Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/13/2017 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 8-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS
2:04:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 8, "An Act relating to protective orders."
2:05:23 PM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Brice Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, referred to the Explanation of Changes in Committee
Substitute for HB 8, and paraphrased as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
During HB 8's first hearing before the House Judiciary
Committee, Representative Eastman noticed two sections
of the bill that could be drafted more economically.
Sections 8 and 9 of the original bill concern
recognition of domestic-violence-related protective
orders in statutes regarding dissolution of marriage.
Section 8 included that a petition for dissolution of
a marriage must state whether during the marriage one
spouse or the other was either the petitioner or
respondent of a domestic-violence related protective
order.
Section 9 included that a court should give a
heightened level of scrutiny to dissolution agreements
if one party or the other was either the petitioner or
respondent of a domestic violence-related protective
order.
These statutes currently single out protective orders
issued in another jurisdiction, including the
requirement that they be filed with an Alaska court.
However, because of the amendments the bill makes to
AS 18.66.140(b) that singling out is no longer
necessary. Protective orders issued in another
jurisdiction, along with the fact that they needn't be
filed with an Alaska court, would now be covered in
the range of statutesAS 18.66.100 through 18.66.180
already cited in these sections, at AS
25.24.210(e)(7)(B) and at AS 25.24.220(h)(2)(B).
The committee substitute therefore simply repeals the
subparagraphs that make reference to "a protective
order issued in another jurisdiction and filed with
the court in this state under AS 18.66.140." These are
AS 25.24.210(e)(7)(D) and AS 25.24.220(h)(2)(D).
2:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked the location of the repealers in
Version D.
MR. CLARK advised they are in Sec. 8, [page 4, line 23].
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the difference between the original
bill and Version D, is that Sec. 8 and 9 of the original bill
are deleted, and the remainder of the bill remains the same.
MR. CLARK agreed, and he said Version D is a more economical way
of drafting the bill.
2:09:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER surmised that all of this is captured in
another section of the code somewhere, and that this is a
duplicate of that code.
MR. CLARK referred to Sec. 8 of the original bill, beginning
page 5, lines 18-19, [AS 25.24.210(e)(7)(D)], which read as
follows:
(D) a protective order issued in
another jurisdiction and recognized [FILED WITH THE
COURT] in this state under AS 18.44.140;
2:10:43 PM
MR. CLARK then referred to [AS 25.24.210(e)(7) and (e)(7)(B)],
page 5, lines 12-19], which read as follows:
(7) whether any of the following has been
issued or filed during the marriage by or regarding
either spouse as defendant, participant, or
respondent:
(B) a protective order under AS
18.66.100 - 18.66.180;
MR. CLARK advised that either spouse could also have been the
defendant, participant, or respondent under AS 18.66.100 -
18.66.180, which read as follows:
(D) a protective order issued in
another jurisdiction and recognized [FILED WITH THE
COURT] in this state under AS 18.66.140;
MR. CLARK then referred to Sec. 6 [AS 18.66.140(b), page 4,
lines 11-19], which read as follows:
(b) A protective order issued in another
jurisdiction [FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH (a) OF THIS
SECTION] has the same effect and must be recognized
and enforced in the same manner as a protective order
issued by a court of this state, regardless of whether
the protective order issued in another jurisdiction is
filed as described in (a) of this section, if the
protective order is
(1) issued by a court of the United States,
a court of another state or territory, a United States
military tribunal, or a tribal court;
(2) related to domestic violence; and
(3) entitled to full faith and credit under
18 U.S.C. 2265.
MR. CLARK noted that [AS 18.66.140(b), Version D, page 4, lines
11-19] details the fact that a protective order from another
jurisdiction no longer requires registration in a court of
Alaska [to be enforced].
MR. CLARK further explained that the language in [Version A], AS
18.66.140(b)(7)(D) falls within the range described in AS
18.66.140(b)(1)] (B); therefore, the language is no longer
necessary, which read as follows:
(B) a protective order under AS
18.66.100 - 18.66.180;
(D) a protective order issued in
another jurisdiction and recognized [FILED WITH THE
COURT] in this state under AS 18.66.140;
2:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that [Version D] may be more
economical, but something important may be missing because
[subparagraph] (B) discusses protective orders and it is under
the umbrella of being issued by a state court of jurisdiction.
Alaska has a unified court system in Alaska "so it's -- it's not
-- you know, we don't have municipal law in Anchorage, I guess
they do, but other than that we're state." He related that
subparagraph (D) is important because it discusses a protective
order issued in another jurisdiction, "meaning outside or not,
not recognized -- it's not within Alaska. He opined that the
only jurisdiction "they can be talking about" is a non-Alaska
court of jurisdiction, so it may not just be semantics we're
talking about here."
MR. CLARK responded by pointing the committee to Version A, Sec.
6, and reiterated that [subparagraph] (B) does lay within the
range described in [subparagraph] (B). [Subparagraphs (B) and
(D) were transcribed above.] He explained that, as amended,
[Versions A and D], AS 18.66.140(b) does specifically address
the issue of protective orders issued in other jurisdictions,
together with the fact that protective orders are no longer
required to be registered in a court of the State of Alaska to
be enforced.
2:15:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked what section of law is AS 25.24 is
related to, and noted that AS 18.66 is domestic violence.
MR. CLARK responded that it addresses statutes having to do with
the dissolution of marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed concern that it is dealing with a
separate section of the law, and the committee could
inadvertently do something it doesn't want to do.
2:16:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the Sponsor's Statement as
to Version D, and noted that the word "foreign" was added.
MR. CLARK answered that it is a "term of art," used in a legal
context to refer to a protective order issued by another
jurisdiction, and it doesn't imply a court outside the
boundaries of the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Mr. Clark could ensure
that his testimony is absolutely the case so there is never a
broader interpretation.
MR. CLARK opined that it is quite firmly ensured in Version D,
Sec. 6, [AS 18.66140(b)], [page 4, lines 16-17], which read as
follows:
(1) issued by a court of the United States,
a court of another state or territory, a United States
military tribunal, or a tribal court;
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that she understands, although it
raised concern because the language was not included in Version
A.
2:19:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to adopt HB 8, Version 30-LS0127\D
as the working document. There being no objection, Version D
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opened public testimony.
2:20:16 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), advised that the Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) is
comprised of 18 member programs, with 6 affiliate members,
providing shelter and emergency response services, and
prevention services around issues of domestic violence and
sexual assault. The Alaska Network on Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) supports HB 8, and she noted that the
bill does bring Alaska into compliance with the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA), it brings the state into best practices, and
it may allow ADNVSA to access additional funds. Oftentimes, she
explained, victims and survivors living in rural areas must go
to regional hubs in order to access services. In the event
these individuals are able to obtain a protective order from
their own tribal government, it will provide an extra level of
security and protection when they arrive [at their destination].
2:12:17 PM
MS. LOWRY offered that the recognition of protective orders from
other states, and particularly territories, is important because
ANDVSA has a large network that extends down to coalitions in
other states. She explained there are times that victims and
survivors need to flee from their own state and move to Alaska,
and ANDVSA is able to facility that. This bill allows them to
have the safety they need in transit and upon arrival. Finally,
she offered, it shores up trust because people know they can
obtain a protective order that will be respected in other
jurisdictions, and they will be kept safe.
2:23:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered concern that officials in the
tribal courts may know the person who committed the assault, and
the person may not receive the justice they deserve due to the
close relationships within the villages. She asked whether Ms.
Lowry had concerns in that regard.
MS. LOWRY responded that in a small isolated rural area, people
know people - it is a given. She opined that once a protective
order is obtained, at one point it will expire with
opportunities to extend the order for other reasons. She
explained that the first time a person obtains a protective
order, it is based on the notion that someone needs that
protection. She stated that she was unsure how to answer the
question of limiting an alleged perpetrator or an alleged
defendant access to justice, but she could get back to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that having worked in small villages in
his public safety capacity, small communities are effective at
carrying out justice.
