trying to address this in a way that is very respectful and careful. Um, eyes on Children is a priority and we've had some discussion on this Bill and I, I hope I can get the support without Mr. President open for questions. Thank you. Open for questions.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the substitute of Bill. I wanna commend the sponsor for working with me and others. I had some concerns in committee that we didn't want an exception that would swallow the rule. I think that the sub addressed that and so I'll be voting. Aye again today. Thank you.

Vote. Senator Vickers. Baldie Aye. Lewin Aye. Brammer bus? Aye. Colmore Escamilla Aye. Fillmore Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Kins Gibson a Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Johnson. Musman Owens pitcher Plum Re Sandal Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Bickers. Weiler Aye. Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton Milner Milner. Senator Millner Aye. President Adams Aye. First substitute Senate Bill 1 24, having received 23 yay votes, four nay votes, two being absent, passes this body and will be sent to the house for their consideration.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, uh, Mr. Speaker, this is, uh, a really tough bill to present to everyone. It's something that we have been dealing with as the child, uh, oversight Child welfare oversight panel for, um, several years. And it's, it's just been really, really difficult. And what this bill does is it, uh, amends, uh, provisions regarding, uh, warrants by a juvenile co court. It distinguishes between a, a productive custody and a child safety warrant. It also, whoops, I'm reading the wrong one, just said it also, uh, gotta get to the right one. It also adds prog, uh, protections regarding entry into a home during, uh, the execution of a child safety warrant. And it increases the findings that, that juvenile court must make prior to, uh, allowing certain action by DCFS. So, I wanna tell you something a little bit about this. Uh, on July 9th, 2024 as a oversight panel, we were meeting and we had, um, Kevin, I wanna save his name. Kevin, Frankie, we all know who he is. And the, uh, issues that we had was with his children and his ex-wife in, down in Washington County. And on that day, July 9th, he was presenting the information about, um, how we failed his children and his family, and all of the things that went along with this. Well, on that same day, Gavin Peterson died. So it is just amazing to me that those things that were going on, were trying to address, uh, the ability to get eyes on children, to protect children in Utah. And on the same day that as a com, uh, a panel that we're doing that up here in the legislature, in the capitol, uh, this young, young boy, uh, died and he, um, died at the hands of his stepmother, his father, and an older brother. So, uh, one of the things that Kevin Frankie told us in that committee, uh, was how, uh, people, uh, can get away with doing this. And they do it through one three things. They do it through isolation. They, they pull the family, uh, away or the child or children so that no one sees them. Then you ignore the phone calls. Any phone calls that come in. You just don't answer so that you do not have to answer to anyone. And then of course you don't answer the door. So these three things were, what, what was going on with the Frankie case and what was going on with Gavin Peterson's life? Uh, that was tragically, uh, cut short through, uh, a lot of things. Uh, we were able the next year to hear about what happened with Gavin. And I'm not gonna tell you about it because it's still really, really hard for me to think about it. 'cause I think about him a lot. I raised four sons. I love all of them. And to think that someone could do that was, was just not, it's beyond my, um, ability to think about. But what we're trying to do is, is fill some of these holes, be able to make it so that, um, if after a period of time, this is not an everyday occurrence, this is not something that we're just going to hand over to DCFS to do that they can go to, uh, a juvenile court judge and they can, uh, uh, request help and a warrant to go to find this child or these children. So, um, Ms. Mr. Speaker, that's the end of my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, motion to substitute

Yes, I would. Thank you. Motion To adopt First substitute, Oh, I'm sorry. Second substitute. Motion to adopt. Second substitute, which is online

