Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1998 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 307 - CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT Number 0108 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the first order of business would be HB 307, "An Act relating to custody of and visitation rights concerning children; and relating to an obligor's liability to the state for public money paid to support the obligor's children," sponsored by Representative Green. He said he would entertain a motion for the adoption of the proposed committee substitute (CS). Number 0143 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed CS, 0- LS1335\F, dated 3/18/98. There being no objection, CSHB 307, Version F was adopted. Number 0162 JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, read the following statement into the record: "The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up in homes without fathers. Young children in single mother families tend to have lower scores on verbal and math tests. Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality. "Thankfully, HB 307 does not purport to solve all of these problems. But HB 307 does recognize a growing awareness of the importance of fathers in children's lives and seeks to reduce some of the institutional barriers placed between fathers and their children. "You have adopted Version F which we presented to the committee. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to go through Version F with the committee beginning with Section 1. Number 0251 "Section 1 deals with custodial kidnaping. Technically there is no such thing as custodial or parental kidnaping under the criminal codes. However, some custodial parents, particularly after an aggressive divorce, simply takes the child and disappear. We believe that it is time for the legislature to establish a policy against that type of action. [AS] 11.41.320 deals with custodial interference in the first degree, which is a felony. Number 0292 "Section 2, [AS] 11.41.330, speaks to interference in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor. In working through this language, Mr. Chairman, we originally amended only 320(a), and then changed back to 330(a), which would have been simply the misdemeanor. But it was pointed out to us that there are cases where a custodial parent legally takes the child out of state, but then causes the child to be illegally kept out of state. In those cases, the state doesn't have the resources to go after the parent, but if the crime were a felony, it is thought by some that we have talked to that the FBI would go after the parent so we have increased the crime there to be a felony. Number 0353 "In Section 3 of the bill it deals with the custody of the child, and the standard used in the determination thereof. We believe that to get fathers into their children's lives shared custody should be the norm, not the exception as it is now. AS 25.20.090 provides a list of factors the court may consider in deciding whether or not to award joint custody, but states no preference for joint custody. We believe that parents have the right to develop a meaningful relationship with their child. Joint or shared custody puts both parents on equal footing to pursue that relationship. "Now, of course, there are exceptions. The first thing that comes to mind is what if the noncustodial parent, usually the father, is abusive? And we have dealt with that on line 10, of page 2, by stating that 'unless based on clear and convincing evidence' that is the custody will be shared physical custody unless based on clear and convincing evidence, that award would be detrimental to the best interests of the child. This is probably the section of the bill that you will hear the most about. That is the change of the test from the best interest of the child to detrimental to the child. "Currently in the area of family law is a range of models used to decide custody and visitation. They go from the traditional rule, which rests in a judge's complete discretion to determine who will be awarded custody, to more narrow standards that require the judge to make specific factual findings and conclusions. Keeping in mind the goal of the bill is to reunite parents with children, we believe that the parents have the right to the relationship. And the 'detrimental to' test is one that has proven to work. It has been used by the Alaska Supreme Court in cases where a non-parent has sought custody of a child. It is a standard used in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act and other places. We believe that it places the parents on more equal footing. Number 0526 "Section 4 deals with a problem if the custodial parent moves out of state. That constitutes a substantial change of circumstances for the purposes of modifying the visitation order, but not necessarily for modifying the custody order. And we believe that it should. "We have heard of cases where a father has fought hard to win visitation rights, and won, only to have the mother move out of state and essentially, effectively deny those rights. If the child is an infant, visitation is problematic. If the child is a little bit older, there could be summer visitations, spring break, those kinds of things. We believe that if the mother serves to defeat the visitation orders, simply by moving out of state, that the father should get another bite at the custody apple." Number 0599 MR. LOGAN continued with his testimony and referred to Section 5 which increases the penalty for willful and without just cause to permit a visitation. A custodial parent could refuse