Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/06/2021 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Children's Justice Act Task Force | |
| HB105 | |
| HB13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 13-SHARED CHILD CUSTODY: BEST INTEREST
4:30:23 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act relating to shared child
custody; relating to relocation of a child out of state; and
relating to a presumption of the best interests of the child in
child custody and visitation determinations."
4:30:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 13. He explained that HB 13, the
shared parenting bill, recognizes that children deserve both
parents if they are fit, loving, and capable. He said research
has shown children have the most productive outcomes when both
parents are active in their children's life, regardless of
current marital status. The bill intends to mitigate high
conflict situations seen in child custody cases with the
presumption that both parents have equal parenting time in the
best interest of the child, he continued. Current statutes
state neither parent may have preference over the other parent
and allow for 50/50 physical custody to occur, but do not
presume both parents are equal under the law. Representative
Rauscher stated that the government cannot compel parents to be
active parents, but the government can allow for the environment
to occur, except in cases where the mother or father or both
seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral, or
emotional health. He said HB 13 would allow for the presumption
to be rebutted through clear and convincing evidence under the
child's best interest guideline [AS 25.25.150(c)]. He further
related that the bill would allow both parents to develop a
[parenting] plan conductive to their child's best interest.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER maintained that current statutes create
a winner-take-all mentality in favor of one parent through at-
fault litigation practices. He stated that if the presumed
custodial parent wins physical or sole custody, conditions for
parental alienation, custodial interference, absence, high
conflict, or ancillary effects such as alcohol, drug abuse, and
mental health collapses can take root if the parent is still
pursuing high conflict methods and tactics. He said HB 13 would
place children first by giving them the opportunity to develop
strong parent-child relationships, place mediation for parenting
plans ahead of litigation, allow for stability by tightening
relocation loopholes, mitigate parental alienation to the
targeted parent and extended family, and strengthen the
intergenerational connection in families. Representative
Rauscher added that he believes shared parenting is a human
right and that children have a human right for a positive,
healthy parent-child relationship regardless of marital status.
4:35:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER provided a sectional analysis of HB 13.
He said Section 1 would add intent language stating the ensuring
of frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact of a child with
each parent and that the shared responsibility is in the best
interest of the child.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said Section 2 would define parenting
time and state that the best interest of the child is shared
parenting but would allow that presumption to be rebuttable with
clear and convincing evidence that shared physical custody,
joint legal custody, and equal parenting time is not in the best
interest [of the child]. He related that [Section 3] would
require the parents to consult one another when making major
decisions regarding the child's health, education, and general
welfare. He explained that [Section 4] deals with relocation of
a child and would provide for constant procedures from both
parents. It describes the items necessary for a court accepted
parenting plan and would provide for a rebuttal presumption that
a parenting plan, as agreed to by both parents, is in the best
interest of the child.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER specified that Section 5 would amend AS
25.20.090 by replacing the term "child custody" with "physical
custody" or "joint legal custody" and would direct the court on
what factors to consider, such as the child's preference, the
child's needs, home stability, and willingness of each parent to
facilitate a continuing close relationship with the other
parent. He conveyed that Section 6 would allow for the rebuttal
presumption when determining the best interest of a child. He
said Section 7 provides that denial of shared physical custody
or joint legal custody shall be stated on the record.
4:37:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that Section 8 deals with the
modification of a custody visitation order while a parent is
deployed. He related that Section 9 would allow the court to
award attorney fees and cost of actions when attempting to alter
custody awards, and it would direct the court to consider the
financial resources of each party. He said Section 10 provides
definition for joint legal custody and shared physical custody.
He conveyed that Section 11 would provide that determining the
best interest of a child shall [include] two additional factors
the distance between a child's residence and each parent's
residence, and if a parent is incarcerated.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained that Section 12 would replace
"joint" physical custody with "shared" physical custody in [AS
25.24.150(g)] regarding a history of domestic violence. He said
Section 13 would provide that the court shall consider false or
frivolous allegations of sexual assault; domestic violence;
child abuse, abandonment, or neglect; or [the providing of]
false or deceptive financial information [to the court]. He
stated that Section 14 would include a parenting plan in the
written agreement of the financial decree of the dissolution.
He said Section 15 would repeal AS 25.20.060(c), which is the
current [subsection] of statute regarding awarding shared
custody to both parents. He concluded by relating that Section
16 would [add a new section] providing that this Act is
applicable to custody orders issued on or after the effective
date of this Act.
4:39:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed his support for HB 13. He said
he still needs to review the bill, but that there is a desperate
need for this, and the courts need direction as to what are the
guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated he doesn't bring HB 13 before the
committee believing it is ready to go out the door. He said he
is open and acceptable to any comments that would make the bill
be what it should be.
4:41:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX remarked that the committee needs to think
about HB 13 quite a bit before acting on it.
4:41:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER stated she is trying to better understand the
context and scenarios that would be impacted or result from the
proposed legislation. Regarding the need for the bill, she
inquired about the frequency of the problems that the bill is
trying to address.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that the invited testimony
would help provide an answer.