Thank you. That was close. Um, it is online and there is a handout out that was passed around. But the background on this, as the good representative from Price mentioned, um, she and I and the bill sponsor serve, uh, on the child, um, welfare legislative oversight panel. And one of the things we do on that panel is we review each year the child lethality report for Utah, which, which summarizes the deaths of all children in who've had any association with DCFS over the previous two years, if they pass away or nearly pass away. Uh, we review that. And the reason for that is, um, there was a court case years ago in which, um, the state was found liable. And so we do that to find ways in which children may fall through the cracks. And, um, so this bill kind of comes out of that background and with, especially with these high profile cases, Gavin Peterson and Ruby Frankie's children Case. And there are others, of course, in fact, um, child torture cases are increasing across the nation, but even in Utah, sadly, and you can probably call some of them to mind even from several years ago. Um, but in both of these cases, as the representative said, um, there were, the families knew how to evade detection. They knew that three step process simply don't answer the door, don't, don't answer the phone and, and isolate the child. Um, withdraw them from all neighborhood, play from church, from school, everything. Um, because of that loophole, Utah child abusers have had a lot of power, not only over the children, um, that they abuse, but also even over our state safeguards like, um, DCFS, they, they really have a way of getting around. And, but yet there were some concerns expressed, or at least, um, noted as we discussed the bill. And some of those are, those are addressed in this sub. The sub is not about parents, it's about the real goal here is to get eyes on the child. And, um, and it requires a probable cause. It can't just be, we're just curious, we wanna see the child. No, there has to be probable cause. It requires that a peace officer accompany the caseworker. It is not a removal warrant that the family or DCFS would need a much stronger warrant to do that. It also limits what they may investigate. They can only investigate health and safety of the child. They cannot investigate the cleanliness of the home or what is in the pantry, et cetera. This is, this is a child safety warrant also. Um, it's also very difficult to get this warrant. Just like any other warrant, the case worker, um, must make a diligent effort to reach the family. The supervisor will be consulted and decide with the caseworker if there is enough evidence to take it to the ag. The ags office will then determine if there is probable cause and that is a high standard reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. The AG will then file a request with the court and a judge will make that determination. So that's four people who must agree before this sort of warrant could be issued. And that is really what the bill does. It tries to provide a balance between reducing or eliminating, hopefully these, these terrible cases. And balancing also with the parental rights, which we all agree are very important as well and should always be considered. It also is a way to respond to the increasing number of severe child abuse cases that we're seeing. And with that, um, that is what the sub does and I would appreciate the body support.

to adopt second substitute, i, I Support this substitute. Thank you.

Yes. Um, with the sponsor of the sub yield to a question Representative Acton, will you yield?

Yes, I will. Yes. Representative DCUs.

Um, my question is, at what point does an immediate warrant, um, is warranted if a child is in severe danger and after we go through this process, or how many times through this process before we get to the child to remove them from an unsafe situation?

Uh, I will answer that a removal warrant by, you know, very, very necessary for that to be a very high standard. Um, removing a child from a parent's home is, I've heard tragic stories of how that is just devastating, not only to the parent, but also to the child in many cases, especially if it's unfounded accusation. So a removal warrant is completely separate. It wasn't, it's not involved with either the underlying bill or the sub. It's a comp, it's a whole different, and it is more exigent, so it has to happen much more quickly. It has a much tighter timeline and so forth. This is just, we, we can't get ahold of the family. We can't verify that the child is, um, not in danger in, you know, severe danger. And so that is what this, this bill addresses.

