Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/15/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CHAIR TOOHEY brought HB 422 to the table. HB 422 - CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION RIGHTS CHAIR TOOHEY indicated that the meeting would be teleconferenced at 3:45 p.m. REP. BUNDE indicated that Terry Lauterbach from Legal Counsel had amendments to be submitted. CHAIR TOOHEY said that would be acceptable. REP. B. DAVIS indicated that she also had amendments that she wanted distributed. CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the written testimony from Linda Straube was new or the same as last week's written testimony. She was told by a number of people that it was new. REP. BUNDE made a motion to adopt his Amendment 1. CHAIR TOOHEY asked Rep. Bunde to address his amendment. REP. BUNDE said, "Well, let me back up a little bit first and ask Ms. Lauterbach if these amendments are incorporated in the CS." Number 265 TERRI LAUTERBACH, Legislative Legal Counsel, Division of Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, indicated that the first three amendments are in the committee substitute (CS) to HB 422. CHAIR TOOHEY said she did not have a CS. Number 267 PATTY SWENSON, Legislative Aide to Rep. Bunde, answered questions in Juneau regarding the CS for HB 422. She said, "You don't have the CS because we are doing this all by amendment. And, there was not a real CS made up for the CS." REP. BUNDE indicated that his Amendment 1 deletes the words "at least" from page 3, line 10. He said the sentence would read, "...the court shall award the visiting parent the following visitation rights." Number 333 REP. OLBERG said that the sentence could be interpreted to apply only to children who are five years old. REP. BUNDE explained to Rep. Olberg that the amendments addressed the CS (8-LS1606\E) not the original bill. CHAIR TOOHEY indicated that the words "at least" were being deleted from line 10. She then asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, Chair Toohey stated that Amendment 1 was so moved. REP. BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 for purposes of discussion. He referred to page 3, line 22, and indicated that after the word "child" language would be inserted to allow flexibility to the Christmas and Thanksgiving holiday schedules by taking into account the travel distances unique to Alaska. Number 403 MS. LAUTERBACH stated that in addition to the issue of travel, which was discussed in the previous meeting, she included the option of the parents agreeing on a practical schedule, as she felt it seemed to only make sense. She said, if the committee found the phrase to be unacceptable, the phrase could be taken out. CHAIR TOOHEY asked for discussion. She then asked for objections. Hearing none, Chair Toohey announced that Amendment 2 had been adopted. Number 440 REP. BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 3. He referred to page 5, line 12, and explained that the words "at least 25 percent" would be deleted. CHAIR TOOHEY asked for discussion or objections. There being none, Chair Toohey stated that Amendment 3 was so moved. She then brought Amendment 4 to the table. She indicated that after page 3, line 6, a new subsection would be added that would allow a party not to give 60 day notice of relocation if the party relocates with the child to a temporary shelter or safe home that is part of a domestic violence or sexual assault program. REP. BUNDE asked Chair Toohey if the amendment would threaten the security and anonymity of the safe home if the party must notify the other parent of the relocation. CHAIR TOOHEY said that subsection 2 indicates that the parent in the shelter does not have to make notification if the acceptance policy of the shelter prohibits the relocating party from divulging its location. She also explained that the relocated party cannot give out the phone number. Number 539 REP. BUNDE pointed out that there are only a few safe homes in Juneau and surmised that the perpetrator would know where the shelter is. He said the amendment requires the relocating party to tell the other person. CHAIR TOOHEY asserted that it cannot be assumed that the other parent is always the perpetrator. REP. BUNDE maintained that he did not have a problem with the amendment, but wondered if the language would counter regulations or statutes pertaining to the shelters and safe homes. Number 581 MS. LAUTERBACH said she was unaware that a women could not tell anyone that she is in a safe home. REP. B. DAVIS interjected and said the party seeking shelter cannot give their address. CHAIR TOOHEY said it's a "safe" home. MS. LAUTERBACH said she thought she had sufficiently provided for that concern under subsection 2. She further indicated that the abuser would not have to be notified, which is stipulated under subsection 1. REP. BUNDE offered that perhaps his concerns were misguided. CHAIR TOOHEY reiterated that the abuser would not have to be notified. REP. B. DAVIS asked that the committee consider her Amendment 5 which includes the language in Amendment 4 and offers further provisions. CHAIR TOOHEY said that would be fine. She then asked if the committee would have to amend the amendment. REP. B. DAVIS