visitation for the whole summer and the fine is $200.00. In some cases the custodial parent is judgment proof and there is essentially no fine. Mr. Logan pointed out that the language has been modified so not only is the fine increased, but the definition of what a single period is, is shortened so that if this happens for more than a seven day period, that is considered another period and the fine begins to accrue. It will also empower the court to require a custodian who is ordered to pay the damages to post a bond. Number 0664 MR. LOGAN then referred to Section 6 of HB 307 which deals with the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSED) trying to locate the father. Mr. Logan said he and Representative Green have been notified of cases where CSED has not notified a male for several years that they have claimed to be the father of a child. In those cases, the father wants to deny the paternity so there is no basis for a relationship between the father and the child. Mr. Logan told the committee their attempt is to tell CSED to hurry up and identify the father so there isn't a big penalty later in the future putting the father in a position of, if they are able to pay, denying the child and not wanting the relationship with the child. MR. LOGAN pointed out there was tougher language in the original bill. In the opinion of some people, the language is too weak. They are trying to find the balance. He stated there are federal requirements for CSED to locate the father, but there is concern it is not being done. Number 0770 MR. LOGAN informed the committee Section 7 is an applicability section which indicates when certain sections kick in. Number 0793 MR. LOGAN then referred the committee to Section 8. He said this section was confusing to him but he would do his best to explain it to the committee. He said the drafters inserted this language, not at the sponsor's request. Mr. Logan told the committee last year Senate Bill 154 dealt with these issues. At the end of that process, a member of the Senate inserted a provision that was essentially a two-year repealer. Mr. Logan concluded, "We need Section 8 so that in the ensuing two years, which end July 1, 1999, our language in Section 6 is still in effect." Number 0834 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for clarification on page 3, Section 5, that the fine would accumulate at $500 every week for those who chose not to comply. MR. LOGAN answered in the affirmative, if the parent willfully denies visitation without just cause. CHAIRMAN BUNDE inquired if the sponsor had thought of other tools that would deal with people who did not conform. MR. LOGAN replied they considered a provision of the bill that was an offset for child support so that if a custodial parent denied the visitation right, the amount of the fine would be offset against the child support. Mr. Logan indicated he and Representative Green are continuing to work with the drafter over some problems that the drafter believes are constitutional problems and that language may be in a future version of the bill. Number 0908 CHAIRMAN BUNDE indicated one of the concerns addressed to him by noncustodial parents is, if they just got to see the kid, they would be more inclined to pay. He commented he suspects the children are the ones who pay the fine and not the parent. Number 0936 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if it's possible to garnishee permanent fund dividends for violation in this area. MR. LOGAN responded that wasn't something they have thought of yet, but he believes it is and will make a note and inquire about that. Number 0958 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER referred to page 2, Section 2, subsection (2), "the person is a lawful custodian of a child under 18 years of age and causes the child to be removed from the state for the purpose of preventing another person from exercising custodial or visitation rights with the child." He remarked he understood the sponsor's intent, but suggested rewording that section because that could be the specific reason they are doing it, and they may have a court order that says it's okay, but the way it is currently worded, he feels that the sponsor just made it a felony. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN interjected and stated, "Unless ordered to do so by a court or something." MR. LOGAN said he would bring that to the drafter's attention. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER then directed the committee's attention to page 2, line 20, "...a parent with primary physical custody of a child has moved with the child to reside outside of the state; notwithstanding...in a modification proceeding based on a change of circumstances under this paragraph,..." Representative Porter asked, "Am I correct that that proceeding would be after the fact of somebody removing a child and then having been somehow (indisc.) to the state for this hearing?" MR. LOGAN responded in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued, "If you have to have a modification proceeding to get a change in an existing court order that may otherwise well be justified, you certainly wouldn't want language that says that the court may not consider the desirability of maintaining continuity with the parent who moved away with the child, as a factor in determining that that movement might have been justified." Number 1105 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to page 2, Section 3, "The court shall award shared physical custody to both parents unless, based on clear and convincing evidence," which is the highest civil standard there