Great. Thank you so much for that clarification. I really appreciate it. Thank you, speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the substitute motion. I've had the privilege of working and actually speaking with the sponsor of the substitute. And I will tell you initially the underlying bill I was opposed. We take due process seriously. We take evidence collection seriously. We take intruding into the sanctity of people's homes. Seriously, in law enforcement, we had a policy in my office of going eyes on before an investigator closes a case. We had a relentless detective who continuously tried and tried to, tried, tried over months, months to go eyes on a couple of times they were successful, but they were able to articulate that over the course of these months, the conditions have degraded. It took months to determine that we were had enough to get the removal warrant, but we were only able to get the removal warrant because they went eyes on. And when the children were removed and sent to the hospital, one of the children was within hours, if not days, of becoming deceased as a result of malnutrition. Now, the reason I bring this up is, is because law enforcement can get the warrant, but these cases are mandatory reporting cases and law enforcement and DCFS are supposed to be working together. The problem when we talk about warrants is it takes time and it puts the onus typically on law enforcement. Removal warrants do come from DCFS typically, but they rely on evidence that is collected from law enforcement. We can't get that evidence if they're not answering the phone and they're taking their kids from school and they're not answering the door. So a lot of time we only can base, uh, the information we need to get eyes on or potentially an eyes on warrant, um, through testimony, friends, family, those who are actually seeing the kids, I think they have done an incredible job of threading the needle. I think they've done an incredible job of not putting the entire burden of going eyes on, on law enforcement. And it doesn't prevent law enforcement from getting an all-encompassing warrant absent the ag directly from the court if they so needed or if an exigent circumstance existed, this was not a result I saw coming. I'm grateful it's here, and I would absolutely encourage the body to support the substitute.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just would say, again, it's trying to strike that balance. And with that, i, I, I waive the rest of my sum or thank you for your support. I hope.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very sensitive issue. There have been some specific, very tragic cases that have been referenced, so I do wanna be very sensitive in my comments. Okay. There are absolutely problems with putting eyes on children. There are absolutely parents who should never be parents and should not have their children, but there are more parents that should, and I, I am concerned with this. I do not believe that this would necessarily solve the problem. In some of the cases that have been referenced, some of these cases had DCFS involvement over years. Some of these cases had DCFS place a child with the abuser. So this wasn't necessarily a lack of awareness, but there were other actions in my opinion that were missing. There is already a process for them to get a warrant to find a child, but that has to be based on evidence. The shift from the district court into the juvenile court changes the evidentiary bar. And I don't believe that we should be going into people's homes to put eyes on their children getting warrants again to find the evidence. This is based on an allegation. This is not necessarily based on a piece of evidence that's been found. If you, some of these cases that have been referenced, they had teachers repeatedly making reports, but the action wasn't being taken to keep the children safe. This change wouldn't have necessarily fixed that issue because there is no guarantee when they already were able to see the child and they didn't, why would they go in when they couldn't see the child? Okay. I, I don't think this fixes the issue. Parental rights are absolutely enshrined by the state of Utah. We love our families. We work reunification to make sure children are safe and with their biological families. And in my opinion, this does go a step too far. I don't think that we should be issuing warrants off of allegations. I think these things should come off of evidence, and it is tragic. It is absolutely tragic, but I don't believe the mishandling of some cases is enough to open the door on parental rights for everyone else. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I, I too rise in opposition to this bill. I, I appreciate, um, the comments of, of our good colleague from, uh, Weber County, um, and his, uh, expertise in law enforcement. Um, I, I too am concerned that this is a new mechanism for, for government to have the ability to enter private homes, um, concerned about the potential significant fourth, uh, fourth Amendment intrusion issues. Um, there are mechanisms in place now through the district court to be able to, um, address these concerns. And I think going through a juvenile court and DCFS, um, will, will lead to, um, some problems when it comes to transparency and oversight. I also have concerns about, um, having, um, this, uh, the ability to get this warrant, um, to, to become a, a tool that's more of a norm. Um, and hopefully that wouldn't be the case. And, you know, I stand, I rise today as a father of, of six children. And, um, and I feel like as, as a society and as a body, our number one responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable, to protect our children. And, uh, I just believe that this bill is, is going a little farther than I'm comfortable with going and would encourage, um, um, my colleagues to oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in opposition, but I do appreciate the sponsor of the bill, the motivation behind this and the, and the care that they've taken and the concern over some of the mo more high profile cases in the state. I also appreciate the sponsor of the sub. I know that they have good hearts. My concern, and I would just point my colleagues to the recent Olag audit on DCFS, um, and it pointed to the agency failing over and over and over again to even meet its own internal standards, its current standards. This is a concern when we're talking about giving even more power in this space to the same agency that is struggling right now. So I would urge my colleagues to push pause to really see if the agency is going to make strides to actually meet their own standards before we insert more power into the agency. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Um, as I listen to the concerns, I take them very seriously. We've tried this before. We are not trying to take away parental rights. Um, as a mom, as a grandma, I absolutely, uh, don't believe in that. But we have a problem here in Utah. I don't know why. We just do. And we have too many people harming kids, keeping them away from everyone. And we're lucky because we have had people realize that something was wrong and, and reported them. We had one down in, uh, grand County in December. People noticed that the child was losing weight and then you start looking and there are marks on, on their wrists and on their ankles and, and someone did report that, but that, but that also, that little boy was also, um, going to become another victim. As we do often with a lot of the legislation that we pass here, sometimes we don't get it right, but sometimes we get it really right. If, if we could pass this, we could try it. We could see if it works. If it doesn't, we as a body have the ability to come back and say it didn't work and we change it, eliminate it, do something different. I just feel like the problem is not going away and it's getting worse. And I urge your support of this. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, motion to substitute

Yes, I would. Thank you. Motion To adopt First substitute, Oh, I'm sorry. Second substitute. Motion to adopt. Second substitute, which is online

