SB 113 creates a statutory declaration that a parent’s liberty to nurture, care for, have custody of, and control their child is a fundamental right in South Dakota. It directs state agencies and local government officers or agencies not to infringe that right unless the government action is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means allowed by law. In effect, the bill places a constitutional-style standard into state law for government actions affecting parental decision-making.
The bill also includes an express limitation stating that it may not be used to challenge proceedings under chapters 26-7A or 26-8A, which are the state’s child protection and abuse/neglect-related court provisions. That carveout preserves the ability of the state to continue child welfare interventions and court proceedings in those areas without the new parental-rights language being used as a defense or basis for challenge.
Impact
SB 113 would add a new section to chapter 1-1A of the South Dakota Codified Laws and would affect how state and local officials evaluate actions that burden parental rights. It does not create a new private cause of action in the text provided, but it would likely be cited in disputes over education, healthcare, custody-related administrative actions, and other government interactions with families. The bill expressly preserves child abuse and neglect proceedings under chapters 26-7A and 26-8A, limiting its reach in juvenile and child protection cases.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill drew meaningful support but also notable opposition and repeated attempts to amend it. Several committee and floor votes passed by comfortable margins, while other votes were closer, including a failed motion to amend and a conference committee report that was not adopted before a later report was adopted. Overall, the pattern indicates broad interest in parental-rights protections, but not unanimous agreement on the bill’s wording or scope.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be how broadly the parental-rights protection should apply and whether the bill could interfere with government functions involving children and families. Supporters likely viewed the measure as a safeguard against government overreach into family decisions, while opponents or amendment supporters likely wanted clearer limits, narrower language, or stronger protections for state authority in education, health, and child welfare. The explicit exclusion of chapters 26-7A and 26-8A suggests child protection proceedings were a central concern in shaping the final language.