is, and "shared physical custody is determined by the court to be detrimental to the best interests of the child". He asked what is the difference between that and the best interest of the child. MR. LOGAN replied there is a checklist the courts can go through to determine the different standards. He told the committee he can provide background information which clearly delineates factors the court considers in making that determination. CHAIRMAN BUNDE indicated the legislature recently passed legislation in the House relating to parental kidnaping and asked how this bill would dovetail with that. MR. LOGAN said he was not familiar with that legislation but would do a comparison. Number 1199 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE referred to Section 5 regarding the $500 fine and asked who would receive the money. MR. LOGAN replied he is not sure. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER interjected and said short of other directions, it would end up being fines and forfeitures in the general fund. Number 1241 CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted that Barbara Miklos, Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue, was in attendance via teleconference to answer any questions. Number 1256 DIANA BUFFINGTON, Chairman, Alaska Task Force on Family Law Reform, testified via teleconference from Kodiak. She referenced the joint custody issue stating that this bill is saying that the court shall award physical custody to both parents unless based on clear and convincing evidence. She noted that this is a nationwide movement and approximately 26 states have adopted presumptive share parenting. She told the committee that joint custody reduces child abuse and it clearly increases child collection on child support. Ms. Buffington pointed out that currently 63 percent of families are single-parent families and most of the abuse, nationwide, shows that 77 percent of child abuse is done by the mother. She also wanted to note that child access and visitation should be equally enforced as is child support. She stated that if a father is more involved with the raising of a child, there is a greater likelihood of receiving more child support and not having to go through the CSED in forms of interest and penalties to get the child support. Number 1344 MS. BUFFINGTON noted that Idaho is one of the first states that passed equal enforcement of child access as well as child support enforcement which is working very well. She urged the committee to make sure that the noncustodial parent can see the child and if the parent does not produce the child through reasonable means, then the noncustodial parent should have a right to seek some kind of damage in order to get the enforcement, rather than having to pay for an attorney. Number 1379 MS. BUFFINGTON concluded that far too many children in this country are taken out of state without the permission of the noncustodial parent and without the information provided to a court. She suggested increasing the parental kidnaping fee and felony as equally as CSED is trying to put criminal non-support on fathers who are behind in their child support. Number 1426 CAROL PALMER, Representative, Parents United for Custodial Justice, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. She informed the committee she is a noncustodial mother who has been kept from her son for approximately half of his childhood. Because of this, she has been denied to be a full parent on behalf of her son. MS. PALMER testified in favor of HB 307 on behalf of Parents United for Custodial Justice, and was especially in favor of Section 3 which deals with the courts automatically awarding shared physical custody for both parents, rather than having a fight situation for sole custody. She stated, "I've taken calls from all over the state of Alaska by the hundreds and even just recently where the problem that I'm seeing is 'based on clear and convincing evidence,' is that this is not necessarily so. We're having one parent accuse the other parent and it's basically falsified information in the court system, and I hear this continually as one of the biggest problems we have in the state." The court accepts and believes the false accusations without going into the clear and convincing evidence. She urged the committee to pass the bill and said from her standpoint, it looks pretty good. Number 1503 KENNETH KIRK, Attorney, Family Law Practice, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated HB 307 has been mostly addressed as a fatherhood bill. He feels that the problems are at least equally bad when the mother is absent from the child's life. He referenced the statistics presented earlier by Mr. Logan and noted that single parent families account for 70 percent of juveniles in reform institutions, 72 percent of adolescent murders, 80 percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals, and 75 percent of teen suicides. He advised the committee that females raised in that environment are 111 percent more likely to become teen mothers, 164 percent more likely to have out-of-wedlock births, and 92 percent more likely to divorce themselves. Number 1552 MR. KIRK referred to Sections 1 and 2 stating, "Right now, it is a legal violation to remove your child in violation of visitation for other than not primary custody orders." He said that it is only a violation with a small fine and he has never seen a case filed in court anywhere in Alaska by the district attorney because it's too small of a penalty to be worth the district attorney's time to file it. Effectively, there is no enforcement with that at all. Number 1582 