Lawmakers mull bill to address child abuse in response to West Haven boy's 2024 death

SALT LAKE CITY — The 2024 death of Gavin Peterson, due to abuse at the hands of his father, stepmother and brother, has spurred legislation to augment the ability of state officials to intervene when they believe a child may be at risk of harm.

SB124 would create a means for juvenile court officials to issue special "investigative warrants" permitting law enforcement reps or child caseworkers to check on the status of children they fear may face health, safety or welfare threats. The warrants could be issued when law enforcement officials or child caseworkers have been thwarted in other efforts to check on such children.

The Utah Department of Child and Family Services "can sometimes be powerless, even when credible threats of harm exist. That's what SB124 is trying to do here, is closing that gap," said Sen. Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, the bill's sponsor. The warrants outlined in the bill could be authorized, she said, "when there is credible, evidence-based concern for serious harm, access to the child has been denied and removal is not yet warranted."

The measure narrowly received a favorable recommendation from the House Judiciary Committee last week, 5-4, and has yet to be heard by the full House as the 2026 Utah Legislative session, to end Friday, winds down. The Utah Senate approved the measure 23-4 on Feb. 18.

Escamilla cited the case of Gavin Peterson, the 12-year-old West Haven boy who died in 2024 after years of abuse and malnutrition. His stepmother, Nichole Scott, father, Shane Peterson, and older brother, Tyler Peterson, are serving prison sentences in connection with his mistreatment and death. Between 2013 and 2024, there were multiple reports and red flags indicating the boy was at risk, Escamilla said, but DCFS officials were unable to check on him due to restrictions and limitations spelled out in law.

"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 endured in isolation," Escamilla said.

She also cited the case of the two young children of Ruby Franke, who was convicted of a range of child abuse charges along with Jodi Hildebrandt in connection with the abuse and mistreatment of the kids, isolated, like Gavin, from others. The father and older sister of the two Franke children, Kevin Franke and Shari Franke, also back SB124.

"Utah's current child welfare system makes it too easy for abusive parents to hide what they're doing. Current laws essentially turn the system into a game of 'cat and mouse' between authorities and offending parents, and the loser is always the children," Kevin Franke said in a statement to KSL.com. "This needs to stop. SB0124 will empower professionals and authorities, through the oversight of the state juvenile court system, to act upon the concerns and tips of those closest to the children."

The bill has its critics, worried about overt government interference in family matters. The four lawmakers who voted against favorably recommending SB124 didn't address their apparent concerns during the hearing, but two reps from the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, among others, voiced their worries, Olivia Dawn and Dalane England.

Dawn cited her own negative experience with DCFS officials related to the care of one of her children and warned of government overreach.

"Parents have the fundamental interest in the care, custody and control of their children, and expanding the state's powers based on predictive concerns rather than demonstrated abuse risks serious harm to innocent children," she said.

England expressed sorrow over the death of Gavin but pointed a critical finger at DCFS and said the organization already wields considerable power.

"Sadly, they did fail Gavin. I do not feel that it is the law that failed him, but I do feel like DCFS did fail him," she said. As written, SB124, England worries, "can be used as a weapon against people with a false accusation."

Numerous others spoke in favor of SB124, while Escamilla said the new law wouldn't grant authorities new powers to remove kids from their homes.

"It does not erode parental rights. It requires a judicial review. It requires probable cause," she said. "It protects family integrity while ensuring that isolation cannot be used as a shield for abuse."

Related topics