SF0133 amends Wyoming law to strengthen protections for parental rights by creating an express damages remedy against governmental entities that violate W.S. 14-2-206. The bill also amends the state’s governmental immunity statute to make clear that immunity does not bar claims brought for violations of parental rights under the referenced law, and it authorizes the use of such violations as a defense in appropriate circumstances.
In practical terms, the bill would expose state and local governmental entities to liability for damages when their actions unlawfully interfere with parental rights as defined in existing law. It creates a new statutory cause of action and ties it to Wyoming’s Governmental Claims Act framework, thereby affecting how claims against public agencies and employees are handled when parental-rights violations are alleged. The act is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would modify Wyoming’s governmental immunity and parental-rights statutes by creating W.S. 1-39-124 and amending W.S. 1-39-104(a) and 14-2-206. Its main legal effect is to waive immunity for governmental entities in cases involving violations of parental rights under W.S. 14-2-206, allowing damages claims that otherwise would be barred. This would affect state and local agencies, public employees acting within the scope of their duties, and litigants asserting parental-rights claims or defenses against government action.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition. It received a 3-1 recommendation for amendment and do pass in the Senate Judiciary Committee, then passed Committee of the Whole by a narrower 17-14 vote. That pattern indicates the bill was viewed favorably by a majority, but with substantial concern or disagreement among legislators about the scope and consequences of expanding liability for government actions involving parental rights.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether the bill appropriately expands governmental liability and weakens immunity in the context of parental-rights disputes. Supporters likely view the measure as a needed enforcement mechanism to protect parents from unlawful government interference, while opponents may be concerned about increased litigation, exposure of public entities to damages, and the potential for the law to be used to challenge routine governmental decisions involving children and families. The close floor vote suggests these concerns were significant among lawmakers.