A potential parental mistake
Text 
No comments [ Add Comment ]T
he baby, the bath water and the tub.
That's what lawmakers were willing to toss last year in their zeal to preclude gay and lesbian partners from exerting parental rights. The ill-considered bill, approved by the House and Senate, was fortunately vetoed by Gov. Jon Huntsman.
The governor recognized that while it is true that gay and lesbian Utahns have been seeking visitation and/or custody rights over children they have helped to raise in since-soured relationships, the bill passed last year promoted even wider unfairness. While it took swipes at gays and lesbians, it also penalized stepparents, grandparents and others who had been granted in loco parentis -- in other words, people who have helped to raise a child, or performed some duties that would normally fall to a parent.
Huntsman's explanation for vetoing the bill in 2006 was persuasive. He wrote, "Once a biological or adoptive parent has allowed a third party to participate actively in the parenting of a child to such a degree that the third party is deemed to be standing in loco parentis, the third party's rights with respect to the child cannot unilaterally be terminated by a parent."
One year later, virtually the same bill is back. Senate Bill 248 has been approved by committee, and is awaiting its turn for debate and a vote on the floor. Its backers note that the phrase "does not effect [sic] any established rights of a stepparent or grandparent" has been added to the bill. But the rest of the language in the legislation appears to render that phrase all but meaningless.
For example, the bill states, "A biological or adoptive parent may at any time terminate a relationship between a person standing in loco parentis and their minor child or children, unless a court of competent jurisdiction concludes, based on clear and convincing evidence, that ... the parent attempting to terminate an in loco parentis relationship is an unfit parent" or "the decision to terminate an in loco parentis relationship would harm the child."
Remember, we're talking about the term "terminate."
That means grandparents, stepparents or stepgrandparents who've helped raise a child all their lives can suddenly be removed -- completely -- from the picture if a formerly drug-addicted or neglectful parent -- one that may or may not have ever had any contact with the child -- can prove they've cleaned up or otherwise rehabilitated themselves.
Sound crazy? That's because it is.
Bill sponsor Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, says the governor's on board with this bill and ready to sign it should it reach his desk. That seems entirely contradictory to the governor's reasons for vetoing the bill last year, but politics is a strange business -- nobody can ever take anything for granted. Last year's opinions are just that: last year's.
We're all for parental rights, but this measure goes too far. As we wrote in this space last year, custody and visitation cases are often too nuanced to leave the decision solely to a biological parent deemed by the state to not be "unfit." This, it appears, would force a judge to side with biological parents against what may be best for the child.
There's still time to defeat this, so let your legislators and the governor know you don't approve. Ask them to kill SB 248.