Thank you. That was close. Um, it is online and there is a handout out that was passed around. But the background on this, as the good representative from Price mentioned, um, she and I and the bill sponsor serve, uh, on the child, um, welfare legislative oversight panel. And one of the things we do on that panel is we review each year the child lethality report for Utah, which, which summarizes the deaths of all children in who've had any association with DCFS over the previous two years, if they pass away or nearly pass away. Uh, we review that. And the reason for that is, um, there was a court case years ago in which, um, the state was found liable. And so we do that to find ways in which children may fall through the cracks. And, um, so this bill kind of comes out of that background and with, especially with these high profile cases, Gavin Peterson and Ruby Frankie's children Case. And there are others, of course, in fact, um, child torture cases are increasing across the nation, but even in Utah, sadly, and you can probably call some of them to mind even from several years ago. Um, but in both of these cases, as the representative said, um, there were, the families knew how to evade detection. They knew that three step process simply don't answer the door, don't, don't answer the phone and, and isolate the child. Um, withdraw them from all neighborhood, play from church, from school, everything. Um, because of that loophole, Utah child abusers have had a lot of power, not only over the children, um, that they abuse, but also even over our state safeguards like, um, DCFS, they, they really have a way of getting around. And, but yet there were some concerns expressed, or at least, um, noted as we discussed the bill. And some of those are, those are addressed in this sub. The sub is not about parents, it's about the real goal here is to get eyes on the child. And, um, and it requires a probable cause. It can't just be, we're just curious, we wanna see the child. No, there has to be probable cause. It requires that a peace officer accompany the caseworker. It is not a removal warrant that the family or DCFS would need a much stronger warrant to do that. It also limits what they may investigate. They can only investigate health and safety of the child. They cannot investigate the cleanliness of the home or what is in the pantry, et cetera. This is, this is a child safety warrant also. Um, it's also very difficult to get this warrant. Just like any other warrant, the case worker, um, must make a diligent effort to reach the family. The supervisor will be consulted and decide with the caseworker if there is enough evidence to take it to the ag. The ags office will then determine if there is probable cause and that is a high standard reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. The AG will then file a request with the court and a judge will make that determination. So that's four people who must agree before this sort of warrant could be issued. And that is really what the bill does. It tries to provide a balance between reducing or eliminating, hopefully these, these terrible cases. And balancing also with the parental rights, which we all agree are very important as well and should always be considered. It also is a way to respond to the increasing number of severe child abuse cases that we're seeing. And with that, um, that is what the sub does and I would appreciate the body support.

to adopt second substitute, i, I Support this substitute. Thank you.

Yes. Um, with the sponsor of the sub yield to a question Representative Acton, will you yield?

Yes, I will. Yes. Representative DCUs.

Um, my question is, at what point does an immediate warrant, um, is warranted if a child is in severe danger and after we go through this process, or how many times through this process before we get to the child to remove them from an unsafe situation?

Uh, I will answer that a removal warrant by, you know, very, very necessary for that to be a very high standard. Um, removing a child from a parent's home is, I've heard tragic stories of how that is just devastating, not only to the parent, but also to the child in many cases, especially if it's unfounded accusation. So a removal warrant is completely separate. It wasn't, it's not involved with either the underlying bill or the sub. It's a comp, it's a whole different, and it is more exigent, so it has to happen much more quickly. It has a much tighter timeline and so forth. This is just, we, we can't get ahold of the family. We can't verify that the child is, um, not in danger in, you know, severe danger. And so that is what this, this bill addresses.

