Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative & Military Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB537
Act 1081
· 5 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…OGNIZED BY THE CHAIR REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB537 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATIONS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. | A. Clark | Notification that SB537 is now Act 1081 |
|
HB1237
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1237 Petty TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD. HB146…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD. | Petty | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1464
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…B1237 Petty TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD. HB1464 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING JURISDICTION OVER A PER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING JURISDICTION OVER A PERSON SEEKING TO ADOPT A MINOR. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1805
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING JURISDICTION OVER A PERSON SEEKING TO ADOPT A MINOR. HB1805 Capp TO CREATE A COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF ABUSE OF E…”
|
TO CREATE A COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF ABUSE OF ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE ADULTS. | Capp | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB7
Act 329
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Senate Bill 7, which allows legislators to come into juvenile court and t…”
|
TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ATTEND HEARINGS HELD UNDER THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE … | A. Clark | Notification that SB7 is now Act 329 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
members at six o'clock thank you so much for coming and and those of you in the audience i know this is really late in the day and we've been waiting for senator clark he's presenting a bill right now in um somewhere city county local thank you my mind's not working uh so we have been waiting for him this is the only bill that we have before us at this time but we have another problem, too. We have an amendment here from Representative McCullough, but she's not here,
and we've just checked to see if someone else could sign in that amendment for her, and that's not allowed. She has to sign in that amendment herself. So we may not be able to hear this bill anyway with this amendment pending on it. McCullough has an amendment for this bill. We just checked with BLR
to see if someone else could sign on for
this amendment. It's Senate Bill 537. That's this bill.
Speaker 12
1:31
Yes. It's on the tablets. Actually, it's 414, JNL 414. JNL 414? She has two amendments here,
but they are identical. One adds her as a sponsor. One
the other one adds her as a sponsor
and adds a line of language. She doesn't have to run it. She just has to sign it. It has to have her signature. We checked to see if someone else could
sign the amendment for her and they cannot. Give me just a minute here. While we're checking to see if we can change it to someone else's amendment with this language on it, adding her as the sponsor.
So we're going to have recess. We just extended recess in the house, so we're going to have a little recess ourselves.
Unknown speaker
3:10
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. We're going to pass this out for you to look at this amendment just while we're here waiting,
but understand that we can't do anything with this right now. Thank you.
Unknown speaker
6:40
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, members, here's what's going on. We're having the amendment drafted so that another member can sign on it,
and Jennifer is going to hand-deliver it to our committee, and we will go ahead and hear this amendment, and then Senator Clark said he is almost here. Then we will hear his bill as soon as
he gets here. Thank you for your patience. Thank you.
Unknown speaker
13:09
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, the amendment's done, and it's on its way down the stairs. Yay.
Unknown speaker
16:39
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you so much for your patience.
We have figured out what we're doing with the amendment here, and we're going to wait until after Senator Clark presents his bill, and then we'll see where we go from there. Okay, Senator Clark, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 537. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Apologize
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
22:30
for not being here. I have not figured out a way to be more than one place at a time. but I do hate it that you had to wait, and I do appreciate you waiting.
The Senate Bill 537 just changes, makes some needed changes in the Child Welfare Legislative Oversight Committee. It adds the director of the AOC or their appointee. It adds the head of the ad litems, whatever that position is called. It allows Director Misha Martin to bring two people, I think, three.
It allows the director of CACD to bring three people. That's one of the things that we discovered right away is they needed help because they are generally answering lots of questions and need staff there. It allows the governor's appointee to go back and talk to the governor, which they currently cannot do. They can't tell the governor what they learned under the statute now. It allows a small number of legislators to come in with permission of the chairman.
Two reasons for that. One is because sometimes we may be looking at a case that's in your district or something that you have some personal relationship to that you would like to be there to hear and see. The other reason is because this is the only closed committee we have. And it was not our wish that it be closed, but with federal law and other things, the only way we could figure out a way to have oversight was this closed committee. And so we had to get permission from the press. We had to get permission from you. uh and but there's a lot of questions from the legislature i would have questions if i was not
in there about what are we doing and what's happening and so we want to be able to rotate you in as you want to uh leadership and others to to be able to come in and attend a meeting if you like uh you'll be we will caution you when you do what the the rules are uh same precautions that that we have, uh, but so that you can see that what we're doing and that there's nothing nefarious happening, uh, and what's going on there. The only thing, uh, that, uh, about any of that that
is controversial, uh, is that we, uh, discovered and looking into, uh, some of these cases that sometimes the court case that went along with it, uh, provided there was information that was also needed. And so again, that was not something that we just wanted to, uh, look at, but it was something that gave information that we didn't have and needed, uh, and we're forbidden to look at. And so that's why the judges are here today, uh, because they are concerned about that before
they testify. Uh, and I very much want them to testify before they testify. Uh, let me, let me be on the record there is only one reason why these cases versus all other court cases unless they be top secret high national level defense are closed and that is for the protection of children and families
period and if we look at them it's in closed doors same rules, uh, where children and families are still protected. Uh, we have no protection for the Supreme court. We have no protection for criminal court. We have no protections for civil court that there's anything that we or anyone else can't look at. And so if there's any reason other than the protection of children and family, it's not a valid reason, uh, that we shouldn't be
looking at these cases. The idea comes up well, separation of powers. The interesting thing is they're sitting here. This is the legislature. We have never, you know, from the time we started looking at child welfare, separation of powers has been yelled and screamed. We have never once reached over into their domain and the, nor even acted like we were going to.