MR. KIRK directed the committee's attention to lines 6-7, page 2, of Section 2, stating it is "for the purpose of preventing another person from exercising custodial or visitation rights with the child." He continued to say, "I think the key word here is 'rights.' If there was a big divorce and the judge felt this person shouldn't be around the child, shouldn't have visitation rights, that person doesn't have visitation rights with the child and if the other person moves away, they're not in violation of anything, at least not in terms of the language of this statute." Mr. Kirk said he does not think that would be a problem. Number 1614 MR. KIRK mentioned there was a question about the higher standard in Section 3. He explained that clear and convincing evidence is a standard that is partly between the reasonable doubt standard that is used in criminal law and the preponderance of the evidence standard that is used in ordinary custody cases. It is the standard that is used under Civil Rule 90.3 when you're trying to go with child support from the amount that would be done according to the exact rules and an amount that may be fair under the circumstances. If you want to do that, you have to show by clear and convincing evidence that that would be appropriate. He continued by stating the detrimental to the child standard is pretty much the same as used when a third party is petitioning for custody of a child. They would have to prove that it would be detrimental to the child or in the best interest of the child. It is a rebuttable presumption which doesn't require a judge to put a child into shared custody if it would be harmful to that child. Number 1684 MR. KIRK then referred to Section 4, subsection (c)(2), advising there is a second part to it which is the desirability of maintaining continuity. In AS 25.24.140(c) there is a list of factors the court has to look at in determining what's in the best interest of the child. One of those is the continuity of care as one parent has more or less continuous custody for a while and it is their desirability of maintaining that continuity. Mr. Kirk stated, "In some cases, when a parent moves out of state, some judges will still say they're still being cared for by the same parent and that's more important than where they are living. And so they still count that factor in favor of that primary custodian continuing to have custody. All this is saying is that should not be a factor if the parent moved out of state." He suggested taking that factor out. MR. KIRK referenced the custody preference to the noncustodial parent if the custodial parent was hiding the child and pointed out that some judges will not give the other parent custody where the custodial parent disappears with the child. He stated in most instances where there has been a big fight over custody and the custodial parent has won custody, but perhaps lost efforts to get the other parent completely pushed out of the child's life and so that parent retaliates by taking the child and disappearing. It is very difficult to get the child back if you can't get custody of the child after that parent has left. This would at least provide a preference for that. Number 1819 MR. KIRK concluded that he is concerned that the committee substitute has taken the teeth out of Section 6. "In many cases, the parent disappears for several years, comes back and is able to collect a lot of child support and all the other parent can do is get sanctions that they can't collect. At most, they're going to be able to get half of the other parent's permanent fund dividend if they're still living in state and if they're the first of the creditors to get to it." CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Mr. Kirk to clarify his last statement. MR. KIRK responded that if someone inquired about the parent who would receive the other parent's permanent fund dividend, and if that parent is still living in Alaska and eligible to receive a dividend, at most, that parent could receive only 50 percent of the other parent's permanent fund dividend. He went on to say that, of course, they're going to be on the same footing as all of the other creditors. Number 1856 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the percentage would be changed to 80 percent in other legislation. He asked Mr. Kirk if someone were fined would that money go to the custodial parent. MR. KIRK replied that technically it's not a fine, under the statute it's a sanction. The $200 under the current statute would be owed to the other parent and the sanction." Number 1882 CHAIRMAN BUNDE called on Dan Renshaw to present his testimony. DAN RENSHAW testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He indicated AS 11.41.320, which would be a method by the legislation, addresses felony custodial interference. He informed the committee that his grandson who was on visitation, was kidnaped in August and was not returned. He and his wife have been doing everything they can to locate their grandson who was last seen in California. They have some leads to his whereabouts but cannot get any assistance from the local police. They contacted the FBI, but are unable to do anything without a felony warrant issued from Alaska. Mr. Renshaw stated that the felony under AS 11.41.320 includes the misdemeanor of AS 11.41.330, plus the transportation across state line. He emphasized that he has no chance of seeing his grandson again without the changes that are in this legislation. Number 1957 MR. RENSHAW directed the committee's attention to page 1, line 10, subsection (2) of HB 307 which reads: "is a lawful custodian of a child