asked that her Amendment 5 be added on to Chair Toohey's Amendment 4. REP. BUNDE asked if it was Rep. B. Davis' Amendment 5 or 6. REP. B. DAVIS replied Amendment 5. She referred to page 3, line 4, and indicated that the amendment would change 60 days to 30 days. She asked the committee if they wanted to address that concern at another time or not. REP. BUNDE indicated that Amendment 4 is before the committee and that the amendment must be voted on before Rep. B. Davis' Amendment 5 is voted on. REP. OLBERG stated that Rep. B. Davis' amendment does exactly what Chair Toohey's amendment proposes. plus changes the notification period from 60 to 30 days. CHAIR TOOHEY withdrew her amendment to discuss Rep. B. Davis' Amendment 5. Number 684 REP. B. DAVIS, for purposes of discussion, made a motion to adopt Amendment 5. CHAIR TOOHEY asked for objections. REP. BUNDE objected for purposes of discussion. REP. B. DAVIS explained that the first part of the amendment would insert the word "a" on page 3, line 1. She further indicated that on page 3, line 4, the number 60 would be changed to 30. REP. BUNDE asked if the committee would address each individual change or would the amendment be discussed in its entirety. CHAIR TOOHEY said the changes could be discussed individually. REP. BUNDE said that he does not object to changing the 60 day relocation notification to 30 days. He asked if the committee would like to discuss the change. REP. OLBERG said, "Looks to be about half as long, to me, Madam Chairman." CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Rep. Olberg for his wise observation. She then asked Rep. B. Davis to explain why she thought 30 days would be better. REP. B. DAVIS said she felt 30 days would be a more reasonable expectation and asked the committee if there were any conflicting concerns. Number 749 REP. BUNDE asked Ms. Swenson if, when she had spoken to the people involved in the research, there was any justification that specifically addressed the 60 day notification. MS. SWENSON said there were no conversations that indicated that 60 days was better than any other amount of days. However, she asked, if notification was lowered to 30 days, would there be time enough within those 30 days to go to court and make the necessary modifications? REP. B. DAVIS said she was unable to answer the question. She indicated that she based the 30 days on the fact that most people in rental situations are required to give 30 days notice. She said she was unclear as to why 60 days was chosen. MS. SWENSON maintained that 60 days was the chosen number of days to allow for the parents to go back to court and obtain a modification. REP. B. DAVIS stated that she did not think there would be a problem with 30 days. MS. SWENSON said she could not be sure as to whether or not the 30 day notification would pose a problem or not. Number 785 CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Rep. B. Davis felt that 60 days was a problem for her. REP. B. DAVIS said, "I think it's unreasonable to tell a person they can't do anything about a move until 60 days or whatever it is. I think it's unreasonable. That's why I cut it in half." CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there would be a problem in regards to the court system and scheduling. REP. B. DAVIS said she was unable to answer that question. REP. VEZEY felt that 30 days was more reasonable than 60 days. He reminded the committee that the courts would just as soon not see or hear these types of cases, period. CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further discussion or objections. Hearing none, Chair Toohey indicated that particular portion of the amendment was so moved. REP. B. DAVIS further indicated that Amendment 5 would insert two new subsections which would allow a party to not give 30 day notice if relocation has been made to a shelter or safe home. Also, she said her amendment goes further and would allow a party to not give 30 day notice if they are served with an eviction notice or for the purpose of medical care. She further stated that she wanted to include as a fourth exception for the purpose of a job change, but it was not included in the amendment before the committee. Number 858 REP. BUNDE said he had no objections to the amendment except for the exception of a job change. He felt that a job change was something that a person plans for longer than 30 days. He said if Rep. B. Davis would like to submit the amendment without the job change inclusion, he would not oppose the amendment. REP. B. DAVIS said the inclusion was not actually in the amendment. REP. BUNDE said he understood that. CHAIR TOOHEY said that she agreed with Rep. B. Davis and said, "when you're fired, you're fired. You don't always get 30 day notice when you're fired." She asked if there were any objections to Rep. B. Davis' Amendment 5. REP. B. DAVIS said she would not bring forth the issue of job change to the amendment. CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no objections, said Amendment 5 was adopted. Number 896 REP. BUNDE indicated that Ms. Lauterbach had submitted Amendment W (8-LS1606\W). CHAIR TOOHEY asked Rep. Bunde if he had reviewed the amendment. REP. BUNDE said no. CHAIR TOOHEY asked Ms. Lauterbach