Do you recognize this? You've probably never seen anything like it
before. It's a section of the "Utah Code", the rules that give
bureaucrats their superior sense of authority over other people.
This little bit of wisdom says that the courts of the state have hashed over the idea that parents have some rights with regard to their own children, but we know how foolishly optimistic those judges can be. Of course official representatives of the state are always wiser and better than natural parents in determining the "best interests" of children. Who could doubt that--look at their record of success.
You think your children are really yours? Only at the good pleasure of the pretty great State of Utah. This means that "agents" have more authority over your children than you do, and can do whatever they want with your children, whenever they decide it's best.
The presumption that bureaucratic officials are better at judging the interests of children is in part designed to facilitate the criminalization of former fathers. Since the bureaucrats know that ex-fathers are all just deadbeats, it's easy to convince jurists and politicians to discriminate against these hateful creatures.
62A-4a-201. Rights of parents --
Children's rights -- Interest and responsibility of state.
(1) (a) Courts have recognized a general presumption that it is in the best interest and welfare of a child to be raised under the care and supervision of his natural parents. A child's need for a normal family life in a permanent home, and for positive, nurturing family relationships will usually best be met by his natural parents. Additionally, the integrity of the family unit, and the right of parents to conceive and raise their children have found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The right of a fit, competent parent to raise his child has long been protected by the laws and Constitution of this state and of the United States.
(b) It is the public policy of this state that parents retain the fundamental right and duty to exercise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing, and education of their children who are in their custody.
(2) It is also the public policy of this state that children have the right to protection from abuse and neglect, and that the state retains a compelling interest in investigating, prosecuting, and punishing abuse and neglect, as defined in this chapter, and in Title 78, Chapter 3a. Therefore, as a counterweight to parental rights, the state, as parens patriae, has an interest in and responsibility to protect children whose parents abuse them or do not adequately provide for their welfare. There are circumstances where a parent's conduct or condition is a substantial departure from the norm and the parent is unable or unwilling to render safe and proper parental care and protection. Under those circumstances, the welfare and protection of children is the consideration of paramount importance.
(3) When the division intervenes on behalf of an abused, neglected, or dependent child, it shall take into account the child's need for protection from immediate harm. Throughout its involvement, the division shall utilize the least intrusive means available to protect a child, in an effort to ensure that children are brought up in stable, permanent families, rather than in temporary foster placements under the supervision of the state.
(4) When circumstances within the family pose a threat to the child's safety or welfare, the state's interest in the child's welfare is paramount to the rights of a parent. The division may obtain custody of the child for a planned period and place him in a safe environment, in accordance with the requirements of Title 78, Chapter 3a, Part 3, Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Proceedings.
(5) In determining and making "reasonable efforts" with regard to a child, pursuant to the provisions of Section 62A-4a-203 and keeping with the presumptions described in Subsection (1), both the division's and the court's paramount concern shall be the child's health, safety, and welfare.
(6) In cases where actual sexual abuse, abandonment, or serious physical abuse or neglect are involved, the state has no duty to make "reasonable efforts" or to, in any other way, attempt to maintain a child in his home, provide reunification services, or to attempt to rehabilitate the offending parent or parents. This Subsection (6) does not exempt the division from providing court-ordered services.
(7) (a) It is the division's obligation, under federal law, to achieve permanency for children who are abused, neglected, or dependent. If the use or continuation of "reasonable efforts," as described in Subsections (5) and (6), is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for a child, then measures shall be taken, in a timely manner, to place the child
in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are
necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child.