House Aging Children and Youth Legislative & Military Affairs
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (4)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1811
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1811”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1813
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1813”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1790
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1790”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1812
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1812”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 4, 2026
here today. It's their day at the Capitol, and so we appreciate them coming in and being involved in the political process. And I also want to take a point of personal privilege and thank my wife for also being there today. She's there in the back. I always want to make sure I recognize her as well for coming and being a part of the festivities today. Couldn't do it without her support. So with that said, we're going to move. As you can see, we've got a lot of bills on the agenda. And we'll run them depending on who's actually here. And Representative Letty, we're
going to go ahead and recognize you to present House Bill 1811, 1812, and 1813. You are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
0:45
thank you, Committee. I notice that I do have several bills on this committee's agenda, but 1811, 1812, and 1813 are the only bills that I'm running today. And we'll start
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
0:57
with 1811. These three bills are essentially just cleanup bills, sort of clarifying some things and making explicit what previously was only implicit in the law.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:05
With 1811, we are making one change that will allow for a deputy public guardian, which will allow DHS to serve more individuals. And the other two changes that we're making to that bill, one, again, is just sort of making what's implied clear so that everybody is on the same page. and then we're updating some of the language that's all we're
doing okay so just as a follow-up question there are already such a title or such a position as deputy public guardians we're just allowing them to do some extra things I'm gonna
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:36
allow this gentleman to introduce himself and explain okay thank
Representative Ken Bragg
Unverified
1:41
you mr. chair thank you committee members I'm Charles Thompson with the
DHS division of aging and adult services the office of public adult public guardian it falls within our division there's currently that has been in the law since 2007 in 2009 we received a funding stream to allow us to operate the office currently the law it's not clear whether we could have deputy public guardians we have the public guardian for the entire state which means that the guardian would have to appear in every court in the state that limits the ability that that cuts down on our efficiency we wanted to be if in
the future again we're not asking for any positions or any money but if we were to get positions or get appropriation in the future that would give us the flexibility to have deputy public guardians and serve our clients and
serve the citizens of Arkansas more efficiently. And is the deputy public guardian, is that when you say
Representative Ken Bragg
Unverified
2:35
it's funded, is it funded by state or federal or combination? It's currently funded. It was currently a decision made with
the long-term care facilities and their input.
And there's a long-term care facility. There's a bed tax that helps fund that because a lot of the people that need an adult public guardian they don't have anywhere else to go get referred to from facilities facilities can't make the decisions for them but these folks do they don't lack the capacity to make their own decisions so they need someone out there to be able to make decisions in their best interest have a guardian appointed by the court that's what the adult the Office of Adult Public Guardian does we currently have 250 wards they serve the Guard the Office of Adult Public Guardian serves as many persons as
possible with his with the funding we have okay
is there anybody else on the community that has any questions representing now of
Alexander you recognized use you answered my question partly I was curious about a little more information about the role of the Guardian and what the caseload was could you also comment on how an average time per month that a Guardian needs to have
contact with someone on the caseload and appear with them for some kind of
hearing the at least once a year the guard the guardian has to provide an accounting to the court regarding finances the the public guardian there's there is a social worker that works in the office of public guardian that the public guardian oversees that that visits once a month to ensure that the wards needs are taken care of the like I said the caseload was 250 wards the The Office of Public Guardian receives approximately ten referrals a week because of funding, the Office of Public
Guardian cannot serve everyone. He has to take the ones of the most need and the most dire circumstances. And so there's also an administrative assistant in the office that helps keep the paperwork straight. If I could have a follow-up. Go
ahead, Chair. So you currently don't have enough personnel to meet the demand that's what
I'm hearing that is correct representative and just a clarification is what we're approving today if you actually decide to fill this position would you have to come back before the legislature and get
approval to do that we would have to get approval for the positions as well as
as the appropriation yes okay thank you all right thank
you representative Bragg you're recognized is this deputy position something that requires special training or is it something a current employee could be moved into this position the the deputy the way it's written now the deputy
Representative Ken Bragg
Unverified
5:13
public guardian would have to fit all the criteria of
the public guardian that's laid out in the statute they need to either be an attorney or a
licensed social worker and there's criteria laid out in the statute and certain things that they have to meet
Speaker 9
5:29
so the deputy public guardian would have to meet the exact same
criteria as the current public guardian okay thank you Okay. Representative Julian, you recognize? In the cleanup language on line 18 where we've changed the guardian of an adult or it used to read property of an adult and
now we've changed it to a state. I always think of an estate as somebody who's passed away Was there some reason particular reason we were changing it from property? Representative Julian,
Speaker 28
6:07
that's just to match the the Arkansas code concerning guardian because
you have guardian of the person and guardian of the Estate is the terminology is there. So we want to be consistent with the rest of the Arkansas code. Okay. Thank you Okay, any other further questions from the committee?