if Amendment 6 was related to her Amendment W. MS. LAUTERBACH asked if Amendment W had been relabeled Amendment 6. REP. B. DAVIS indicated that she has an amendment labeled Amendment 6. CHAIR TOOHEY indicated that Ms. Lauterbach was the drafter of Rep. B. Davis' Amendment 6. She asked if they were related. REP. BUNDE asked Ms. Lauterbach if Rep. B. Davis' Amendment 6 relates at all to Ms. Lauterbach's Amendment W. MS. LAUTERBACH said no. CHAIR TOOHEY asked Ms. Lauterbach to address her amendment. MS. LAUTERBACH asked that a member move the amendment for purposes of discussion. REP. BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment W for purposes of discussion. CHAIR TOOHEY said, "Hearing no objections, it's so moved. Go ahead for discussion." Number 935 MS. LAUTERBACH said that it occurred to her to draft an amendment that would include dissolutionments as the bill currently does not provide for it and recommended that the committee decide as to whether dissolutionments should be addressed in the legislation. She said Amendment W would apply to dissolution proceedings except for those that are started by one party because the other party had abandoned the family and cannot be found. She said there must be agreement between the parties. She said the way the bill reads now, she is afraid a court would have to award a minimum visitation schedule to an absent spouse. Ms. Lauterbach indicated that Section 6 of the amendment requires that when the Superior Court is petitioned, it must be shown that custody and visitation has already been agreed upon which complies with the visitation requirements within the new section. MS. LAUTERBACH further indicated that Section 7 of the amendment requires that the agreements under visitation rights must meet the requirements under AS 25.20.104. She said Section 8 would ensure that the written agreement complies with the requirements of AS 25.20.104. Number 022 CHAIR TOOHEY said, "Let the record show that I'm very nervous doing this. I don't understand the legalese on it, and I don't really feel, I'm not qualified to accept the responsibility of passing something like this without a lot of testimony and a lot of expert testimony. Because of the participants involved, when there's so much anger in some of these, that I just, and the ones that are hurt are the innocent ones. And, I'm just very nervous by doing this..." (Chair Toohey announced that Rep. Brice arrived at 2:45 p.m.) Number 053 REP. BUNDE asked the committee to consider the inclusion of dissolutionment under the purview of the bill. He said it was his desire to have the dissolutionment included. REP. B. DAVIS said, although she did not support every provision in the bill, she felt that dissolutionment should be included. She also felt there should be further testimony. REP. BUNDE again made a motion to adopt Amendment W. CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no objections, declared that Amendment W was adopted. Number 087 REP. BUNDE then indicated that Amendment X would not be germane. CHAIR TOOHEY concurred. REP. BUNDE recommended that Rep. B. Davis' Amendment 6 be considered. CHAIR TOOHEY brought Rep. B. Davis' Amendment 6 to the table. REP. B. DAVIS addressed Amendment 6. She referred to page 1, line 10. TAPE 94-50, SIDE B Number 000 REP. BRICE asked for another copy of the CS (version E). CHAIR TOOHEY explained that the first part of Amendment 6 would insert the phrase "except as provided in (B) of this section." REP. BUNDE asked Ms. Lauterbach what the effect of the change would be. Number 045 MS. LAUTERBACH said she was asked to draft an amendment that would require that a person not be convicted for interfering with visitation rights until there had been at least one mediation session. Number 058 REP. B. DAVIS explained that representatives from various groups concerned with domestic violence expressed concerns regarding the party having to come face to face with the abuser during a mediation session. She said, "And they said if I was going to do anything like this, it should be tied into Civil Rule 100." She then asked Ms. Lauterbach to address the issue. MS. LAUTERBACH said she did not know Civil Rule 100 off the top of her head. REP. B. DAVIS explained that the rule pertains to mediation. MS. LAUTERBACH indicated that if Civil Rule 100 has an exception for domestic violence, then there would not be the allowance for one mediation session, and the case would go directly to a criminal court. REP. B. DAVIS asked Ms. Lauterbach if she would be comfortable with that. She then indicated that she wanted to withdraw the amendment as it would not be beneficial and that she would do further research on the subject. Number 105 CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were any more amendments to be heard. There being none, she asked for teleconference testimony from Anchorage. Number 106 GLENDA STRAUBE testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 422. She stated that she would have wanted her ex- husband to visit more with her children, but there were times when she would not let her children go with their father on visitation because he had been in two separate single car accidents with the children with him as a result of drinking and