HB 122: CHILD CUSTODY PROCEDURES Number 028 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated that the House Judiciary Committee had introduced HB 122, at the request of the Supreme Court. He said that the bill was a very simple, non-controversial piece of legislation. He commented that in 1988, the legislature had directed the court system to investigate potential benefits of mediation. A task force was formed, he added, and issued a report in 1990. The report recommended a change, which was contained in HB 122, he said. MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that present statutes required that the court, when determining whether or not to grant shared custody of a child, consider among other things, the findings and recommendations of a neutral mediator. House Bill 122, he stated, would eliminate that requirement. He said that the task force had concluded that this particular requirement endangered the mediation process and ran counter to the view that mediation proceedings should be kept confidential. MR. CHRISTENSEN commented that the present accepted view of mediation did not envision a mediator making recommendations about the resolution of a dispute, should mediation terminate without an agreement. The mediator's role, he added, was to guide parties to a mutual decision, not to impose a decision on them, even in the form of a recommendation. MR. CHRISTENSEN expressed his opinion that when the statute in question was first drafted, the terms "arbitration" and "mediation" had been confused. An arbitrator, he said, was supposed to listen to both sides of a dispute, and then make a recommendation to the parties or a judge. A mediator, however, was supposed to help two parties come to a mutual agreement. Number 090 REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND commented that a requirement that the court merely consider the findings of a mediator did not seem like a huge imposition. Number 098 MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that the problem was that the statute required the court to consider a list of things, one of which it was not appropriate to consider. An ethical mediator, he noted, would not make a recommendation. He said that current law confused both mediators and judges. Number 115 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER commented that current law set up an impossible task. Number 122 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 122 out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 119 next.