Representative Deckenbaugh, you're recognized. Motion's proper time. Okay. With that said, is there anybody who wishes to speak either for or against this bill? Seeing none, Representative Deckenbaugh, you're recognized for a motion. Do pass. Motion's been – recommendation's been made. Do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. Congratulations, Representative Blading. You have passed your bill. Thank you, committee.
Okay. Next one is House Bill 1812. You're recognized. Thank you. 1812,
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
7:02
again, we're mostly just clarifying language. We did add
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
7:07
some new language as a result of a crime in Hot Springs. There was a gentleman who was exploiting seniors, and so we added some language to enable us to be able to prevent those types of situations. Okay. Is there any questions from
the committee? seeing none is there anybody that wishes to speak for against this bill
okay what's the pleasure of the committee representative broadway you're recognized
thank you mr. chairman a motion for do pass
motion's been made do pass any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations representative lighting two
for two now House Bill 1811 or excuse me 1812 has passed and you now recognize present House Bill 1813. Thank you.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
8:04
Thank you, committee. House Bill 1813, again, most of the changes
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
8:06
are just minor changes to clarify some language and make it more explicit. There's also a change in this bill that, again, relates to that exploitation case in Hot Springs where somebody was trying to exploit seniors. Okay. Any
Speaker 2
8:17
questions or comments by the committee? Seeing none,
is there anybody that wishes to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Dickinson has made a motion.
Do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Congratulations, Representative Leading, three for three. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. You're welcome. Okay. Okay. Well, is there anybody else that wishes to present any pieces of
legislation today? Representative Broadway. Yes, sir. I'm prepared to present 1790.
1790. Okay. You're recognized to present
House Bill 1790. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. What this bill is, is it addresses
a loophole in the law that me and several of my colleagues have found in the practice when we are perfecting adoptions. Basically, in the Arkansas Code, it sets forth very generally, or not generally, very specifically, whose consent is required for an adoption.
And there is a loophole in the law. currently a person's consent is required if a court has a man's consent is required if a court has adjudicated him to be the legal father prior to the time of the petition of adoption is filed which means that there is a court order finding paternity in this individual if he has not been married to the mother In another part of the statute in establishing paternity, it indicates that if a man has signed a written acknowledgement of paternity, then he is legally presumed to be the father.
however this language is not included in the adoption statute and so sometimes people manipulate the law as how it is is what it says specifically and how it should be construed and sometimes individuals who have signed an acknowledgement of paternity if someone is going by the very strict letter of law may not receive consent I mean that may not receive notice or their consent
may not be acquired and so this is his created some problems so what we have simply done is added the language in the statute that establishes paternity to include them in people who should receive notice and be required to consent to an adoption so that's what the language is in G it basically says that a man should receive can should give his consent and receive notice if
he has acknowledged paternity under 510 120 which is the written acknowledgement of paternity so that's part one to this secondly the second part of this bill sometimes people when they are construing these statutes think well if they don't have if a person's consent is not required under Arkansas law we don't have to give them notice of the proceeding and that is not true even if someone's consent is not required they are entitled to legal notice so
this very explicitly states that even those whose consent is not required must be served with legal notice in accordance with the rules of Arkansas civil procedure so that's what this bill is basically it's a cleanup bill to make sure very specifically that all of those persons under Arkansas law are entitled to receive notice of an adoption proceeding and those inspect and sets for I can't talk this morning sets forth specifically whose consent is required
and ties up a loophole in the law I'll be
happy to answer any questions okay I do have one and it's on the second part where it says however notice of the initiation of proceeding under the subchapter shall be served almost personally listed in this section and I was trying to do everything because there are exceptions and everything so I may have missed it but what about in those instances where you have no the possible father is somebody that the mother is afraid it's going to be a threat to the child or a threat to her
and if she is given or if this father is given this notice then it could create a danger to the
Speaker 52
13:15
mother or to the child I mean are we require this will that be required or
exception under the law any any father who has either been adjudicated the father by court order or who has signed an acknowledgement of paternity is entitled to notice under the provision this law. That's what this is. And no, sir, there have been no exceptions carved out for
danger or anything like that. So even if a court or judge thought that there would
Speaker 6
13:48
be a danger to the mother or to the child, they would
still have to serve this notice? Actually, this notice is served prior to the judge having any real play in this proceeding at all. You know, when you initiate a lawsuit you are required to serve notice upon certain individuals of that lawsuit the person that you're suing or if you know there
is someone else out there that has a potential interest in that proceeding that's that's often why we must publish certain types of notifications and newspapers and things when we're wanting to clear title to property but that's apples and oranges that's not an adoption proceeding but now this is at the time that the litigation is initiated so a judge is not really involved in this matter typically now if it's a conversion of a guardianship to
an adoption proceeding I suppose a a judge might be able to enter some type of order that would have a no contact provision or something when the person has served notice of the proceeding, but this is basic due process, Mr. Chairman, and they are under constitutionally entitled to notice of this proceeding. And, yeah, I understand. I just,
I guess there's some concern that if the mother, you know, feels there's a threat
against her or her child and that by serving those papers, you know, that this person could then find out where she is potentially especially if she hasn't seen him you know over several months that it could be a threat and
Speaker 6
15:32
I don't know you know like I said if there is if there was a way that she
could go to a judge I think that that you can go and get what are called ex parte orders and that are that are served with this proceeding there could be an attached
no contact order and that would
override this particular this particular wording in the field it's
not well i'm not sure what wording you're
wanting to override in this thing there there are all this does is provide an individual notice that their parental rights uh are are being petitioned to be terminated basically that's what an adoption does in this type of situation now Now, if a woman has fear for her and her child, then she can go to the judge and ask for what
is called an ex parte, restraining order, order of, I don't know that the order of protection would be the appropriate order, but some type of restraining language asking that, you know, he had no personal contact with her. Typically what happens when someone has served notice of a proceeding, not always, but usually they get an attorney, and the two attorneys are the people that basically communicate and negotiate the lawsuit.