4:43:03 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened invited testimony on HB 13.
4:43:20 PM
DAVID VESPER, Legislative Director, The Fathers' Rights
Movement, provided invited testimony in support of HB 13. He
stated that Alaska has a winner-take-all judicial system for
child situations, and that many Alaskans lack adequate
representation heading into a child custody case. He maintained
that current statutes encourage high conflict relationships
between parents that can result into parental alienation,
domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, criminality, and
mental health issues for the parents, and that children often
suffer from abuse, mental health issues, and challenging
outcomes going into adulthood. These issues can be both inter-
generational and inter-sectional, he added.
MR. VESPER said social science and psychological research shows
that children benefit the most with intact families, but when
this is impractical researchers assert that equal and shared
physical custody offers the next best possible outcomes for
children. He stated that current Alaska statutes do not presume
both parents with equal custody, they only allow it. He cited
Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 as defining joint physical custody as a
period [specified] in writing [in the custody order] of at least
30 percent of the year. However, he continued, no child has
ever said they love one parent 30 percent of the time and the
other parent 70 percent of the time.
4:45:10 PM
MR. VESPER argued that the judge is placed in an uncompromising
position when determining if any allegations cited in the case
go against AS 25.24.150(c) and to what degree. So, he stated,
common tactics in litigation can include allegations of parental
alienation, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, military
status, physical and psychological health, and even immigration
status; all of which have been used against the other parent in
Alaska. The judge must award custody, he continued, which is
much like awarding the winner in this winner-take-all system.
MR. VESPER further argued that this is a human rights issue for
children as well as a civil rights issue. Regarding racism, he
stated that parents who are black, indigenous, or people of
color (BIPOC) are most likely to lose their children then are
white or Asian parents; and BIPOC and bi-racial children are
less likely to be reunited with their parents or the other
parent if that happens. Regarding gender inequities, he said
mothers are awarded either sole custody or primary custody 85
percent of the time. He maintained that these inequities
permeate into the next and succeeding generations or become
intersectional by affecting society with increased drug and
alcohol abuse, lowered education attainments, higher suicide
rates, higher teen-age pregnancy rates, higher crime rates, and
increased sexual, domestic, intimate partner violence. He
stated that fixing the family will begin to fix the issues that
plague Alaska's society and that cost the state millions if not
billions of dollars.
MR. VESPER noted that this type of legislation recently became
law in Kentucky, Arkansas, and West Virginia. He said HB 13
would place mediation ahead of litigation, expand judicial
discretion, address the relocation issue with many Alaskan
families, and preserve the child's best interest standard. In
response to Representative Kurka, Mr. Vesper agreed to provide
the data cited in his testimony.
4:50:44 PM
DIXIE BANNER, State Director, Alaska Fathers' Rights Movement,
provided invited testimony in support of HB 13. She stated she
is representing the grandparent rights integrated into the
family rights. She said both genders are impacted by the
current laws. She related that in her own family the issue has
gone on for 45 years - her mother left when she was five years
old and her father took over the children, now she has gone
through her own traumas, and her son is presently going through
this with his stepson. The system must change, she advocated,
or it will continue.
MS. BANNER noted that abuse and neglect have financial cost to
the state along with human cost. If parents are required to
take accountability for their children, she stated, there will
be fewer social issues. She related that her husband has been
alienated [from his children] for 19 years and the cycle
continues with alienation from his grandchildren. She urged
that this issue be fixed so this broken system will stop. She
said if other states can change the system and reduce domestic
violence, it can also be done in Alaska. She noted she believes
in the parenting plan because it would require that both parents
be involved and held accountable for their children's actions.
4:54:50 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on HB 13.
4:55:33 PM
ALLEN BAILEY, Esq., testified that he has been a family lawyer
in Anchorage for 37 years and a prosecutor for an additional 10-
11 years. During these years, he related, he has been
representing clients who have been impacted by domestic violence
and their families in family law matters such as child custody,
divorce, custody modification, and relocation.
MR. BAILEY said children are not an animal like a dog or cat so
that time can be divided without affecting their developmental
issues, nor are children an item of property like a truck or an
investment account that can be divided down the middle. He
stated that developments in family law are really society's way
of permitting people who have been victimized, or who would like
to end their relationship, to achieve a future without someone
else controlling them or someone else abusing them. He said he
will submit further written remarks to the committee.
4:57:41 PM
RITA ALLEE, Esq., testified in opposition to HB 13. She said
she has been a domestic relations lawyer in Alaska for 46 years.
She stated that the subject of the complaint is AS 25.24.150,
the statute which addresses the needs of the children, the
capability and desire of the parents to foster those needs, the
child's preference, love, and affection existing between the
parent and child, the length of time the children have been in a
stable environment, the ability of the parties to facilitate the
relationship with the other parent, and questions of domestic
violence and substance abuse in the home. This statute, she
explained, is directly targeted to issues of importance
regarding the best interest of the children, and this statute
requires that the judge hearing the case make findings of fact
on each of these cited elements.
