The House rejected the Senate’s version of a hotly contested “parents’ rights” bill.
Legislators against the bill argue it could provide a shield to parents who abuse and neglect their children. Supporters say existing wording is enough to stop bad actors.
In prior testimony, the Department of Social Services expressed worries that the bill as it stands could open the door for abusive or negligent parents using codified law as defense in child abuse cases. DSS offered an amendment addressing the concerns.
Rep. Tim Reisch added the amendment on the House floor. Once SB 113 moved to the Senate, Senators chose to remove that amendment.
When it came back to the House, some lawmakers said they would not support the bill without the amendment.
Proponents countered saying existing case law does makes the amendment unnecessary.
Rep. Tina Mulally said the amendment weakens the bill, mentioning a Rapid City woman in a dispute with DSS.
“The issue is with the Department of Social Services, because they took her child away because she spanked it. The child deserved the spanking, according to her, and her husband who happens to be an ex-police officer took two days to report that she spanked him and this woman has now been living six years without her child,” Mulally said. “So sometimes the system gets it wrong, so you can’t always rely on ‘the experts.’ Because to me the experts of a child are the parents.”
The bill’s opponents said opening the door to any potential harm should be enough to strike the bill down.
Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt spoke out against the bill on the House floor. She said, though she’s not sure what the bill is actually supposed to do for parents, what she does know it accomplishes is dangerous.
“The only thing that we know of certainty that this bill does is creates doubt and concern with the Department of Social Services whose job is to protect our kids," Rehfeldt said. "That’s the only thing of certainty that we know of certainty that we know that this bill would actually do at this point with its form. Why are we not listening to that as a concern? Why are we saying, ‘Oh, no big deal. That’s not a big deal?’ It is a big deal, and again."