Great. Thank you so much for that clarification. I really appreciate it. Thank you, speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the substitute motion. I've had the privilege of working and actually speaking with the sponsor of the substitute. And I will tell you initially the underlying bill I was opposed. We take due process seriously. We take evidence collection seriously. We take intruding into the sanctity of people's homes. Seriously, in law enforcement, we had a policy in my office of going eyes on before an investigator closes a case. We had a relentless detective who continuously tried and tried to, tried, tried over months, months to go eyes on a couple of times they were successful, but they were able to articulate that over the course of these months, the conditions have degraded. It took months to determine that we were had enough to get the removal warrant, but we were only able to get the removal warrant because they went eyes on. And when the children were removed and sent to the hospital, one of the children was within hours, if not days, of becoming deceased as a result of malnutrition. Now, the reason I bring this up is, is because law enforcement can get the warrant, but these cases are mandatory reporting cases and law enforcement and DCFS are supposed to be working together. The problem when we talk about warrants is it takes time and it puts the onus typically on law enforcement. Removal warrants do come from DCFS typically, but they rely on evidence that is collected from law enforcement. We can't get that evidence if they're not answering the phone and they're taking their kids from school and they're not answering the door. So a lot of time we only can base, uh, the information we need to get eyes on or potentially an eyes on warrant, um, through testimony, friends, family, those who are actually seeing the kids, I think they have done an incredible job of threading the needle. I think they've done an incredible job of not putting the entire burden of going eyes on, on law enforcement. And it doesn't prevent law enforcement from getting an all-encompassing warrant absent the ag directly from the court if they so needed or if an exigent circumstance existed, this was not a result I saw coming. I'm grateful it's here, and I would absolutely encourage the body to support the substitute. Thank you representative Gwen.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just would say, again, it's trying to strike that balance. And with that, i, I, I waive the rest of my sum or thank you for your support. I hope.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very sensitive issue. There have been some specific, very tragic cases that have been referenced, so I do wanna be very sensitive in my comments. Okay. There are absolutely problems with putting eyes on children. There are absolutely parents who should never be parents and should not have their children, but there are more parents that should, and I, I am concerned with this. I do not believe that this would necessarily solve the problem. In some of the cases that have been referenced, some of these cases had DCFS involvement over years. Some of these cases had DCFS place a child with the abuser. So this wasn't necessarily a lack of awareness, but there were other actions in my opinion that were missing. There is already a process for them to get a warrant to find a child, but that has to be based on evidence. The shift from the district court into the juvenile court changes the evidentiary bar. And I don't believe that we should be going into people's homes to put eyes on their children getting warrants again to find the evidence. This is based on an allegation. This is not necessarily based on a piece of evidence that's been found. If you, some of these cases that have been referenced, they had teachers repeatedly making reports, but the action wasn't being taken to keep the children safe. This change wouldn't have necessarily fixed that issue because there is no guarantee when they already were able to see the child and they didn't, why would they go in when they couldn't see the child? Okay. I, I don't think this fixes the issue. Parental rights are absolutely enshrined by the state of Utah. We love our families. We work reunification to make sure children are safe and with their biological families. And in my opinion, this does go a step too far. I don't think that we should be issuing warrants off of allegations. I think these things should come off of evidence, and it is tragic. It is absolutely tragic, but I don't believe the mishandling of some cases is enough to open the door on parental rights for everyone else. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I, I too rise in opposition to this bill. I, I appreciate, um, the comments of, of our good colleague from, uh, Weber County, um, and his, uh, expertise in law enforcement. Um, I, I too am concerned that this is a new mechanism for, for government to have the ability to enter private homes, um, concerned about the potential significant fourth, uh, fourth Amendment intrusion issues. Um, there are mechanisms in place now through the district court to be able to, um, address these concerns. And I think going through a juvenile court and DCFS, um, will, will lead to, um, some problems when it comes to transparency and oversight. I also have concerns about, um, having, um, this, uh, the ability to get this warrant, um, to, to become a, a tool that's more of a norm. Um, and hopefully that wouldn't be the case. And, you know, I stand, I rise today as a father of, of six children. And, um, and I feel like as, as a society and as a body, our number one responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable, to protect our children. And, uh, I just believe that this bill is, is going a little farther than I'm comfortable with going and would encourage, um, um, my colleagues to oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in opposition, but I do appreciate the sponsor of the bill, the motivation behind this and the, and the care that they've taken and the concern over some of the mo more high profile cases in the state. I also appreciate the sponsor of the sub. I know that they have good hearts. My concern, and I would just point my colleagues to the recent Olag audit on DCFS, um, and it pointed to the agency failing over and over and over again to even meet its own internal standards, its current standards. This is a concern when we're talking about giving even more power in this space to the same agency that is struggling right now. So I would urge my colleagues to push pause to really see if the agency is going to make strides to actually meet their own standards before we insert more power into the agency. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Um, as I listen to the concerns, I take them very seriously. We've tried this before. We are not trying to take away parental rights. Um, as a mom, as a grandma, I absolutely, uh, don't believe in that. But we have a problem here in Utah. I don't know why. We just do. And we have too many people harming kids, keeping them away from everyone. And we're lucky because we have had people realize that something was wrong and, and reported them. We had one down in, uh, grand County in December. People noticed that the child was losing weight and then you start looking and there are marks on, on their wrists and on their ankles and, and someone did report that, but that, but that also, that little boy was also, um, going to become another victim. As we do often with a lot of the legislation that we pass here, sometimes we don't get it right, but sometimes we get it really right. If, if we could pass this, we could try it. We could see if it works. If it doesn't, we as a body have the ability to come back and say it didn't work and we change it, eliminate it, do something different. I just feel like the problem is not going away and it's getting worse. And I urge your support of this. Thank you Mr. Speaker.