MS. ALLEE related that foundational to Alaska custody law is the
belief that a robust relationship between a child and both
parents is in the best interest of the child. That is
foundational to the court's examination of this issue, she
further related, and there will be a direct finding in each case
regarding facilitation of that relationship by each of the
parties. She stated that the complaint seems to be that it is
necessary to focus on 50/50 timesharing between the parents, the
point of which can only be a focus on fairness to the parents.
She said it's important to recognize that fairness to the
parents is, by definition, not necessarily the same thing as the
best interest of the children. She further stated that Alaska
has a gender-neutral statute closely targeted to the best
interest of the children. The proposed statute, she argued,
focuses on something entirely different, which is fairness to
the parents, and therefore she is opposed to HB 13.
5:00:51 PM
MARIANNA MALLORY testified in opposition to HB 13. She related
her belief that the bill would be harmful to domestic violence
victims and their children. She said the current practice in
Alaska is already shared custody, but it is not presently
mandated. This proposed change in law, she stated, would make
shared custody the standard for all families and raise the
burden on victims to overcome that standard. She maintained
that raising this burden of proof will negatively impact victims
who cannot afford attorneys and do not have the skills of an
experienced litigant.
MS. MALLORY said another matter of concern is the proposed new
best interest factor that adds whether a parent made a false or
frivolous allegation of sexual assault, domestic violence, child
abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, or provided false or
deceptive financial information to the court. She argued that
if a victim is ultimately unable to properly articulate her case
and the crimes committed against her, this new proposed interest
factor would punish her for presenting her concerns at all.
Victims are often inundated with false claims and accusations
from the perpetrator of violence following their reporting, she
continued. Blanket denials of all allegations by the
perpetrator are common, she added, and if the victim does a poor
job presenting her case this bill would increase the ability of
the perpetrator of violence to use the system against the
victim. Ms. Mallory stated that victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or child abuse are already often justifiably
skeptical and mistrustful of the Alaska court system, and they
often do not feel it is designed to protect them and their
children. This [proposed] change, she further stated, would
only instill further fear in victims of the justice system while
creating barriers by preventing meaningful access and creating
an order that is not truly in a child's interest.
5:03:50 PM
ALESHA P. testified in opposition to HB 13. She stated that it
sounds like somebody who is an abuser, whether male or female,
woke up one day and said, "I need more rights because it's not
working in the courtroom ? they are ruling against me, and
abusers like me." She said she therefore opposes HB 13.
5:04:31 PM
TARYN BIRD, Esq., testified in opposition to HB 13. She noted
she is a divorce and custody attorney who has specialized in
domestic violence and family law for seven years. She stated
she agrees with Mr. Allen Baily and Ms. Rita Allee regarding
their sentiments and concerns with HB 13, and she agrees with
their position. She said that this proposed legislation ignores
the reality of the landscape of civil divorce and custody cases
in Alaska. Most of [her] litigants, she related, are pro se and
under the current statute it is hard enough as a practiced
attorney to fight for the rights of the victim and for the
safety of children when there is a preponderant standard for the
domestic violence presumption. She argued that HB 13 would
create a windfall to individuals who can afford representation
and would disadvantage those who cannot, which most often are
victims of crimes of domestic violence or children of abuse.
MS. BIRD noted that multiple concerning provisions with this
bill were voiced a few years ago when a similar bill was brought
before this committee, and [concerns] were voiced recently by
many attorneys in Alaska when this legislation was proposed.
She asked the committee to consider what HB 13 fails to say.
What deficiency is this bill addressing? She maintained that
the law presently does not have the issues that have been
presented by the writers of the bill. She said the vaguely
referenced custody issues and statistical facts from other
states do not define the state of Alaska, do not define Alaska's
law, and do not define how Alaska's judges interpret the facts,
look at the evidence, and make a determination in the children's
best interest. The execution of the law by the courts following
the best interest statute, she continued, does lead to good
orders that consider the children's needs and not the parents'
needs.
5:07:27 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY closed public testimony on HB 13. She urged
that anyone else wishing to testify submit their comments online
to the committee.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that HB 13 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Key Findings_03_2021.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| CJA Brochure 2016 Update.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| 2017-PSB-Fact-Sheet-Overview-What we Can Do.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| CJA Members List 5-5-20 (002).pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| CJATF2021 Presentation.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| CSA Final Draft.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| Economic Value of Community services for YSBP.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| Harmful Sexual Behavior Framework.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| HB 13 Version A.PDF |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB 13 Sponsor Statement Version A.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB 13 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB 105 Amendment 1_Snyder.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Amendment 2_Snyder.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Detention of Minors Sectional Analysis Version 32 GH1576 I.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| DHSS comparison of HB116 (HB105 or SB91) with notes.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |
| CS for HB 105.pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| CJATF2021LegV3.1COMPRESSED.pptx |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
Children's Justice Act Task Force |
| DRAFT-HB105-DHSS-PS (003).pdf |
HHSS 5/6/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |