03/07/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB80 | |
| SB134 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2012
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Joe Paskvan
Senator Lesil McGuire
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act relating to self defense in any place where a person has
a right to be."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to child support awards; and repealing Rule
90.3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 80
SHORT TITLE: SELF DEFENSE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NEUMAN, FEIGE, LYNN, COSTELLO
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/14/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) JUD, FIN
02/09/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/09/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/11/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/11/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/14/11 (H) JUD RPT 4DP 1DNP 1NR
02/14/11 (H) DP: KELLER, THOMPSON, LYNN, GATTO
02/14/11 (H) DNP: HOLMES
02/14/11 (H) NR: GRUENBERG
03/08/11 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/08/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/11 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/30/11 (H) FIN AT 5:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/30/11 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/04/11 (H) FIN AT 6:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/04/11 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/05/11 (H) FIN RPT 5DP 3NR
04/05/11 (H) DP: FAIRCLOUGH, T.WILSON, COSTELLO,
STOLTZE, THOMAS
04/05/11 (H) NR: GUTTENBERG, JOULE, DOOGAN
04/09/11 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/09/11 (H) VERSION: HB 80
04/11/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/11/11 (S) JUD, FIN
03/07/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 134
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) KOOKESH
01/17/12 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/12
01/17/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (S) HSS, JUD
02/06/12 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/06/12 (S) Heard & Held
02/06/12 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/15/12 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/12 (S) Moved CSSB 134(HSS) Out of Committee
02/15/12 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/17/12 (S) HSS RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/17/12 (S) DP: DAVIS, EGAN
02/17/12 (S) NR: MEYER, DYSON
02/17/12 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/07/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
REX SHATTUCK, Staff
Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 80 on behalf of the sponsor.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the current self
defense law and answered questions related to HB 80.
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Liaison
National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action
(NRA-ILA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information related to HB 80.
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY, staff
Senator Albert Kookesh
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 134 on behalf of the sponsor.
DAISY STEVENS, representing herself
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 134.
DIXIE BANNER, representing herself
Wasilla, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 134.
MICHELLE BAYLESS, representing herself
Copper Center, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 134 if it helps kids.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 134 and explained the review
process under Court Rule 90.3.
JOHN MALLONEE, Director
Child Support Services Division (CSSD)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about child support as
related to SB 134.
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Collections and Support Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to SB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:41 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Senator Coghill and
Chair French were present at the call to order. He stated that
the committee did not have a quorum and would not take action on
any legislation today.
HB 80-SELF DEFENSE
1:33:30 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 80, "An Act
relating to self defense in any place where a person has a right
to be."
1:33:42 PM
REX SHATTUCK, staff to Representative Mark Neuman, a prime
sponsor of HB 80, characterized the bill as the "no duty to
retreat" legislation. He explained that HB 80 amends AS
11.81.335(b) by adding a new paragraph (5) to clarify a person
does not have a duty to retreat and can instead apply deadly
force in defense of self if he/she is anywhere he/she has a
right to be. He noted that approximately 18 other states had
already passed or were working on similar legislation.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Lieutenant Dial with the Department of
Public Safety (DPS), Brian Judy with the National Rifle
Association, Quinlan Steiner with the Public Defender Agency and
Anne Carpeneti with the Department of Law (DOL) were available
to answer questions. He asked Mr. Shattuck if a particular
incident in Alaska served as a catalyst for the bill.
MR. SHATTUCK relayed that a number of constituents and groups
expressed interest in the issue after the question was raised in
several cases in the Lower 48.
1:39:54 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reviewed the bill packet and observed that it
contained an impressive amount of supporting material and
messages from across the state. Promising that the committee
would conduct a detailed examination of the self defense law, he
emphasized that the current law was reasonable and that it was a
misconception that the duty to retreat means that a person has
to give up in the face of a criminal attack. He asked Ms.
Carpeneti to provide an overview of the self defense law as it
currently stands.