But there is, but we do need to, you know, wherever there's a problem, wherever, whatever problems there are with the system, we need to be able to find out what they are. um and the uh there's and there's one more issue uh that that i think that will bring up and i will let them bring that up but anyway those are the um that is what it does uh it
i may have left something out i don't think i left anything out uh but it uh uh it's a very important bill very much needs to be done a lot of good work is being done there i very much We started out in JPR, Joint Performance Review. I think the agencies very much preferred the closed door. I know I prefer the closed door because we're not hurting anyone. We're not trying to gain publicity. We're not trying, but we're able to look at this without pointing fingers at people
and without causing anybody undue stress in the press. or um in the public and uh and by that i'm not talking about the families because the families want their stories told uh i'm talking about uh i'm talking about people within the agencies and within the government uh whether they whether they acted completely correctly or they didn't because that's not what this is about this is about finding this is about finding what we're
doing right what we're doing wrong and uh how do we make it better but i'll be happy to take
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
29:03
any questions representative birch thank you madam chair and senator we've worked a lot and a long time and i know your heart else i would be really frustrated and going after you if i hadn't worked side by side with you for now several months and even with this committee but i do take a little bit of a concern with that thought that um that we haven't as a legislative body tried to go after the judges because i said in some of the jpr meetings where that's absolutely what was happening
and they were bound by rules that didn't allow them to discuss things. And I also, for the, this is a little bit of personal privilege, Madam Chair, I worked in the DHS system for a very long time, and I know that some of the people that came and testified at JPR, because I know they were testifying about my case, they were not truthful. So I want the ability of all sides to be able to be heard, not just the people who have an issue with DHS, then elevates that issue or elevates the issue with the court
and that we are the sounding board for everybody that has a complaint because then I think that takes us way beyond the idea of looking at a process and we then become almost an advocate for people who have a beef with how they've been treated and we all know that could be any of us at any time. So I go back to my original concern that I talked to you about with this. And I appreciate that you did such a good job of bringing in stakeholders to say these are folks that need to be in this committee now because you've seen how it could be better with this additional part.
My concern as we've talked, though, was still I'm an attorney and the opening of a case that's a judicial case and the privacy and the concern and frankly, second guessing a judge. i don't mind second just guessing the process but a particular person or act i think we really are working on constitutional issues that i just assume not put my name to having tread upon so with all that said and with the look at this bill my question is as it stands do you have any
understanding that there is a particular part of this bill that is offensive or opposed by the judges
Speaker 35
31:23
or anyone else? Representative Birch, I think I said that I've... Like,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
31:30
particularly, could... You recognize your follow-up. I'm sorry. Thank
Speaker 37
31:35
you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. Particularly, what part do you think that they have a concern
Speaker 35
31:43
with, and why should they not have a concern with it? Uh,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
31:48
the reason they shouldn't have a concern and I, you may be
able to voice it more than I, better than I can because you speak their language better than I do. Uh, you know, I'm a non-attorney and not in that system. That's one of the reasons that we work so well together. Uh, I have things from outside experience. You have experience from actually being in the courts uh the and as you know as much as as fond as i have become of you on the committee my favorite member of the committee is actually the judge so who takes my side most of the time but um the um so the um their concerns seem to be that again and again they could visit
with the judge, I suppose, is that we're going after them somehow. And, of course, anybody who's been there knows that we're not going after anybody, that we want to hear what the problems are. We want to dig down to see what the problems are and get to the bottom of them so that we can report back to this committee, to the Senate committee, to the governor, uh, to the departments, uh, and to AOC for that matter. Uh, here's, you know,
here's the problems that, that we're seeing, uh, and, uh, and here's how we think they should, uh, here's things that we think should be fixed. Uh, and I think, I don't just think, I know that that's beneficial to everyone. Um, and the, it didn't take long to see why we needed, uh while we needed more information representative
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
33:33
gates thank you madam chair as
one of the members on that committee would you say that
when we're delving into it we we sometimes come to roadblocks
because there are cases that are involved that are still open
and we can't get a full picture because of that well no we don't look at cases that
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
34:08
cases These are closed cases only. Okay. Representative Kapp. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Clark, I have the
utmost respect for you, and you've done so much as far as progress in the juvenile court system.
And I spent over a decade in juvenile court doing parent council work and also was exposed through my juvenile public defending work that overlap there but i just don't know how this is not a separations of powers issue and so my question for you is is do you not feel like this is overreaching as far as the legislature's part because essentially with this proposed bill you have us overseeing dependency neglect
proceedings, which is in the purview of the judicial branch. And so even with reviewing these cases, I mean, that would be something that an appellate court should be doing if someone was not happy with the outcome. Do you
follow me at all on the issue with the separation
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
35:20
of powers and possible concerns there? No, I don't. I mean, if we were reaching somehow into overturning an appeal process,
somehow do something judiciary-based, uh we're investigating uh investigating and overseeing the child welfare process uh which includes what happens in the judiciary uh we're not in any in any way although and part of that part of and one of the reasons we introduced the bill that we passed that we could be in the courtroom is because it is very instructive
to see what DCFS is doing in the courtroom. It is very instructive to see what ad lottums are doing in the courtroom. It is very instructive to see what parent counsel are doing in the courtroom. It's very – again, it's – to really know this process and what the judges are up against, what DCFS is up against, what the attorneys are up against, et cetera, it's beneficial to know all of it, to see what's happening, and to investigate.