Until such time, it's actually litigated or discovery is participated in.
Okay. Representative Payton, you're recognized for a question.
Speaker 61
17:08
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Broadway, I really strained my legal research this morning trying to answer a question i was unable to answer i'm sure you'll have it pretty easily but this says uh who is required to consent and then it it it adds to the definition of of the father here on page two line
two and it refers to a section of code 10 910 120a yes i did make it to there and read that and it refers to two other sections of code so are we broadening the definition of father here beyond what it already is and can you explain how much we're
Speaker 53
17:49
broadening it we're not broadening the definition of father the arkansas law has basically already
said that it is is late a man is legally presumed to be the father of a child if if he is not legally married to the mother
if he signs an acknowledgement of paternity that is a legal presumption now but our adoption statute left that out so what was happening is that a father who may be actually frankly involved in his child's life because this statute doesn't say someone who has signed a legal acknowledgement of paternity they don't get notice and it's done now adoptions may be set aside but we just felt like that this was a loophole that really needed to be cleaned up and tied up
We're trying to protect fathers who, again, have signed an acknowledgement of paternity, acknowledging that they are the father of that child, and that's what this does. Thank
you very much. Sure. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Representative Alexander, you're next. If the father signs an acknowledgement of paternity,
does the woman have the right to challenge that? Certainly. Generally, those acknowledgments of paternity are signed in the hospital when the couple, again, they may not be married, but they're both there.
They are forms provided typically by the hospital. A father can choose to sign one or not. A mother, but I presume he doesn't have to have her permission to do that. But if she does not believe that he is the father of the child, then she can certainly challenge that in a court of law. So, absolutely. She's not tied to that forever
and ever just because he says.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
19:44
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Harris, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative Broadway, I want to be kind of careful, but so many times the father's rights do get overlooked, and I understand that. So I understand the intent of the bill, but in other times, so the father is missing in action, just totally gone from the scene. Lots of the time. Exactly. So my fear in this bill is that it prolongs, will it prolong the termination of the parental rights and then prolonging the adoption process?
Because that kind of occurred in a situation that I knew recently that they were searching out the father because the adoption was, you know, we were waiting on the adoption so the determination who's the father. There could have been three different potential fathers. And so will this
prolong the adoption? You know, I don't think so,
and frankly, what I think is it helps solidify and prevent subsequent litigation when perhaps a father comes up later and says, I was not notified, and even though my consent is not required, notification of this proceeding was, and sometimes things go in and they undo the adoption and actually prolongs the process.
What this does not do, Representative Harris, is it does not change the rules of civil procedure under which how a person is served. And often when we can't find a father, what we have to do is we have to pursue all avenues first. We do an Internet search. We mail to the last known address. And then we go and we file an affidavit with the court asking the court to allow us to serve by warning order. and then you publish that notice in the newspaper and then when you have done
those things to try to effectively serve someone notice then you comply with the rules of civil procedure this doesn't change any of that so I don't see that it would really take longer no just
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
21:51
to help me and I should know this but I don't study every members profiles but your expertise is in family law is that correct it's
not ethical for me to hold myself out as
an expert really but I I have practiced family law for 20 years. So that
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
22:07
you know, just like I'm in child development, you know this area, though, correct?
Yes, I do. I feel like that I'm familiar with it. So you could help me understand that once this is done, though, and adoption is final, can they come back? And if a father can come back and say, I'm the father, and once the adoption is complete? That's what I'm trying to prevent
here, Representative Harris. Okay, and that helps me with this bill. Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Representative Ferguson, you're recognized?