2:26:24 PM
TERRA BURNS, Community United for Safety and Protection (CUSP),
advised that the Community United for Safety and Protection
(CUSP) strongly supports HB 8, because it is well known that
Alaska is the rape capital, the domestic violence capital, and
the child abuse capital of the country, and it only makes sense
to at least bring Alaska into compliance with federal law
regarding these issues. She asked that the committee vote yes
on the bill.
2:27:10 PM
JAYNE ANDREEEN, Interim Executive Director, Alaska Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, advised that the Alaska
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault supports this
bill, it aligns with federal level and ensures the greatest
level of protection for victims across the country, especially
as they move to Alaska. It is important to recognize that the
flip side is also true for people who obtain restraining orders
in Alaska; however that may be, when they go out-of-state their
order is enforced, she offered.
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 8.
2:29:04 PM
MARY LUNDQUIST, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals & Ethics Section, Office of the Attorney General,
Department of Law (DOL), in response to Representative Eastman's
earlier question that referred to the removal, in Sec. 8 of the
Title 25 paragraph, regarding the petition for dissolution of
marriage, and echoed the comments of Mr. Clark. She explained
that the earlier reference in statutes AS 18.66.100 - 18.66.180,
would include the statute AS 18.66.140, which deals with the law
of protective orders. She opined that the elimination of the
two paragraphs in Sec. 8 is fine.
2:30:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER noted that Version D reads that AS
25.254.210(e)(7)(D) and 25.24.220(h)(2)(D) are repealed. He
surmised that it means the committee is taking them out of
statute which pertain to dissolution of marriage, and asked
whether the language is captured elsewhere in the statutes.
MS. LUNDQUIST answered that both subparagraphs (D), referred to
in Sec. 8 of the bill, is reference to the law of protective
orders that were required to be filed under AS 18.66.140(b) as
it is currently written. The requirement that foreign
protective orders be filed [in Alaska courts] before
enforcement, she said.
2:32:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether there could be value when
introducing a new concept into the law to restate that a
protective order issued in another jurisdiction is valid, he
commented. He said he is trying to weigh the effect of
economizing language when the committee is also talking about an
entirely different section of law outside of the domestic
violence statutes, now in the dissolution of marriage.
2:33:43 PM
Ms. LUNDQUIST responded that sometimes duplication and multiple
statements in a statute, runs the risk of confusing things more
than helping fix things. In that regard, she pointed out,
someone looking at the statute might look at the two separate
paragraphs and surmise that the paragraphs can't mean the same
thing because they are both put into the statutes. Whereas
here, she opined, the removal of subparagraph (D) in Sec. 8
would form a reference to the VAWA protective orders, which
would fall under the revised AS 18.66.140(b).
2:34:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected if one looks at the two
different sections in Sec. 8, of Version D, AS
25.24.210(e)(7)(D) and AS 25.24.220(h)(2)(D) are repealed. He
explained that the language in those two statutes are not
repealing a huge bunch of statute language. Actually, he
further explained, the language being removed is a short
paragraph that is identical language in both. He paraphrased as
follows: "Subsection (b). A protective order issued in another
jurisdiction and filed with the court in this state under AS
18.66.140."
2:35:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that it removes a small subsection rather
than changing large portions of the divorce and dissolution
statutes. He opined that that is the place of concern because a
lot of language, in Sec. 8 and 9, appear in the original bill.
The actual part being deleted is a small part of both of those
sections, he reiterated.
2:36:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER inquired as to the historical reason for
this since it was duplicative all along, and it references a
protective order under AS 18.66.100 - 18.66.180, thereby
encompassing AS 18.66.140. He commented there was some reason
that this was included prior to this, and it causes concern to
not know the reason prior to this and eliminate it without
knowing that reason.
MS. LUNDQUIST advised that she does not know the historical
reason [subparagraph D] was in AS 18.66.140.
2:38:16 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Services,
responded that she had not performed the legislative history,
but from a drafting perspective, subparagraph (D) that is being
repealed in Version D, had a requirement that the foreign
protective order issued in another jurisdiction had to be filed
in the this state under AS 18.66.140 to be recognized. She
explained that those amended provisions and state that the
protective orders are now, essentially, automatically
recognized. She offered her understanding that the necessity to
specifically spell out that the protective order is recognized
under AS 18.66.140, is no longer necessary because it would be
captured above. Prior to that, she related, it may have been
necessary to point out that those protective orders in another
jurisdiction had to be filed with the court in Alaska first.
That is the only explanation she can offer but, again, that's
qualified in the sense that she hasn't gone through the
legislative history to confirm that was the initial intent of
that law when it was enacted, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER noted that it references Version D, Sec.
6, AS 18.66.140, and he paraphrased as follows: "A protective
order filed in accordance with [subsection] (a) of this
section." He pointed out that it appears to be referencing
things that were already there and he would like its legislative
history.
2:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the primary purpose of this
bill is to remove the requirement that protective orders be
registered in Alaska [to be enforced]. By removing that
requirement, Alaska is now in compliance with federal law and if
the statute had been written "without that" it would have looked
"as we see here now." He advised that the requirement created
additional paragraphs, and in keeping with the purpose of the
bill, the statutes would return to what it would have looked
like without that special caveat.
2:42:56 PM
MR. CLARK related that the bill drafter emphasized the language
in "the amended section in the bill." He asked the committee to
look at the explanation of changes regarding the dissolution
statutes, and explained that subparagraph (D) was a singling out
of protective orders issued in other jurisdictions, including
the requirement that they be filed in an Alaska court. He said,
"The crux is, however, because of the amendments the bill makes
to AS 18.66.140(b), that singling out is no longer necessary."
Those protective orders are now covered in that full range,
assuming the amendment made in Sec. 6 [Version D] stands. He
related that his description is the simplest way of describing
it, and the bill drafter went a long way in explaining that.
2:44:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER advised that he is supportive of this
bill, although, he has a particular fear of Version D without
more background knowledge. He pointed out that to save 17 words
in two different parts of the statute could come at a loss or
could have an unintended consequence. He remarked that
subparagraph (D) has been duplicative all along to subsection
(b) which means someone highlighted it for some reason.
2:45:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP agreed with Representative Fansler, and said
this is an example of the importance of the revisor's bill
because the revisor's office wades through these tedious issues
endlessly in preparing the annual work product for the
legislature's review. He commented this might be a harmless
error, as Ms. Wallace pointed out, but he appreciates this
discussion because sometimes in attempts to economize, the
legislature can do more damage than good.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related there is the possibility of the
revisor coming back in a subsequent legislature to request a
change, but that is not any reason to change the law and expect
the revisor to come back and do the work for us. In reference
to the discussion, in his mind it is clear what the original
statute accomplished and he is unaware of any particular
discussion that would have given him pause for these changes.
In the event the committee is instructing judges on how they are
to deal with child custody issues, the committee can safely
assume the judges will be apprised of the changes to this
statute. When speaking with law enforcement on the street there
is value in spelling out the changes in statute, he noted.
2:49:04 PM
The committee took an at ease from 2:49 p.m. to 2:53 p.m.
2:53:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that during the at ease, Representative
Fansler had questions and, in an abundance of caution, the
committee will not move this bill today.
[HB 8 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB008 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver. D 2.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Explanation of Changes in CSHB8(JUD) 2.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 ver. A 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Sponsor Statement 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Sectional Analysis 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Additional Documentation-7.30.15 VAWA Enforcement Dept. of Law Opinion 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Additional Documentation-2014 Repeal of Alaska Exemption to VAWA 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Additional Documentation-USCODE Title 18 Chapter 2265--Full Faith and Credit 1.20.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Additional Documentation-18 USCA Section 2265 Full Faith and Credit Given to Protection Orders 2.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Additional Documentation-Sponsor's Reply to Tribal Court Funding Question 2.9.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 1.27.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |
| HB008 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 1.27.17.pdf |
HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 8 |