I mean, to say that to investigate was a separation of powers would be saying that a prosecutor looking into legislative misdoing was a separation of powers. And that certainly would not be the case. the uh that's again if we were i would be the first if we were actually actually looking because i have people all the time that want me
to actually cross that line of separation of powers who want me to call a judge or want me you want me to overrule a judge you know and i as if i could but i explained to them this is you know, I can't, whatever they've done, they've done, whatever they're doing, they're doing that. What we can do is look at the process. We can look at in any way that you say that you think things have been done wrong anywhere along the line. And we can have you come in and testify
and we can look at that, but we can't do anything to overturn, uh, what the judiciary has done. they're the judiciary
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
37:59
you recognize for a follow-up but with your proposed bill what you have the legislature evaluating and reviewing dependency neglect proceedings correct i'm reading verbatim from the wording of your bill well the evaluating
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
38:14
and and or seeing i think is the wording that is
already there am i uh am i not correct page one i
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
38:28
think i'm looking at page one and all cases that are reviewed and evaluated under this section shall and it includes dependency neglect cases
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
38:39
right but it's it says the evaluation and overseeing is the language that's already there the new words are dependency neglect, correct?
So it's that we're evaluating and overseeing, and if there's a way that you want the language changed because of the way the language was and is, when it came up for information that was vital to that case, about a court case, we couldn't look at it, okay? So this is not about investigating a court case.
This is about being to access information from a court case. Does
that make sense? Are there any other questions from the committee? We have three people signed up to speak against the bill. First is Judge Stacey Zimmerman. And Judge Zimmerman, would you come to the end of the table and introduce yourself to the committee, please?
Speaker 65
40:01
I'm Judge Stacey Zimmerman. I'm a juvenile judge from Fayetteville. My district covers Washington and Madison counties. I've been hearing juvenile cases now. This is my 20th year. Before that, I was an ad litem, volunteering to represent children. And I'm speaking out against Senator Clark's bill, with all due respect. We judges, we juvenile judges, have worked very hard with Senator Clark to support his various bills,
Senate Bill 7, which allows legislators to come into juvenile court and through the closed proceedings, dependency neglect cases deal with abused and neglected children. And by state and federal law, those are closed to the general public. So we judges supported Senator Clark in that bill. We also supported him and agreed to the child welfare ombudsman to oversee the process of child maltreatment in the state of Arkansas and the cases that are going on where the
ombudsman can come to court and view cases and see the process. So those are two bills that we supported with Senator Clark. The reason that we are in opposition to this bill is that the way the amendment or the change to the bill is written it includes that very paragraph that you are discussing it includes dependency neglect cases and section one subsection two it states all cases are reviewed
and evaluated under this section be completed investigations of child maltreatment or dependency neglect those are cases those are court cases and it's the purview of the of the arkansas court of Appeals and the Arkansas Supreme Court to review those cases. If a judge has acted inappropriately or unethically, you have the Judicial Disciplinary Commission that investigates allegations where a judge has acted inappropriately. And so it is our opposition that this
bill exceeds what is the proper purview by the separation of powers doctrine in our Constitution. Also, we have to note that if the phrase dependency neglect were removed from page 1, line 27 of the bill, we judges would not oppose Senate Bill 537.
If the true purpose of this amendment and this bill proposed today, or this proposed bill, is to look at the process, we have already supported, and Senate Bill 7 was passed, Senate Bill 662 was passed, and those are those bills that allow the legislators to come to dependent neglect hearings, sit in the courtroom, watch the proceedings, watch the process, and the child welfare ombudsman would oversee the process. And let me tell you, these are not easy cases to hear.
Last week, I had a case where a child was raped, and it was a six-year-old little girl. The mother denied that it happened. Her boyfriend, she still was with, who raped the child. The man was convicted of it, and she continued to say that there was no evidence about it. And this bill would allow a committee to oversee that case and investigate that case. And although it's by closed doors, you know, the media is out there. There's all sorts of chance that that case will be a frenzy in that child's life.
And that is not the purpose of our juvenile code. It's to protect our children, especially the ones that are abused and neglected. And maybe their parent is not happy with the judge or the ruling, but that's really the purview of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to, and let me use the language of proposed Senate Bill 537, to review and evaluate dependency neglect cases. So thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to speak.
Thank you, we do have some questions. Representative
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
44:32
Gates. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm always curious when we talk
about separation of hours because I believe in those separation of powers. But in saying that, I think every judicial bench that was created was created by the legislative body that created those districts. My question is, sitting at the end of our table, saying that we're overreaching the separation of powers, what constitutes a judge overstepping their constitutional powers if they're coming basically and telling us what laws they
want us to pass and not pass?
Speaker 65
45:08
That is a great question. I'm so glad you asked that. I'm glad you're glad. I am glad because I am a citizen of this great state. I'm a person who've elected our great legislators who are here today. And so I don't give that up when I take the bench that I'm a person of the state who elects these excellent representatives and senators to represent us. And I have a voice, and I don't lose that voice when I take the bench. I do lose the voice to speak about particular cases. So if you would call me to that committee to try to get testimony from me as to why I ruled a certain way, I couldn't even speak about it because it's a confidential closed case.