1:41:18 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General representing the
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said the first thing
to understand is that self-defense is a defense which the state
has to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
CHAIR FRENCH posed a hypothetical situation to clarify the
meaning of that statement. A mother with two children is
carrying groceries to her car and is beset by a robber in the
parking lot. Believing the man is armed, she uses her own gun to
shoot him. The district attorney's office has to screen that
case and decide whether or not to accept a charge of homicide
against the mother.
MS. CARPENETI added that the screening decision in that example
would be not to prosecute the woman, because in Alaska the duty
to retreat only applies when a person knows that he or she can
retreat in complete safety to him or herself and others they are
protecting.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that the DA would make the decision not
to prosecute because no crime had occurred. It was a lawful use
of self-defense under current Alaska law.
MS. CARPENETI replied that is correct.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if Senator Coghill, for example, would be
authorized to shoot and kill the attacker, assuming the woman
was unarmed and he saw a gun in the attacker's hand.
MS. CARPENETI confirmed that he would not have the duty to
retreat under that circumstance. If he had reasonable belief
that the woman was in danger he could use deadly force to
protect the woman and her children.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if in the second scenario the duty to retreat
pertains to the victim and not so much to Senator Coghill. The
issue is whether the victim can get away.
MS. CARPENETI confirmed that was correct.
CHAIR FRENCH read the current law under AS 11.81.335(b) "A
person may not use deadly force under this section if the person
knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete
safety as to others being defended, the person can avoid the
necessity..."
He adjusted the hypothetical to illustrate that every situation
has to be analyzed. In this instance the woman is walking to her
car and a man gets out of another car that is parked 20 yards
away. The man has a gun. He asked what the obligation would be
under that scenario.
MS. CARPENETI agreed that ever situation is different and each
has to be analyzed on its facts. If Senator Coghill had
reasonable belief that there was deadly danger to that woman, he
would have the right to use the defense of third parties in
defense of others. Under that circumstance he would not have the
duty to retreat.
1:45:26 PM
MR. SHATTUCK agreed with Ms. Carpeneti and highlighted that
there are both objective and subjective considerations. He noted
that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes questioned how subjective a
person needed to be when the objective justification was that
there was a gun in your face.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said
there is no duty to retreat under certain circumstances. He
said, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of
an uplifted knife." That is common sense and the current law in
the state of Alaska. Senator Coghill would not be expected to go
through a calculated analysis of the situation. If he sees
someone being beset by an armed robber, he can kill that robber
and the Department of Law would not prosecute. If he were
prosecuted, Senator Coghill would go to court with the legal
advantage of the state not only having the burden of convicting
him beyond a reasonable doubt, but also of disproving his self-
defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
CHAIR FRENCH said he was going through this in detail because of
the seeming misperception that people cannot already exercise
the right of self-defense. That is not the case; people in the
state of Alaska have an absolute right to defend themselves.
1:48:40 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Liaison, National Rifle Association -
Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), Sacramento,
California, stated strong support for HB 80. He relayed that the
sponsor suggested that he hold his testimony until the next
hearing when the full committee and the sponsor could be
present. He offered to answer questions as they came up during
this hearing.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he had any comment about what he'd heard
today, and if the NRA had any good examples of an innocent
person being prosecuted for homicide when a bill like this would
have prevented such a prosecution.
MR. JUDY confirmed that the bill was not introduced based on any
specific circumstance; it was brought on the philosophical
discussion nationwide on the issue of self defense. He
acknowledged that existing Alaska law provides that there is no
duty to retreat if a person is justified and on premises they
own, lease, reside, or work. However, the NRA's position is that
if a person is out in public where they have a right to be and
they are justified, they should not have to go through that
mental exercise as to whether or not they can retreat with
complete safety.
He urged caution in saying there is an absolute right to defend
oneself. The prosecutor is going to consider whether the person
was justified and whether the person could retreat with complete
safety so the person in the circumstance has to consider that as
well in deciding whether to employ deadly force.
