SB 115 creates a new reporting requirement for the Administrative Office of the Courts to send quarterly reports to the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) listing convictions for specified animal cruelty offenses. The report must include identifying information—name, birth date, address, and offense—for people convicted of cruelty to animals, aggravated cruelty to an animal, torturing a companion animal, dog fighting, attending a dog fight or related activity, and injuring, harassing, or endangering a service animal.
The bill also directs DCFS to document the information it receives, but it expressly prohibits DCFS from investigating a person for child abuse or neglect based solely on one of the listed animal-cruelty convictions. The measure is framed as a cross-reporting and information-sharing bill rather than a new criminal penalty or a change to the underlying animal-cruelty offenses.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Utah Code and require ongoing coordination between the courts and DCFS. It would expand the flow of conviction data into child welfare records, potentially affecting how DCFS screens for household risk factors, while limiting the use of that information as the sole basis for a child abuse or neglect investigation. The bill does not appropriate money and takes effect May 6, 2026.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had some early committee support, with unanimous 4-0 favorable and substitute recommendations in Senate committee, but it later failed on the Senate floor by a 10-15 vote. That pattern suggests the concept had some support in committee but did not secure broader chamber approval. Overall, the sentiment seems mixed: supportive of child-safety information sharing in principle, but not enough consensus to pass.
Contention
The main point of contention is the policy choice to link animal-cruelty convictions with child welfare reporting. Supporters likely view the bill as a tool for identifying households where animal abuse may signal broader safety concerns, while opponents may worry about privacy, overreach, or the risk of stigmatizing individuals based on convictions unrelated to child abuse. The bill tries to address one concern by stating that a listed conviction alone cannot trigger a child abuse or neglect investigation, but the floor vote indicates that safeguard did not resolve all objections.