So thank you so much for asking me
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
45:50
that question. You're recognized for a quick follow-up. Here's my quick follow-up. I'm glad you're happy about that, but you didn't
come to the end of the table as a private citizen. You gave us your title and the position that you hold. So I'm assuming that
Speaker 65
46:04
you're giving us not as a private citizen's testimony, but as a sitting judge. I'm giving it both. I don't check my citizenship to be a great American and an Arkansan by
Speaker 75
46:15
being a judge. But thank you for that question. Thank you. Representative Evans. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Judge,
Speaker 76
46:21
could you please explain to me, by definition, the difference between child maltreatment and dependency neglect?
Speaker 65
46:26
All right. I'll do my best. I don't have my juvenile code in front of me. But the Department of Human Services investigates, and the state police, the Child Division, CACD, they investigate maltreatment. They investigate that case, and it's called a case, but it's not a court case. If the dependency neglect case is filed by the Department of Human Services, it's actually a petition, and it alleges that child has been subjected to maltreatment
and that that child is in imminent danger. And they are asking the court to allow them to take custody of that child. And when DHS takes custody of that child away from the parent, they have to file a court case. And within five days, we have to have a hearing to decide whether or not there was enough probable cause for DHS to take custody away from that custodial parent. And so you may have maltreatment, but it never rises to the level of a court case being filed. I hope I answer that. Follow up, please. You're recognized for a follow up. Thank you,
Speaker 75
47:30
Madam Chair. So the difference then is, let me restate that. In either case, this is some type of suspected abuse against a child. Correct. And by definition determines which avenue it goes. Yes. And the immediacy, whether
Speaker 65
47:54
or not the child's in imminent danger and the Department of Human Services can't take steps like a safety plan. Let's say it's domestic
violence situation. And they get a call that the child is in the middle of mom and dad beating on each other. And they go there and the mom says, okay, I'll leave. Don't take my child. We'll do some counseling. And so DHS will decide we're going to keep this child. It's not an imminent danger because the child's parent that's been the abuser is stepping back and out of the situation. And DHS does a great job to try to keep the child in the home with safeguards. So that case would hopefully never be filed on in a court. Thank you, sir. Representative Glover.
Speaker 86
48:40
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to try to make a question, but what I hear the senator talking about is process as opposed to content facts of a case I think he's really talking about process because and in his speech about process I find it to be
inconsistent with some of the language of the bill so So, I think that a revision of this bill could be made to consummate, to complete the oversight of the process that he's talking about. And Senator, you may not understand what I'm talking about.
The contents of the case, as you all know, cannot be talked about or discussed, but process can, and we can just process. The juvenile court has changed tremendously in the last year or so through its evaluations of children and parents
as they first come into the system. I just think, and when you talk about oversight. Representative Glover, we may need to save this for
the discussion time. Right now we're asking questions of Judge Zimmerman. Okay. Did you have a question
Speaker 86
50:40
for her? I don't really. I agree with the judge's perspective, and I don't have a question.
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
50:52
Representative Kemp. Thank you, Madam Chair. Judge Zimmerman, when
someone is not happy with the outcome in a dependency neglect proceeding, is it correct that they have the ability to appeal that decision, and then at the appellate court level, any decision that comes down would be public record and accessible to the legislative branch?
Speaker 65
51:24
thank you thank you representative that is exactly correct so any party has the right to appeal a judge's decision in a dependency neglect case and if that parent is indigent the record and the appeal is totally paid for and is sent up to the court of appeals or supreme court and when they hand down a decision the appellate court it is public record it's readable and it's accessible online and you can read their decision representative Wooten thank you madam
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
52:04
chairman I don't want to pursue representative caps I'm a little confused about the legal process involved in these cases. I've always been a believer and have always seen the judiciary as a totally separate entity of government. I don't understand
And you just went through the legal process if they want to appeal. Yes, sir. Are we trying to, the committee is trying to protect the children? Or, I'm kind of confused. You know, you have to have a point of authority in anything. And to me, that's the judge. and what that judge says goes.
And then we're interceding as a legislative body into oversight of a legal matter, which is far beyond passing a bill through the House of Representatives. And too many times over my 50 years to be involved out here... Representative Wooten, did you have
a question? Members, let me just
tell you, because it's late, I don't want to rush anyone. But this is the time we're asking questions. I will give
you a time to discuss after we have a motion.
I think we have any other questions for Judge Zimmerman. Okay, seeing none, next we have, thank you, Judge Zimmerman. Thank you, Madam
Ernest Brown
Unverified
53:55
Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Ernest Brown, Jr. I'm a circuit judge in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. That's 11 Judicial District West. That includes Jefferson and Lincoln Counties. And it's an honor to be here. Thank you all for waiting.
I know how it is late in the session. I've had a chance to meet many of you all throughout the day. And as I indicated, I served in the House in 2007 and 2008. So I know how it is late in the session. And I really do appreciate your service. I don't want to prolong this because I don't want to repeat everything that Judge Zimmerman said. But I do want to say that I'm authorized on behalf of the Judicial Council and the juvenile judges committed to say that both entities are in opposition to the bill. And it's simply over the oversight of the cases.
If you all look at the title of the bill, the bill is a concern in child maltreatment investigations. And a dependency led case is not the child maltreatment investigation. That is simply, as succinctly as I can put it, our objection is to those words, dependence neglect cases. And some of you have asked questions about what's the process if there is a review. And unfortunately, I've been appealed.