1:53:59 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the NRA had analyzed what it means to have
a right to be in a particular place. For example, does a person
that goes to Disneyland or the movies have a right to be there
or are they there as a guest or at the permission of the
corporate or business owner.
MR. JUDY replied the NRA's analysis would be that a person who
is not trespassing and has the legal right to be in a place
would be covered under the provisions of HB 80. He acknowledged
that private property owners have a right to impose limitations
on the use of their property, and that the limitations are
different when the private property is closed to the public as
opposed to private property that is open to the public.
CHAIR FRENCH asked the public defender if passage of HB 80 would
essentially remove the duty to retreat from Alaska law.
1:57:05 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration (DOA), advised that there would be a remaining
duty to retreat in situations like trespass where a person did
not have a legal right to be there.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he would agree that a person who was in a
parking lot that was closed to the public for the night would
not have a legal right to be in that parking lot.
MR. STEINER responded that if someone were charged under that
circumstance there would probably be litigation about whether or
not the person had the duty to retreat.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that the first question is whether or not
the person had a legal right to be in the parking lot, and once
that is resolved it would be clear whether or not the person had
a duty to retreat.
MR. STEINER responded that in the instance where somebody has
used deadly force, the preliminary question is whether or not he
or she had that authority. He opined that it's in that regard
that HB 80 may have no impact. Under the statute the two events
are theoretically mutually exclusive. If a person can retreat in
total safety, he or she does not have the authority to use
deadly force. If a person has the authority to use deadly force,
arguably there are no circumstances under which he or she could
retreat in total safety.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the Public Defender Agency had a position
on the bill.
MR. STEINER said no.
SENATOR COGHILL said he will be looking at the issue from two
perspectives. One is how the courts will interpret the statute
and the other is how the public will interpret their rights
under the statute.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that people will look to the law for
direction and it should be as clear as possible.
2:02:25 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold HB 80 in committee.
SB 134-CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS
2:02:59 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 134, "An Act
relating to child support awards; and repealing Rule 90.3,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
2:03:19 PM
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY, staff to Senator Kookesh, introduced SB 134 by
explaining that it puts Court Rule 90.3 into statute, and
changes how child support is allocated. The current percentage-
of-income model that considers just the income of the non-
custodial parent will change to an income share model where both
parents' income is used to calculate child support. She noted
that a section was removed that ordered a grandparent to pay
child support. Sections dealing with the support order form and
the commentary were also removed.
She explained that the bill came about due to frustration with
the child support review process under Court Rule 90.3, because
it appeared that people did not have a voice. In 2008 she was
told that the best way to change the process was to put the rule
into statute.
MS. SHOCKELY relayed that the sponsor's office receives a number
of calls from people who do not mind paying child support, but
feel there are problems with the system. This legislation seeks
to give people a voice, be fair, and provide for a child's best
interest.
2:05:42 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked for an expanded discussion about the
income share model for determining child support. He said he was
also interested in looking at ways to include non-monetary
things in child support orders. For example, there should be a
way to place a value on a contribution of hunting or fishing
efforts.
2:07:27 PM
DAISY STEVENS, representing herself, Fairbanks, AK, said she
always felt that it was unfair for child support to be paid by
just one parent. She cited the cases of her two sons and stated
full support for changing the standard for calculating child
support to include the income of both parents.
2:11:19 PM
DIXIE BANNER, representing herself, Wasilla, AK, testified in
support of SB 134. She described being penalized in the child
support calculation for being a noncustodial parent, and
expressed pleasure at not being in the system any longer.
2:14:38 PM
MICHELLE BAYLESS, representing herself, Copper Center, AK,
expressed sympathy with the previous testimony and said she
supports SB 134 if it helps kids. She discussed single
parenthood and that noncustodial parents were not required to
share the burden.
2:19:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Shockley if she consulted Legislative
Legal about Sections 4 and 5. Section 4 repeals Court Rule 90.3
putting it in statute, and Section 5 addresses the
nonapplicability of a two-thirds vote requirement.