who causes the child to be removed from the state for the purpose of preventing another person from exercising custodial or visitation rights with the child." Mr. Renshaw suggested adding after "removed from the state" on line 11 "or not returned to the state". MR. RENSHAW advised the committee that Cynthia Cooper of the attorney general's office has done an enormous amount of work to try to get a felony warrant based on various state laws dealing with judicial decisions, and is currently on appeal on a refusal for a felony warrant. He stated the appeal probably won't be heard until early April. Mr. Renshaw said, "If the appeal is sufficient, the future position is going to be the changes that you make. Since custodial interference is an ongoing criminal act, these things that you do on this particular bill will directly affect the grandson who is missing and his name is Benjamin." Mr. Renshaw urged the committee to strongly support this section of the bill. CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Mr. Renshaw for his testimony and called on Blair McCune to present his testimony. Number 2038 BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She advised the committee a fiscal note was submitted by his agency and that he was not going to address the purposes of the act. He stated through his experience, there is a correlation between abuse and neglect as a child and future criminal activity. MR. MCCUNE referred to Sections 1 and 2 of HB 307. He suggested these sections be carefully drafted. The problem with criminal laws, is they have to be carefully worded and thought out. He said his agency has done a lot of legal work on this statute. Mr. McCune stated the committee substitute looks duplicative of the original bill. He explained, "The first degree or the felony crime that's causing the child or incompetent person to be kept out of the state and then in Section 2 in the misdemeanor section, usually that has been traditionally for someone who does activity like this but keeps the child inside the state. But in Section 2, the proposed Section 2, is removed from the state." Mr. McCune said he didn't see where the drafter is going in making a difference between a felony and a misdemeanor as it is in the current law. Number 2120 MR. MCCUNE said he is concerned about the mental state. In criminal law to find someone guilty of a crime you have to have both an act or an admission that the person does, and also a state of mind of intentionally doing some act. The mental state is spelled out carefully in what now subsection (a) "wants". You have to know you don't have a legal right to do what you're doing and you have to intend to hold the child for a protracted period. Mr. McCune indicated he doesn't know what the mental state is in Section 2, whether the legislation is trying to carry that on in from Section 1 or not. He said his concern with the criminal law is even if you intend to do something, it doesn't have to be your only purpose. He can see a lot of problems in this statute. If a lawful custodian left the state partly because they don't want the other parent to have visitation, it would have to be the person's whole purpose or is a partial purpose or some intent sufficient to convict someone of a felony. Number 2194 MR. MCCUNE said the use of the word "fine" would denote a criminal case. He further explained the usage of the terms "damages" and "sanctions." Sanctions are usually imposed by the court for some kind of bad behavior which would go to the judge and general fund, and damages, which is what he sees in the language, are usually paid to the other party in a lawsuit. CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Mr. McCune for his testimony and called on the next witness to testify. Number 2218 GARY MAXWELL, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told the committee the best parent is both parents and this legislation is designed to encourage both parents to remain involved in their children's lives. Referring to Section 2 of the CS, he stated there should have always been a presumption for shared physical custody and referred to Diana Buffington's testimony noting 26 other states have that. Mr. Maxwell said he agrees with Section 3 of the CS as currently written, but is concerned the CS has taken the meat out of this legislation when it comes to the CSED notifying the noncustodial parent that they have child support obligations. MR. MAXWELL informed the committee he has friends who are case workers with the CSED who have told him they were advised, under management mandate, to take the AFDC cases and put them into the storage room for about two years because they've got six years to find the noncustodial parent and serve them. He asked, "How do you think they create these deadbeat parents?" That's one of the ways. MR. MAXWELL requested the committee to put back in Section 7 which bars them from any action (indisc.) by the obligor until the obligor is notified. He referred to a situation where a debt is ongoing and the obligor may or may not even know about it. Mr. Maxwell said the bottom line is the legislature needs to get the CSED fixed before any more laws are passed which gives them more power to abuse. He said he would like to see several changes with the CSED and would be willing to sit down with Ms. Miklos to discuss those. He urged the committee to pass HB 307, but suggested putting Section 7 back in which bars them from any recovery if they don't notify an obligor within 30 days. Number 2306 CHARLES WOOD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told the committee, "I am currently a resident of Alaska