I've had those issues in place. There is an appellate process to review and evaluate our decisions. And we learn a lot for that evaluation from the appellate level. It's just, it is a separation of powers issue. I'm saying this as a former legislator. I protected the integrity of the body when I served, just like I protect the integrity of the body that I'm in now. And we all have limits within our particular ranges, and the review of the cases are within the judicial branch.
And that's not to demean anybody, to talk to anybody any differently. It's just the way that our Constitution was set up to, you know, have that particular system. I think I would echo what Judge Zimmerman said in that we have worked with Senator Clark on a number of bills. I think we've had some success on many of those, and there are a lot of good things that come out.
This is just one that we must agree to disagree on because we do think there is an evaluation process already in existence. I think that's – I was trying to make sure I didn't go through and repeat anything else that Judge Zimmerman has said. So thank you, Madam Chair. I'm open for any questions. Representative
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
56:37
Birch. Thank you, Madam Chair. Full disclosure, you were the judge that scared me the most to practice in front of when I was doing child maltreatment
Ernest Brown
Unverified
56:45
cases. Duly noted. Duly noted. So she's just saying that.
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
56:49
And I would point out that you might have told me on more than one occasion if I didn't like what your ruling was, we could appeal it. And I believe that that's consistent with your testimony here with regard to the separation. In the event that the language, this is my question, Madam Chair, in the event that the language regarding or dependency neglect was struck from this bill, would the Judicial Council or the juvenile judges still have an objection to this bill?
No, ma'am. We would not. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from committee for
this witness? Thank you very much, Judge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. And our last witness is Judge Patty James. Please
Speaker 109
57:48
introduce yourself to the committee. I'm short. I'm Judge Patty James. I'm here in Pulaski County.
You know, my two predecessors. Would you pull the mic towards
Speaker 110
57:58
you just a little bit, please? We're having trouble hearing you. I'll pull me closer. I have the same problem on the bench. I'm very short. I can't ever reach anything. But I don't have much more to add. You know, my main concern when I was reading this is, you know, of course the separation of powers issue, why would we need to add another level of review when we already have an appellate review and also already have ethics reviews that are set in place by the judicial branch?
But the other concern that I had, too, is that possibly, you know, we're opening a box to the practice of reviewing other courts, not just juvenile. And I understand what Senator Clark's saying. This is an area that I'm very thankful for that he has had the interest to come in and start reviewing some of these processes, start reviewing some of these laws. and a lot of things that have come up have really helped us in the juvenile area.
But, you know, if we start saying, well, we can review juvenile cases, then what stops? Okay, now we need a grievance board at the legislature to deal with civil cases, car wrecks. How about I didn't get the right divorce filing that I wanted? Maybe we need a committee set up for that. You know, I feel like we're just, once we step aside that, We're opening a Pandora's box of setting up legislative committees to review various aspects of the juvenile area.
But that's the main comment that I had in addition to what my predecessors have said. Representative
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
59:41
Gates. Thank you, Madam Chair. Judge, the members of the Oversight Committee are
subject to prosecution if they divulge information. Now, would you agree if in the legislative process to find out how to fix issues that we have, we need to be able to look at all the moving parts?
And in looking at all the moving parts, it's better to be able to actually see them than to guess what's there. Would you not agree that sometimes in finding out what the breakdown is, and sometimes it's broken before it ever gets to the judicial stage, in order to reduce the amount of brokenness in our system, would you not agree that the legislative body sometimes needs to look at things and a group of people that can't go out and divulge information?
Speaker 110
1:00:36
Well, I think Judge Zimmerman already addressed that, that by agreeing to some of these earlier bills that allowed legislators to come into the courtroom and also allow the omnibusmen, I'm probably saying that wrong, to come into the courtroom, we are willing to open the door to let them see the process. because what happens, and they are all right, and Senator Clark's right, that when people come with a complaint to a legislator, what they get is one side,
and we're barred from discussing the case, and DHS is barred from discussing the case. So, you know, I think there are things already passed or put into place that will allow everyone to look at that process and come up with ideas that could help that process. We're not opposed to helping the process or doing things better. I am opposed to a committee reviewing something based on one side. And sadly, I have read about my cases in committee minutes from this committee.
The other thing I did want to mention, it was a comment that you made earlier about open DN cases and closed DN cases. A DN case can be closed as to the parents, as when the parents' rights are terminated. But the case will remain open as long as the children are in foster care. So a case may be closed as to the parents, but the children still have an open case that goes on. And so when you're talking about closed cases, we're talking closed as to who.
Some of my cases stay open for 10, 15, 20 years until the child either ages out or gets adopted, whichever comes later.
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
1:02:37
Representative Kapp. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a two-part question, if I may. My first part of the question is, is it true that the juvenile code, the juvenile law, is a very specialized area of the law And that even attorneys who may have been practicing several years, unless you're exposed to those specific statutes and the way things play out in court proceedings, they're not going to understand the juvenile chapters in the Arkansas Code.
Speaker 109
1:03:09
Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. I started juvenile law seven years ago,
Speaker 110
1:03:17
and I think I was also under the misconception that this is juvenile law. How difficult could it be? My background was more in family law. And the code is very difficult. Every year or every session, we seem to change something, add something. And that's not your fault. I mean, the intent is good.