MS. SHOCKLEY replied Legislative Legal indicated the sections
were correct and that they discussed the questions with both the
court and the Department of Law.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Meade to explain how changes to Court
Rule 90.3 are crafted and how an affected member of the public
can get his or her concerns heard.
2:20:34 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
AK, explained that in compliance with federal regulations, the
state reviews its child support guidelines every four years. The
Alaska Supreme Court appoints an eight member committee that
meets for about 18 months prior to the four-year deadline to
consider whether the Court Rule still results in fair child
support awards. She described two ways for the public to
comment. At the beginning of the process the meeting is noticed
in 32 newspapers statewide and in every courthouse. Comments are
submitted and the review committee reads them all before
recommending any changes. At that point the proposed changes are
noticed and comment is again solicited and thoroughly reviewed.
The committee then makes a final decision about any changes. She
noted that the process also provides an opportunity for the
public to testify telephonically. In addition to the scheduled
review, the court rules attorney will consider written and oral
suggestions about court rule changes at any time. Those
suggestions go to the standing committee on family rules and
could eventually go to the Alaska Supreme Court.
2:25:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the Alaska Supreme Court reviews the
proposals or if the review committee has the authority to
promulgate the rule change.
MS. MEADE replied rule changes absolutely must be promulgated by
the court. The review committee prepares a report of recommended
changes and the rules attorney, acting as the intermediary,
presents the report to the five members of the Alaska Supreme
Court along with background information that includes all the
public comments. The court then decides whether or not to accept
the recommendations. She noted that the last review committee
asked the court for interim guidance as to the idea of adopting
the income share model, and the court's suggestion was to stick
with the percentage of income approach and avoid unnecessary
work.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that the idea was dropped when the court
expressed little interest in switching to an income share model.
MR. MEADE added that the request for guidance was accompanied by
a notebook of thoughts on the two approaches and the relative
fairness of each one. She discussed the issue of fairness and
that it was a matter of perspective unless there was empirical
evidence that one model was more fair.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what model the court uses when custody is
shared equally between the parents.
MS. MEADE explained that when custody is shared 50:50, the
current rule calls for a calculation of each parent's income
with an offset payment that accounts for the difference. In
cases where a parent has less than 30 percent custody for one
child, the current rule calls for that parent to pay 20 percent
of their net income to the custodial parent.
2:31:50 PM
CHAIR FRENCH observed that there appears to be ample public
input.
SENATOR COGHILL asked her to elaborate on the court's discussion
and suggestion to stick with the percentage of income model
because of fairness.
MS. MEADE clarified that the court concluded that the percentage
of income approach resulted in child support awards that were
appropriate.
2:33:45 PM
JOHN MALLONEE, Director, Child Support Services Division (CSSD),
Department of Revenue (DOR), offered to answer questions.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many child support orders CSSD monitors.
MR. MALLONEE replied the division was actively involved in
approximately 48,000 child support cases, but that did not
represent the full universe because some do not go to CSSD for
enforcement.
CHAIR FRENCH asked why a child support order would or would not
fall under the jurisdiction of CSSD.
MR. MALLONEE explained that one of the parties can ask the court
to give the case to CSSD for enforcement or a party can approach
CSSD directly asking it do anything from establish paternity to
establish a court order to enforce a court order. The agency is
able to do all these things administratively.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he had reviewed SB 134.
MR. MALLONEE said yes, and their calculations showed that when
the combined income is up to $31,000 or $32,000, the
noncustodial parent tends to pay more under SB 134 than under
the current Rule 90.3. The reverse is true when the combined
income is above $31,000 or $32,000; the noncustodial parent
tends to pay less under SB 134 than the current Rule 90.3. He
clarified that would not apply in every situation.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he had analyzed what would happen to
current awards if SB 134 were to pass.
MR. MALLONEE explained that because it would be a material
change of circumstances, CSSD estimates that more than 20,000 of
the current orders would be subject to modification.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the workload is per month.
2:39:26 PM
MR. MALLONEE replied the current staff of 14 does about 3,000
modifications in a year.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the bill would potentially create seven
years of work.