because (indisc.) time to a kidnaping and I had to come here to Alaska (indisc.) afford the attorney fees and this obligation to (indisc.) were much too high." He urged the committee to pass the legislation in its entirety and he thinks it would help the large majority of fathers and mothers as well. Number 2335 MICHAEL SHARP testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He informed the committee he is a single parent of two daughters and the mother has primary custody of his daughters. He said the bill would help him out but the bottom line is that it goes back to the judge and once the judge makes a decision, and CSED makes another decision, they file something to a magistrate for domestic violence ... TAPE 98-26, SIDE B Number 0036 MR. SHARP continued "...and the judge's decision, you get all these people to override other people." He pointed out he's spent approximately $50,000 dealing with conflicts between himself and the children's mother and the children are the ones suffering the most. Mr. Sharp stated some of these problems could be clarified with the passage of HB 307 which would also benefit the children. His way of loving his children is spending time with them and if he's fined or if the mother disappears with them, there's no way he would be able to do that. He requested the committee to be very specific in the wording of the bill and urged them to pass it. Number 0036 RICHARD SHAFER testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he would like to see this legislation go through "because it's time that we start spreading out the (indisc.) of responsibility on those who really need it." He said parenting is a two-person job, but when you have a legal system that advocates a single parenting system throughout, it creates an environment that almost extorts to the point of being a single parent. Mr. Shafer concluded, "It's time we look at joint custody relations, look at joint parenting, and the state needs to take a role in this if they're going to take a role in the custody of children in this state, which they haven't done in the past. They're doing everything but that." Number 0085 JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, testified in opposition to HB 307. She indicated one of the things happening in the domestic violence movement across the country is they are finally starting to focus in and understand the impacts that domestic violence between parents have on children. Children who live in domestic violence homes are at a greater risk to be injured. They are traumatized by the fear of seeing their parents, usually their mother, being abused by their father. They blame themselves for not being able to prevent the violence and they are quite often abused or neglected themselves. Number 0122 MS. ANDREEN explained that in Alaska, the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) has been investigating their cases and have found that two-thirds of their child abuse cases were situations where domestic violence was occurring. Nationally, 75 percent of battered women report that their children are also abused. Ms. Andreen said the division is interested in implementing and establishing a rebuttable presumption in child custody and visitation cases where domestic violence occurs. The rebuttable presumption would state that it is damaging for children to witness domestic violence and that it is up to the offender to prove to the court that it's in the best interest of the children to have visitation or custody with that child. Ms. Andreen told the committee that this bill turns that completely around the other way by saying that the court will give shared physical custody for children in all cases, unless there is clear and convincing evidence. The division is concerned that it raises the standard much too high for many children in Alaska. Number 0181 MS. ANDREEN expressed concerns with Section 4 of HB 307. She indicated that quite often the nonoffending parent, usually the mother, has to seek safety in a confidential location which Alaska's law has incorporated into its protective order indicating the court does not have to release the location and phone number of victims. She referred to Section 4, lines 23-24, stating, "If a parent has to leave to protect themselves and their children, doesn't dispose the location of where they are, the court may not have to consider the desirability of maintaining contact with that nonoffending parent. The division is concerned about the position that will place a lot of children and their parents in." MS. ANDREEN concluded her testimony stating, "All of us want to have healthy families and children in Alaska. Unfortunately, who we never hear from is the many parents who are able to put aside their personal differences and put the best interests of their children forward. Those are the ones that are able to agree before they even go into court on the custody arrangements, those are the people that can and should be looking at shared custody and equal access with visitation for their children. Unfortunately, the ones that end up in contested situations are the ones where, for whatever reasons, too often it's domestic violence, they're not able to put aside those differences, or it's not safe for the nonoffending parent in those children." Number 0257 CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented that some questions have been raised, noting the sponsor has been taking copious notes, and closed the public testimony on HB 307. Chairman Bunde indicated HB 307 would be held over and considered again at a later date.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|