But I was just discussing with Judge Zimmerman earlier today, when you talk about a father, that could mean a whole host of different things. It could be a period of father. it could be a legal father, it could be an acknowledged father, it could be a biological father. And each of those fathers have different rights under the law. So it's very difficult if someone came to you and said, well, I'm a father and I got treated this way. If you're not certain
which father he falls in under the code and which section of that code addresses that, you know, you could get lost pretty easy. In fact, when we talk about adjudication, the code on adjudication combines adjudication of juvenile delinquency and dependency neglect all in the same statute, which, again, is very confusing. I had a question come up in my court just this week about service on someone, and no one could answer the question. And I had three attorneys that have probably over 40 years of
juvenile experience because it's so chopped up in so many areas of the code and in the civil procedure. So yes,
very difficult. Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to cut you off.
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
1:05:00
Thank you. And the second part of my question is, is the way that this bill is written, um, looking at page five, the section two, where it says a member of the general assembly may submit a case to the child Maltreatment Investigations Oversight Committee for Discussion, Evaluation, and Review, that that provision right there essentially could open up the floodgates for anyone that was
not happy with how their case turned out, who did not avail themselves of the appellate process, to have the legislature review and evaluate their case. And that's correct. As I
Speaker 110
1:05:39
mentioned earlier, I had a case, and that's actually what had happened is they had already availed themselves of their rights of appeal. Well, in one case, did not appeal, but in the other, had appealed. And, you know, of course, I did not get any judicial complaints, and the attorneys did not get any ethics complaints that I know of in those cases.
But you're right, people who maybe miss the opportunity to avail themselves of other avenues to review their cases or people who are not happy with the outcome of appeals or file the complaint that wasn't processed through or found to be true enough to process through will come to you all next. because, you know, maybe you all can do something about it when no one, you know, none of the legal system was able to see it their way.
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:06:34
Representative Birch. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the thing that I lean towards Senator Clark and why he wants, and I think that this is a good idea, is because we keep talking about judicial review and we talk about it being a, that there's an appellate court to handle this stuff. the truth is though these parents are rarely in a position to take this you know appeal up and if there's already been um for instance an adoption out then the reality is there's not very much of
a judicial review and so when there's consistent concern with regard to particular whether it's a jurisdiction or a particular kind of case, how, if we don't do some kind of review of the process and look at somehow into some of the case concerns, then how can we get the law better because nobody's taken up for those people who don't have that voice and aren't able to have
that voice because the reality is not everybody can go get an attorney and an appeal a case and certainly sometimes indigent parents will be able to appeal it with the indigency process but the reality is what's another way that the legislature would have to help fix the laws if there's consistent concerns that are coming to legislators about the way something is happening again whether it's in a certain
Speaker 35
1:08:07
area or in a certain practice or part of the law? Well, one, adoption is not
Speaker 110
1:08:18
pursued until all appeals have been exhausted. So, I mean, that, and at least that's the way I do it in my court. We do not even start pursuing adoption or thinking, I mean, they may be placed in a foster family, but they're not placed in a pre-adopted home until these appeals are exhausted. Second, every parent, I'm sorry. I apologize before you go any
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:08:42
further because it's not necessarily true because if the foster home is actually already certified to be a pre-adoptive home
and the kids are in that home, then you pretty much already have them in a pre-adoptive home, so you may have had them in there since the time they were removed originally. I mean, potentially that is the case, so I
Speaker 110
1:09:02
want to be clear that can happen. Well, let me say you already have them in a pre-adoptive home. That is not my decision. DHS places the children in foster homes. I don't get involved in who they place children with. And yes, some people that foster children do decide to adopt,
or some people go into the foster system because they want to adopt. But as for me and my court, I don't consider adoption until appeals are final. That's it. They, you know, anything could happen at that point because, you know, maybe you didn't apply the facts to the law appropriately. You don't want to start talking about that. Now, what goes on in foster homes, I don't have a lot of say of, and I have had instances where foster parents come in and start calling children by a different God-given name,
and that is very disturbing to me, and that gets shut
down real fast. If we may, let's try to
Speaker 110
1:09:58
stick to this bill. Yes, ma'am. But also, all parents in my court who go through termination have appointed counsel. Even if they were found to not be indigent and just refuse to hire an attorney, I still appoint an attorney. I feel that that is too difficult of a situation to go through without having an appointed counsel.
And then they have the right to have appointed counsel for appeal. all they have to do is tell their attorney they want to appeal and fill out an affidavit showing that they're indigent still. And if they are, I mean, they get, I mean, I rarely have a hearing on those even because if you were indigent during the hearing in my court, you're probably still indigent, at least for the purposes of trying to hire an attorney. That's costly. Thank you.
I see no other questions. Thank you for your testimony. Senator Clark, would you like to close for your bill?
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:11:03
Yes, Madam Chair. I had to smile through some of this. When I started four years ago, I was told, first of all, that there were no problems other than the one case that I was involved in.
and boy was that not true uh and i was told that i could not do what i was doing um month after month after month members of the legislature leadership judiciary and thankfully they were all wrong and the things that we have done this session we would not have done. If I had taken no for an answer, that's one of the things that I'm thankful that when God
created me in the womb, he put my DNA. It's not always fun, but it works. I have no doubt that two years from now, I don't know if you'll be on this committee or not, but two years from now, the majority of you will be convinced that we should do what I have presented to you today. The reason that I know that you will be convinced is because you are going to hear about egregious cases
and you're going to know that they're true and you're going to be shocked as is the public in Arkansas. And you're going to come back and say, somebody, just like we did on other cases, you're going to say somebody's got to do something about this. And separation of powers, et cetera, et cetera, will go out the window. Unfortunately, the only way I'll be able to do that because of the way the vote will go today
is in public. So be it. But I wanted their testimony and I want your vote so that we know that it wasn't my choice. I would appreciate a good vote. I would appreciate that you decide to do it behind closed doors. But failing that, we don't stop looking into things. There's nothing that keeps us from having public hearings
and reviewing what we want to review. So, like I said, it's interesting what people think you can and cannot do, but thankfully we can, and thankfully we're making a lot of difference in kids' and families' lives, and I will leave no stone unturned for every kid. You know, Judge Zimmerman mentioned this terrible case,
and there's so many terrible cases about the child that was raped. What she doesn't seem to understand is everything except what happens in court, you can know. I mean, you don't have to be on my committee. You can call DCFS, and you can get every detail. You can't share it. Now, why they think that a DCFS worker who's been on the job 10 days can go into court and is trustworthy, why they think a CASA volunteer is trustworthy,
and that those of us who have not only been elected to the legislature but then vetted to come into that committee are not, I'm not sure. But we take this work very seriously. And we do because we see what happens. I wouldn't have their job. There's lots of jobs I look at and say, man, I could do that job really well. I wouldn't have their job for anything in the world. I respect it very highly.
It's kind of like I'm a preacher's kid. You will not find anybody that supports pastors more than me if they're good. You won't find anybody that hates bad pastors more than me. and like i said same thing when it comes to caseworkers social workers boy if you love kids and you're out there trying to do the right thing i'm right there with you if you're in the system and you're taking advantage that it's closed and that you can bully people i'm coming
after you uh and i'm going to ask the whole legislature to help me i'd appreciate a good vote and I appreciate you staying here and your patience. What is the will of
the committee? We have a motion due pass. We are open for discussion of the motion. Representative Gates? Some of the things that were said from
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
1:16:03
the end of the table. Let's try to keep our discussion brief, please. Okay. Well, there were some things that were said,
and oftentimes we say things and don't understand the context. the
things that are heard in this oversight committee are so so strict that on the very first day we had to kick out the governor's staff his representative because there were people there that wasn't authorized to be there because it's so narrowed when they hand us information in that we're under threat of going to jail if we disclose it just like if you ask i ask dhs for for a file on somebody who had to come through the system.
I can't even tell the person who's, I've got that file. I can't even tell him what's in his own file. So we're very limited with that information. But if we're trying to fix the system, then we've got to look at the system from the intake of a kid, from the investigation of a kid, from the hotline. We have got a problem with the hotline. We've got to look at the whole thing because if we just tinker with, you know, it's like fine-tuning something. And you can't just turn one screw and not expect it maybe to be changed over here.
And so I understand the concerns of separations of power, but we created every one of those districts. And we say, hey, we need to add this. We need to add that. That's well within our purview in looking at the system and fixing the system so that these kids that are falling through, that's what we're trying to fix. We're trying to fix these parents that some of them have fallen through, and we will need to fix the system so that it's our children and our parents and our system that is not overburdened.
I think this is measured. It's very restricted, and people are subject to prosecution. And I think when you threaten to people that the judiciary branch could put us in jail, is that a separation of powers? It's not. It's a recognition of those powers. And I think this bill recognizes our powers as legislators and the ability to create the systems. And that's why I made the motion for a due pass. Other discussion? Representative Birch.
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:18:22
Thank you, Madam Chair. I've probably made it very clear how I feel when I've spoken to the senator. I'm an attorney first. I've listened to judges, and sometimes I hope to get back into the courtroom. and I see their position on that particular part on the dependency and neglect over what I think the need is. So as long as those words are in there, I can vote for it. And that's not a surprise because I already
Speaker 35
1:18:48
talked to you about that, but I just wanted to be clear where I stand.
Speaker 89
1:18:54
Thank you. Representative Glover. Oh, yes,
Speaker 86
1:19:05
there. I favor oversight, but certainly oversight does not include reviewing the judge's work. The processes of appeal and other things, there are mechanisms which judiciary processes are already set up.
But, uh, and therefore, this bill is integrated with both the process as well as things that are judicial. And there's a line that separates them. And I think, uh, the judiciary matters have to be separated. And there's oversight of anything can be done.
But obviously, this bill as presented doesn't afford us to give the proper oversight that, you know, the senator is talking about. And certainly, for those reasons, I could not support it. I could not support this bill. Representative Kapp. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
1:20:37
I'm a no, and there's a lot of reasons I'm a no. I think we've definitely got the separation of powers issue, but there's a component here with privacy. If you've got a parent whose child has been taken away from them or a child who's been subjected to the court system, who's been removed from their home, there's this element of privacy in regards to what's happened in their life. And the way that this bill is prepared, it says a member of the General Assembly may submit a case.
So you may have also a third party come in, not be happy with a proceeding, a grandparent or, you know, somebody, aunt, uncle, somebody down the line. And then it subjects that parent, it subjects that child to even if it is a sealed committee meeting, to knowing what happened in that person's life. And I think that in regards to these cases, being in a courtroom, that it needs to stay in the courtroom and not be subjected to all of someone's dirty laundry being aired just because somebody comes to a member of the legislature and wants it to be evaluated.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:21:54
Representative Wooten. Thank you, Madam Chairman. and I want to apologize if I offended anyone in my other statement but I want to follow up again on Ms. Capps do you have a field investigator on your committee? Who does the investigation? Do you have a field investigator?