driving. She indicated that he was angry when she told him he needed to quit drinking or he would not be able to see the children. She said that if the proposed legislation was enacted at that time, he could have called the police, had her arrested, taken the children, and she would have been in jail because her ex-husband was never drunk when he picked the children up. She further indicated that at that time she was part of the "working poor" and would not have been able to afford a lawyer and as far as the father's two accidents, there were never any reports filed, so she could not prove that he had been drinking and driving. Ms. Straube said if she were found guilty she would have had to spend 90 days in jail. MS. STRAUBE then summarized a news article where a man in Eagle River, Alaska had submitted his own obituary to the Anchorage Daily News and then disappeared. She said a police officer had actually acted on behalf of the man to obtain visiting rights to his children. She referred to the man as "nutty" and implied that he would be able to have visitation rights under the proposed law. MS. STRAUBE further stated that the proposal would make mothers criminals and would take time away from custodial parents who would be busy in courts defending themselves. She further indicated that she had submitted written testimony. Number 213 CHAIR TOOHEY explained that she had no intention of moving the bill out of committee that day. She then asked for further testimony. Number 215 KARLA HUNTINGTON, Attorney, testified via teleconference on HB 422. She stated that if the legislation was passed and not enforced, it would impede civil law in the civil court system. She asked that the committee staff research the interaction between HB 422 and AS 9.50.030 pertaining to domestic violence orders. She further indicated that if the bill was to pass as written it would increase the case load for civil courts. She then said, "In terms of 9.50.030, that's contempt. Right now, if I want to go in and get a parent to go to see their kid with an order to show cause, it's a fairly effective mechanism, even though it may take more than three months. But, I have civil contempt 9.50.030... interacting with this order means that even if I only ask for civil contempt, the fact that it's now a crime means that the offending parent has the right to a jury trial. And, you have to have the jury trial at the civil level before you can even get the jury trial at the criminal level." MS. HUNTINGTON referred to page 2, line 13, and indicated that a parent could be gone for two years, come back, and ask for visitation right away. She said that there should be a provision for "reasonable notice" in that situation. She further indicated that the relocation provision is too broad. Number 315 JIM ARNESON, President, Alaska Family Support Group, testified in support of HB 422. He stated that most problems pertain to visitation and parental interference. He said there are countless children that are denied relationships with both parents. He said Ms. Straube's concerns are addressed on page 3, lines 20-25, of the proposal which allows the courts to vary from requirements if it is in the best interest of the child. He further indicated that he does not support the removal of the words "at least" from page 3, line 10. He then indicated that there should be a proper notice time of relocation and that 60 days was acceptable. He further indicated that prolonged visits for emergency; i.e., visiting a sick grandmother; does not fall under the temporary conditions provided for in the bill. He urged the passage of HB 422. Number 372 REP. B. DAVIS asked Mr. Arneson why the legislation should impose a criminal penalty. MR. ARNESON stated that denying children the right to both parents is a criminal act. REP. VEZEY asserted that the issue is not the degree to which society is offended, but is the jail time involved and the custody of the children, citing that a person that is put in jail cannot continue to have custody of the children. He reminded Mr. Arneson of the cost to tax payers to keep a person in jail and asked him if it would be in the best interest of the child to have the custodial parent in jail. Number 416 MR. ARNESON said, "When you have two parents, I feel that you should allow the other parent to have the child. I don't think it's necessary to put parents in jail. I think both parents should have access to the children. I'm not necessarily saying we should throw parents in jail, but if somebody is voluntarily refusing to allow a relationship to exist between the other parent, then they should just lose custody." REP. VEZEY maintained that the aforementioned circumstance would be a civil procedure and not a criminal penalty. He said the legislation requires "jail time." MR. ARNESON explained that in some cases there should be jail time served and that New Jersey has jailed parents for up to five years for visitation interference. REP. VEZEY said he knew of many people who have served jail time for not paying child support and it did not serve the family in any beneficial way. MR. ARNESON said he was not "strictly" in favor of putting people in jail and explained that he felt HB 422 would let people know there will be consequences to their actions; i.e., losing custody. Number 454 REP. BUNDE indicated that the legislation provides for prosecutorial discretion. He then referred to page 2, line 4, and said that a pattern of intentional interference must be engaged in. He said Margot Knuth, Assistant Attorney General from the Department of Law, was unable to be present but indicated that she would address those concerns in the House Judiciary Committee. He then asked that the CS as amended be available as soon as possible to the Legislative Information Offices. CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further teleconference testimony. Number 460 STEVE CULVER testified via teleconference in support of HB 422. He stated that the legislation would not throw custodial parents in jail. He felt it sets the table more fairly for both parents. He indicated that if a noncustodial parent intentionally avoids payment of child support, that parent can go to jail. He further explained that jail time will serve as a deterrent to those parents who interfere with visitation. Number 554 CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were any questions. There being none, she asked for teleconference testimony from Mat-Su. Number 560 TRACY DRISKILL, Founder, Family Affirmative Action, testified via teleconference in support of HB 422. She stated that the bill does not make women criminals but gives children the right to the access of both parents. She said the legislation would make a custodial parent think twice before denying court ordered visitation. She further indicated that children of divorce have a better chance developmentally and psychologically in life if they have access to both parents. She felt that limiting a child to anything less than 29.5% access to the noncustodial parent would be like "imprisoning that child against one parent." She said that her husband is a noncustodial parent who is tired of being denied court ordered visitation and explained a scenario where a judge told her husband that there was nothing he could do to deter the custodial parent from leaving the state. She urged the passage of HB 422. Number 608 TAMMY STEELE, wife of a noncustodial father, testified via teleconference in support of HB 422. She stated that her husband and she have had repeated problems with the guidelines for visitation for his daughter and cited that they are always at the mercy of the custodial parent. She further stated that a 29.5% is not unreasonable for the minimum visitation amount and the concept would lend balance to the child's life. She said, as a result of the denial of court ordered visitation, her step-daughter's grades in school have suffered and she has also suffered emotionally. She related a story where the custodial parent did not show up to a designated meeting area with the daughter because suddenly after four years the custodial mother said that visitation did not start until 9:00 a.m. Saturday. The custodial mother changed the time with no notification and no grounds. She said that several weeks of dealing with and paying attorneys ensued. She further explained that her step-daughter has moved several times in the last 18 months and that she and her husband never know where they will pick her up next. She felt that the custodial parent should be held accountable. Number 665 CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were any questions. There being none, she continued with teleconference testimony. Number 667 STEPHANIE McBRIDE testified via offnet in support of HB 422. She stated that the testimony from Ms. Straube does not represent all women of Alaska. She said that she has spoken with many disinterested women who feel that there should be reasonable visitation with both parents. She felt that there are many vindictive mothers in the state that will stop visitation whenever they feel like doing so. She explained that a criminal action would only be initiated when a pattern of interference has been established. She then recommended that the committee consider the visitation laws of Michigan. She felt that the minimum visitation should be higher than 29.5% because there are many caring noncustodial parents that would utilize that time by providing their children with the emotional and financial support they need. She strongly urged the passage of HB 422. Number 721 CHAIR TOOHEY asked for further testimony. Number 722 RUSSEL BLOME, a noncustodial father, testified via teleconference in support of HB 422. He stated that he presently has no visitation with his children and can see his children only when the mother "feels" like letting him. He said the bill would allow him to see his children on a predictable basis. He felt that the legislation was not inflexible regarding the children's schedule's and that it provides order, hence better planning of everyone's schedules. He referred to the 60 day notification and said he would like to plan far enough in advance to take his children out of state to visit their grandmother. He also related a story of a time when the custodial parent took his children out of the state for several weeks on vacation and he didn't even know about it. Number 774 REP. B. DAVIS stated that she believes that children should have access to both parents but wondered why Mr. Blome and other noncustodial parents have no visitation rights. She questioned if at the time the divorce or dissolutionment took place whether Mr. Blome wanted visitation or if he somehow felt differently at that time. MR. BLOME said he did not understand the question. REP. B. DAVIS said Mr. Blome would like to have visitation with his child now and asked if he felt that way at the time of the divorce or did he just walk away from the situation and not request visitation. MR. BLOME asserted that he requested visitation but he relied on his attorney and the discretion of the court and was "bamboozled." CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Blome if he was denied visitation by the court. MR. BLOME said, "It was said such that it would be dependent on what a psychologist said. And of course, this psychologist has said that, well they can't make a decision because they want your money more than they really have the child's best interest at heart. So if I want anything I would have to seek another psychologist. I have to seek further attorneys. I have to seek further court action. And, after a while, parents just get discouraged. They just want to say the heck with it all. I want my children, but I need a life, and I can't take the mental and physical stress that this deals out. I have multiple sclerosis, and I have difficulty walking, and sometimes I have difficulty speaking. And, this kind of stress really causes me to be physically impacted." Number 835 CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Mr. Blome for his testimony and asked for testimony from Gary Maxwell. Number 836 GARY MAXWELL, Statewide Coordinator, Children's Rights Council of Alaska, testified via teleconference in support of HB 422. He stated that one of the main benefits of the legislation is that courts will be mandated to specify dates and times for visitation for the children. He said the reason there needs to be a criminal penalty is because the courts do not enforce civil "remedies." He indicated that AS 25.20.140 allows for a $200 sanction to be imposed for each visitation that is denied without just excuse. He explained that if a person is drunk and tries to pick up his or her child, it would be a just excuse for the custodial parent to deny visitation. He asserted that if all custodial parents allowed court ordered visitation, there would be no need for the legislation. He further stated that the passage of HB 422 would ensure children access to both parents. TAPE 94-51, SIDE A Number 000 REP. BUNDE observed that child support enforcement is not enforced vigorously enough and it was his intent to support HB 362, which would make it against the law for anyone to aid in the nonpayment of child support. Number 015 CHAIR TOOHEY asked Rep. Bunde if the legislation provides for "safe" visitation with the noncustodial parents. REP. BUNDE said, "I don't think it says parents must have common sense before they can become parents." CHAIR TOOHEY said, "I'm not talking about common sense. I'm talking about a noncustodial parent who's on drugs or is on alcohol or who has been deemed violent by the courts. Where in this bill, and if it isn't maybe we can address it, that the child should be placed in a safe environment or safe visitation." REP. BUNDE referred to page 3, line 20, and said the court may vary from the requirements if it is in the best interest of the child. CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the court would include stipulations in the decision. REP. BUNDE said the court may vary the requirements if harm or detriment would come to the child. He felt the provision sufficiently addressed Chair Toohey's concerns. Number 065 MS. LAUTERBACH said it was her opinion that page 3, lines 20-25, relate to varying the original visitation order. She felt it did not address concerns that occur after the visitation schedule is set up. She said the provision would not address a situation where a noncustodial parent shows up drunk. CHAIR TOOHEY asked, if HB 422 passes, will parents have to go back to court for court ordered visitation? REP. BUNDE asserted that there must be a complaint first. He observed that there are two parent homes where the child's safety cannot be guaranteed. CHAIR TOOHEY said there are laws that would intercede in those circumstances. REP. BUNDE said they are "rather ineffective laws." CHAIR TOOHEY said those laws should be addressed at a later time. REP. BUNDE asked Ms. Lauterbach to address the question of whether a child could remain in "an unsafe atmosphere" under the provisions of HB 422. Number 135 MS. LAUTERBACH said, "Madam Chair, I think that if the language on page 1, lines 12-14, is kept in the bill that that situation is possible. That you'd be under criminal penalty for not turning the child over if the visiting parent shows up and has a right to the child under the visitation order." REP. BUNDE added that there had been discussion previously about proposing an amendment that would take out item A on page 1, lines 12-14. He reiterated that item A speaks to a pattern of interference. Number 167 CHAIR TOOHEY stated that it was her intent to hear the remaining testimony and to have another meeting on Friday, March 