Representative Mary Broadaway

Meeting — March 19, 2013 (1:03:42)

Broadway, for what purpose? Question. You recognize? Representative Linderman, I commend you. I think this is wonderful legislation, and I fully support it. But I do have a question, and that is, what about our school districts that are in financial

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (19:33)

would you please clarify that and put something in the law that says that these people, even though their consent is not required, that you've got to give them notice. I'm not changing the law. That is the existence as the law stands right now. But it just kind of sets you on notice that, yeah, you've got to do that. So that's what these two laws do. I would appreciate very much a good vote. Representative Broadway

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (19:00)

If a father has abandoned his child through failure to support or failure to have significant and meaningful communication and visitation with that child, then their consent may not be required. But just because someone's consent is not required under law, notice is required to be given to them. That confuses some practitioners sometimes. So a friend of mine who is an older practitioner who does adoptions very occasionally said,

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (18:21)

one, to ensure that a father, if he has signed an acknowledgement of paternity, is given notice and his consent could be required in an adoption proceeding. And number two, it is to help preserve the new family unit and ensure that nobody can come back and set that adoption aside. That's part one. Part two is really pretty easy. There is a very specifically set forth provision under the law as, again, whose consent is required or whose consent is not required under certain circumstances.

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (17:45)

an acknowledgement of paternity, under the statute, they're not required. And sometimes people can be a little sneaky, and they can come in and they can say, there has been no paternity order establishing paternity by court order, and that man who has signed the acknowledgement of paternity does not get notice of the adoption proceeding. Why is that a problem? Because what that does is that can allow that person to come back after the adoption is granted and try to set it aside. So this statute is, or this bill is designed, number

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (17:10)

required to consent to the adoption. It does not include the man who has signed and acknowledged of paternity and who is legally presumed. So what this bill does is it tries to track the paternity statute and include in our adoption statute that man who has signed an acknowledgement of paternity and is legally presumed to be the father. It ties up a loophole because although most of our judges use as best practice and they may inquire, well, has someone filed or signed

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (16:36)

a finding and sign a court order adjudicating this man to be the father. So we have, number one, an acknowledgement of paternity in the paternity statute, or we have an adjudication of paternity that is assigned court order. In our adoption statute, it sets forth who is required to consent to an adoption. And what it does is it sets forth a man who is not married to the mother, but who has been adjudicated by court order that he must receive notice or his consent must be

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (16:04)

woman, that he is the father of her child, he can establish paternity in one of two ways. The first one is when they are in the hospital and the baby is born, both parties can sign what is called an acknowledgement of paternity. And under our paternity statute, then it is legally presumed under law that that man is the legal father of the child. The other way that it can be done is through judicial order. Any of the parties may file to establish paternity, and a court will issue

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (15:33)

on a daily basis, often it appears a little bit more simple than it really is. So I'm going to try to make this as clear as I can and take the confusion out of it. This bill I brought, I asked to have done on behalf of some of my friends who are practitioners, lawyers out in the field that do adoption work. And what we have found is that this law, first of all, does two things. The first thing it does is it ties up a loophole. Right now, under Arkansas law, if a man is not married to a

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (15:19)

to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. I may be a little lengthier than usual this time. My experience in committee is that I perhaps did not do a good enough job explaining what this bill does. And when one is used to dealing with these things

Meeting — Feb. 11, 2013 (9:01)

And what he does is he trains employees at restaurants and bars as well as local law enforcement officers on specific laws as they relate to the ABC. The law enforcement side includes extensive training, field training, and high traffic times for bars. This is a good bill because it's physically responsible due to shared duties and it expands law enforcement capabilities through real-world training. I would appreciate very much a good vote. Thank you.

Meeting — Feb. 11, 2013 (8:22)

And circumstances like that would be large events like a Riverfest, Vikes, Blues, and Barbecue, or a large musical festival. Or the circumstances have come up, like now in Benton County, a regular agent has had heart issues and is on medical leave. And there have been over 100 applications that have been received since November in that geographic area. And so the director is in need of another enforcement agent. This Deputy Director of Education is already, by virtue of the definition of his job, is a certified law enforcement officer.

Meeting — Feb. 11, 2013 (7:52)

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker and

Meeting — Feb. 11, 2013 (8:02)

fellow members. This bill gives the Deputy Director of Education the same powers as an ABC agent in limited circumstances. Those circumstances are only when the Director of Enforcement authorizes him to act as an agent. Circumstances like this must include filling in as an extra agent when circumstances dictate.

Meeting — Feb. 6, 2013 (16:02)

second I didn't have time to get the full

Meeting — Feb. 6, 2013 (15:23)

is there someone here from Parks and Recreation or could you elaborate a little bit more about

Meeting — Feb. 4, 2013 (4:04)

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I am moving to request that this bill, House Bill 1110, be sent back to the Rules Committee for an amendment. When we passed the amendment, there was some language that was confusing and seemed to infer some additional duties upon the Deputy Director of Education. And because that was confusing, we have asked that it be sent back, the language cleaned up, to be a little less confusing. And I'm asking and would appreciate a good vote on this.

Meeting — Jan. 30, 2013 (27:32)

Okay. Are there differences in the statistics as far as just, again, being involved in the court system and then actually being remanded into custody at CYS? I have my

Meeting — Jan. 30, 2013 (27:00)

getting into the judicial system, and that's detrimental. They usually re-offend and end up back. Did you actually mean the penal system? Well, actually, just any involvement, because there are so many things that are done in the judicial system, like VINs and things of that

Meeting — Jan. 30, 2013 (26:47)

Representative Broadway, you were recognized for a question. Mr. Angel, to clarify what you just said, you talked about youths