Yes this is the time for discussion not asking questions. We've already
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:22:32
closed the question time. My concern has been, what I was trying to find out was, you know, how this committee operates relative to involvement by law enforcement as it relates to the legal matters, the state police involved, the prosecuting attorneys, are they involved? I know there are in
other areas and field investigators, social workers. That's my concern. But to be honest, I don't see how a member of the legislature can go into a so-called quote, judicial situation and just put a case out there on the table. That's all I've got, Madam Chairman. Okay, we have a motion
on the floor. motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. No. The no's have it. The bill fails.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:23:38
Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Someone on the committee would have to ask
this, but if you can, of course, hear the bill twice, or if you would like to expunge the vote, we do have an amendment that will make the judges happy. And I think Representative Birch and others would tell you that it is an important bill.
That is a debatable motion. We have to have 14 members. We only have 13 present this evening. yes you
Speaker 31
1:24:20
may thank you madam chair so in the event that we're not able to expunge can we reconsider when we reconvene and are we going to reconvene i had planned
for this to be our last meeting especially since we've gone
late into the evening if it's the will of the committee that you would like to to convene again we can do so might we do an immediate
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:24:42
reconsideration if an amendment is filed now the problem is we only have
13 members present we have to have 14 members to pass that to pass a motion to expunge can you reconsider since I learned that
Speaker 119
1:25:02
today just a moment let's We'd have to
have someone draft a new amendment. Just a moment.
Speaker 131
1:25:13
The amendment's here. The amendment hasn't been introduced yet. We can't
really reconsider in committee. That's something that we do in the chamber, not in committee. Madam Chair, can
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:25:24
you ask staff if you can hear the bill again?
We can consider the amendment that we have before us right now.
Speaker 132
1:25:55
Okay, good. Hey, Jim, on that committee, we've got nearly all the stakeholders there. And so when we discuss things in that
committee. Okay, we're kind of in a catch-22. We can't reconsider the bill without expunging. We can't expunge without 14 members here.
Speaker 119
1:26:30
I'll just try to insert your name on it. It's not mine. Sarah. Your name is
Speaker 138
1:26:36
on the amendment. It's not mine. Okay, here's what we're
going to do. Members, we're going to expunge on a voice vote only. So all in favor of expunging the vote that was just taken? Aye. By which the bill was passed, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Okay, we can do it that way.
We can expunge on the voice vote. And now we will take up the amendment. And all of you have a copy of the amendment. Representative Kapp, would you like to present your amendment? Will you come forward and sign the amendment, please? Does everyone have a copy of the amendment? If you don't, it's also on your tablet. We'll hand it out to
Speaker 59
1:27:24
you. If you don't, I have 30 copies. It's on your tablet.
However, it doesn't have Representative Kapp's
name on it, so
Speaker 4
1:27:50
let's give you the hard copy of that. I've been here seven years and I've never done
Speaker 132
1:28:14
new every day okay representative cap
your rep you're
You're recognized to go to the
Speaker 145
1:28:24
end of the table and present your amendment. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. The
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
1:28:35
purpose of the amendment is to add Representative McCullough as a co-sponsor and also to take care of the discussion that we just had and delete lines 26 and 27 on page 1
and substitute be completed investigations of child maltreatment. And then that will take care of including dependency neglect cases. Representative Birch, did you have a
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:29:06
I thought that there had been another amendment that came over that substituted Representative Kapp or me on the amendment as the
Speaker 31
1:29:19
co-sponsor. I mean, so it's okay if she introduces.
Yes, we got it. Yes, thank you. We
checked all the procedural that we need to do and we're good. We just had to have someone to sign it, whose name was she can make the motion to sign this version. Okay, motion, who made the motion please? Okay, Representative Evans makes a motion to amend the, to adopt the amendment, to amend the adoption, no, to adopt the amendment. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. Opposed, say no. Okay, so the amendment is adopted. Representative Birch. I move
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:30:00
to pass the bill as amended. Okay, we have a motion to
pass the bill as amended. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Congratulations. The bill has passed as amended. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. Committee, thank you so
much for being here so late. This was our last bill.
Be watching your emails just in case, but I don't anticipate that we will meet again. You have done excellent work this session and especially this evening. Thank you for your attention. We're adjourned.
Agenda
TO OFFER TESTIMONY ON A BILL, PLEASE SIGN IN TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB537 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATIONS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1237 Petty TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CUSTODY OF A CHILD.
HB1464 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING JURISDICTION OVER A PERSON SEEKING TO ADOPT A MINOR.
HB1805 Capp TO CREATE A COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF ABUSE OF ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE ADULTS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGING, CHILDREN AND YOUTH, LEGISLATIVE & MILITARY AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 3, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Charlene Fite Chair
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 14
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
Speaker 35
Speaker 37
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
Speaker 47
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 75
Speaker 76
Speaker 86
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 94
Ernest Brown
Unverified
Speaker 109
Speaker 110
Speaker 89
Speaker 31
Speaker 119
Speaker 131
Speaker 132
Speaker 138
Speaker 59
Speaker 4
Speaker 145
Speaker 42