MR. MALLONEE said yes; the fiscal note asks for 24 temporary and
5 permanent positions to accommodate the modifications and the
added work to get information from two parties rather than one.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this would affect how the division meets
the federal guidelines for child support.
MR. MALLONEE answered no; it actually provides more opportunity
to meet the federal requirements because each case is subject to
modification.
SENATOR COGHILL asked how CSSD makes things fair when the
noncustodial parent is actually the one caring for the child.
MR. MALLONEE explained that the agency can change an order that
was established administratively, but cannot make changes to
orders produced by the court. Those cases have to go back to the
court.
SENATOR COGHILL asked how long it takes to change custody.
MR. MALLONEE replied it should not take no longer than 30-45
days to change an administrative order, but it takes longer than
that to get a new custody order from the court.
2:43:46 PM
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Collections
and Support Section, Civil Division, Department of Law,
Anchorage, AK, said she was in charge of the section that
advises CSSD and represents it in any court actions.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had any general comments on the bill
or the previous testimony.
MS. STEINBERG discussed the three formulas for calculating child
support under Rule 90.3 in cases of primary custody, shared
custody, and divided custody. The primary formula takes a
percentage of the noncustodial parent's net income. The shared
formula is a more income share approach because both parents'
income and the percentage of time each parent has the child is
considered. The divided formula is almost a pure offset
approach. It applies when each parent has primary custody of at
least one child.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had any comments on the relative
fairness of one system compared to the other.
MS. STEINBERG said no, but DOL did review the bill looking at
the legal requirements under federal law to ensure that CSSD
continues to receive federal funds.
2:47:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the formulas easily accommodate
changing family dynamics.
MS. STEINBERG confirmed that administrative orders can be
changed more quickly than court orders, but that it is incumbent
on one or both parents to notify CSSD of a change in custody and
ask for the appropriate adjustment. If the order is produced by
the court, one or both parents have to go back to the court to
get a change of custody. As part of the process the court
matches the support amount to the custody arrangement. Court
cases move more or less quickly depending on the situation.
SENATOR COGHILL said he assumes that would not change if the
bill were to become law.
MS. STEINBERG said that's correct; the parents would still have
to advise the court of the custody change and the court would
have to issue a new custody and support orders. Returning to the
fairness issue, she suggested that it would be necessary to look
at the calculations to see if it was more fair to look at both
parents' income.
2:50:53 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had any views on Sections 4 and 5. The
repeal of Rule 90.3 and the non-applicability of the two-thirds
vote requirement.
MS. STEINBERG replied she had not looked at the issue
specifically, but her understanding was that those two sections
were correct.
CHAIR FRENCH said he would check on that a bit more.
SENATOR COGHILL said he looked forward to getting more
information on the non-applicability section because the
constitution says two-thirds vote is necessary for the
Legislature to make changes.
CHAIR FRENCH said he'd focus on that as well. He asked Ms.
Shockley if she had any concluding remarks.
2:51:52 PM
MS. SHOCKLEY commented on the 2008 review process and relayed
her dismay that just four or five people attended the statewide
hearing that lasted just 30 minutes.
SENATOR COGHILL discussed the fiscal impact, the possibility of
putting the Rule 90.3 in statute without changing the current
methodology, and the idea of adding enforcement resources to
help people who feel they've been treated unfairly.
MS. SHOCKLEY said the legislation that was introduced three
years ago put the rule into statute and did not change the
model. At that time 35 states used the shared income model.
Although every situation is different, there are cases where it
is more fair. She cited an example.
CHAIR FRENCH held SB 134 in committee.
2:59:51 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 2:59 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Sponsor Statement SB 134.doc |
SJUD 3/7/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| HB 80 Sponosr Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| SB134 Memo from Leg Legal.pdf |
SHSS 2/6/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/7/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB134 11-076 Leg SB134 Research Report Child Support in other states.pdf |
SHSS 2/6/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/7/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |