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
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Al Vezey
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Tom Brice
OTHER LEGISLATOR PRESENT
Rep. Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 365: "An Act extending the termination date of the
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers; and providing
for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 422: "An Act relating to custody and visitation
rights."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
TERRI LAUTERBACH, Legislative Legal Counsel
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward St.
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: (907) 465-2450
Position Statement: Proposed amendments for HB 422
PATTY SWENSON, Legislative Aid
Rep. Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Rm. 112
Juneau, AK 99801
Position Statement: Answered questions regarding CSHB 422
GLENDA STRAUBE
1318 N St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: (907) 278-0840
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
KARLA HUNTINGTON, Attorney
845 K St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Position Statement: Testified on HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
JIM ARNESON, President
Alaska Family Support Group
1800 Shore Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99515
Phone: (907) 344-7707
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
STEVE CULVER
1441 Majella
Anchorage, AK 99515
Phone: (907) 345-4886
Position Statement: Testified in support HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
TRACY DRISKILL, Founder
Family Affirmative Action
P.O. Box 875731
Wasilla, AK 99687
Phone: (907) 373-1440
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
TAMMY STEELE
P.O. Box 870535
Wasilla, AK 99687
Phone: (907) 373-3261
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
STEPHANIE McBRIDE
3011 Admiralty Bay Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99515
Phone: (907) 349-5626
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via offnet)
RUSSEL BLOME
P.O. Box 231836
Anchorage, AK 99523
Phone: (907) 349-4053
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
GARY MAXWELL, Statewide Coordinator
Children's Rights Council of Alaska
P.O. Box 92083
Anchorage, AK 99509
Phone: (907) 274-7358
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
FAITH TAVES, Representative
Women in Crisis Counselling and Assistance
717 9th Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: (907) 452-6770
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
KERI BASLER
5800 College Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99504
Phone: (907) 338-1824
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
MICHELLE JANSEN
P.O. Box 242481
Anchorage, AK 99524
Phone: (907) 248-4818
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
DIANNA ALCANTRA
17421 Teklaniker
Eagle River, AK 99577
Phone: (907) 696-4446
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 422
(spoke via teleconference)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 365
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF BARBERS & HAIRDRESSERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS,Barnes
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/94 2052 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/13/94 2052 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/15/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 422
SHORT TITLE: CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION RIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/31/94 2206 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/31/94 2206 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/11/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/11/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/15/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-50, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY called the meeting to order at 3:10
p.m., noted members present and announced the calendar. She
brought HB 365 to the table.
HB 365 - EXTEND BOARD OF BARBERS & HAIRDRESSERS
Number 045
REP. JERRY SANDERS, Prime Sponsor of HB 365, addressed the
proposal. He stated that the purpose of the legislation is
to extend the termination date of the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers from June 30, 1993 to June 30, 1997. He
further stated that the board is presently in the one year
extension period. If the state allows the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers to Sunset, the Division of Occupational
Licensing will also stop the delicensing of the industry,
which will result in a large increase in insurance rates for
the industry. He further indicated that in the case of
injury the state could be held liable.
REP. SANDERS said that licensure is also required to ensure
that barbers and hairdressers receive required training in
the proper use of chemicals. He explained that the industry
is growing so quickly and has so much new technology that
there are many potential dangers to public health. For
example, color and perm solutions that are improperly
applied by untrained or unlicensed people can cause damage
to the scalp, and also to hearing and eyesight.
(Note: Chair Toohey took a brief at-ease from 3:13 p.m. to
3:15 p.m. to allow the committee to regain their composure.)
Number 135
REP. SANDERS further stated that new microwave technology
hair drying machines can also cause severe burns if used
improperly. He asserted that in order to protect the
public's health and safety, the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers must be extended.
Number 151
CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were any questions.
REP. VEZEY asked Rep. Sanders if he knew of anyone who has
microwaved their hair, lately.
REP. SANDERS said he has only heard rumors.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked the pleasure of the committee.
REP. BUNDE made a motion to pass HB 365 out of committee
with individual recommendations.
Number 175
CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no objections, declared that HB 365
was so moved.
REP. BUNDE noted that the legislation has a zero fiscal
note.
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 |
|---|