18, to address the latest version of the work draft. She said if at that time the committee is satisfied with the proposal, then HB 422 would be passed on to the House Judiciary Committee. Number 189 FAITH TAVES, Representative, Women in Crisis Counselling and Assistance in Fairbanks, testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 422. She stated that she had grave concerns regarding the proposal. She asserted that the bill does not address the drinking, the drugs, and the violence and abuse that occurs in many homes and is directed toward the children. She maintained that the primary concern should be that of the children. She indicated that there currently are laws in place to deal with deliberate visitation interference and felt that the bill should include a provision that would require noncustodial parents to visit with the child because that problem is more prevalent than that of visitation interference. She also related to the committee circumstances where noncustodial parents will request more visitation to avoid child support and then the child ends up spending time with the custodial parent's new spouse or girlfriend (boyfriend) instead of more one-on-one time with the custodial parent. She felt that the minimum visitation schedule provision precludes the input of the court and custody investigators who are equipped with the information to decide what is in the best interest of the child. She further indicated that there are no exceptions to the 60 day notification of relocation and maintained that there should be, especially if the safety of the child or custodial parent is at risk. She also said, if there must be notification by the custodial parent, there should also be a provision for notification of relocation of the noncustodial parent. She further explained that often low income parents are not afforded 60 day notice to relocate. She reiterated that the bill should focus on a pattern of interference, not just isolated instances. Number 275 CHAIR TOOHEY explained to Ms. Taves that previous to her testimony the committee had adopted an amendment that would require 30 day notice instead of 60 day notice. KERI BASLER, Member, Alaska Family Support Group, testified via teleconference in support of HB 422. She stated that no matter what measures are taken there will always be "bad eggs." She felt that all children's rights should not be spoiled because of a few sick people. She questioned the enforcement of current laws regarding child support payment and stressed the need for the strong enforcement of HB 422. She felt the stability of children is threatened when parents divorce and the proposal would lend stability and the right of access to both parents to the children. She also felt that Civil Rule 100 could be effectively used for mediation. Number 377 MICHELLE JANSEN testified via teleconference in support of HB 422. She stated that she and her husband are no longer involved with his children from a previous marriage because they became fed up with the system and decided that it was in the best interest of the children to be adopted by their step-father. She said prior to that decision they were denied visitation numerous times and the custodial parent was never fined the mandatory $200 for each time denied. She explained that trips were cancelled at the last minute for no justifiable reason. She said men are penalized when they don't pay child support and women should be thrown in jail when they don't allow visitation. She asserted that children have the right to the access of both parents. CHAIR TOOHEY said Dianna Alcantra was waiting to testify and asked her if she had new testimony as she had testified before. Number 463 DIANNA ALCANTRA testified via teleconference in support of HB 422. She thanked Rep. Bunde for introducing legislation that is intended to guarantee children access to both parents. She felt the minimum visitation of 29.5% sends a clear message that the legislature believes that the shared custody is not the preferred custody arrangement and that financial support is more important than the emotional and psychological health of her children. She felt it is in the nation's best interest that both parents share jointly in the parenting responsibilities and noted that the nation's prison systems are mostly populated with people who did not have access to both parents. She recommended that the legislature focus on guaranteeing children access to both parents who share the financial responsibility and the emotional support of their children. She felt the message should be sent that the parents are not divorcing the children. She further explained that there must be an intent to move regarding the notification of relocation and suggested that perhaps a child is better off with the noncustodial parent if abuse is occurring in the home of the custodial parent. She urged the passage of HB 422. CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was further testimony. There was none. She then reminded all those interested that HB 422 would be addressed in Friday's meeting. Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR TOOHEY ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:36 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|