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
22:39
I'm just trying to understand. I mean, I'm okay with you. I mean, I trust your judgment.
But say if a mother had a – someone had a child and they weren't married, and the father's son saying he was the father, they were married – I mean, they lived together for two or three years, and then she marries somebody else, then the new stepfather could adopt the child without informing the
Speaker 76
23:06
person who signed the consent? Is that right?
Technically, as the law is now, possibly, which is why I'm wanting to put that language in. It's terrible practice, but stuff happens.
And the letter of the law right now does not include a man. It says, again, because I know this is confusing, it says that if he has a written order granting him legal custody but if a court has adjudicated him to be the legal father prior to the time of the petition for adoption the inference for that is that if he has been adjudicated there is a signed court order by a judge a written
acknowledgement of paternity is not a signed court order so that's that's what that's the difference there and so we're trying to bring in that person who has actually gone the extra step and acknowledged paternity said yes I'm the father yes I want to take responsibility things change lives develop people move and and sometimes people don't stay stepped up to the task that they they sound on for but still it this prevents someone
like that from if if they didn't
give him notice from coming back and
undoing the whole thing representative Payton you're recognized thank you mr. chair well that
Speaker 61
24:39
brought up another question for me miss Broadway representative Broadway so the stepfather that would want to adopt that child the natural father would
have to consent to that it depends on the circumstances if a natural father either because he was
married to the mother at the time that the child was born or that there has been a court order adjudicating him to be the father must receive notice however consent to that adoption is not required if a father has failed to substantially has failed to support that child for a period of a year or to have substantial and meaningful contact with that child for a year without justifiable circumstances okay so just because a man is the biological father
of a child doesn't mean that his consent is required but he is required under the law to be given notice those are different things you can you can serve process on him and he can unreasonably withhold his consent and say nope I'm not gonna let you adopt and he is entitled to go in and fight that adoption but if he has not stepped up to the task of being the father paying child support and visiting with that child and being a part of that child's life, he's
Speaker 61
26:10
going to probably lose that case. Okay, just for clarification, as you were explaining that, you were saying if this bill passes, that's how it is currently? No, that
is how it is currently. So how does this bill affect that? What
this bill does, number one, it does two things, and I kind of thought it was simple. It does two things. First of all, it pulls in the man who has signed an acknowledgement of paternity in that hospital that might not have a court order signed by a judge saying I'm the dad but under Arkansas law because he signed that acknowledgement he is
presumed to be the dad but the adoption statute currently doesn't include this guy that signed this acknowledgement of paternity so we're pulling him in to make sure under the adoption statute it is clear that you give him notice to even if he doesn't have a court order if he signed the the affidavit or acknowledgement of paternity okay number one number two because it is confusing there are many people that are entitled to notice of a lawsuit but their
consent is not required to the adoption but you've got to allow them to be in the process frankly to cut off their rights so you don't want to pop it up five years later saying hey I signed a consent I'm not I'm sorry I'm confusing I signed an affidavit of paternity and nobody ever told me that my child was adopted and I'm gonna I'm going to file a petition to set aside that adoption we don't want that happening so that's why I know in hate to say this but this is
precipitated by a good friend of mine who is an older lawyer who is a general practice guy who filed an adoption and oh man I forgot to give notice to that guy that you know hadn't been in the picture for 10 years well that guy could come in and set that aside and he actually got that adoption signed and he said for dummies like me would you please put something very specific in the law that we have to give these people notice even if their consent is not required which is what I have attempted to do here
thank you thank you mr. chair representative Dickinson you recognize
thank you mr. chair if this person shows up claiming that he wasn't notified like five years down the road can he be required to go back and pay child support services for all those years that he wasn't there and didn't do
anything uh certainly he can now we're talking
about the merits of adoption and very frankly i'm talking about a procedural process here who we who we give notice to and and and and and that sort of thing but yes ma'am certainly if someone wants to assert their rights as a parent then they have to um uphold those obligations as well. And I have seen judges do that.
Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay,
Representative Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that our court system is already doing this.
I'm surprised that this is brought up. I know several judges in Benton County, and I would be surprised if this wasn't already being done. Well,
Representative Scott, There are some judges that are, I guess all judges perhaps, are aware of acknowledgements of paternity. But there are some that, I mean, this law is not drawn in language to include those people.
And there are some judges that perhaps have not looked closely enough. But it is, trust me, look at the statute. Right now, it is not the law that a man who has signed an affidavit of paternity is included as someone that you must give notice to in the adoption statute. If it was, I wouldn't be wasting your time and mine. Go ahead. The rest
of the question is, how much longer will this cause adoptions to take?
How much more time do we have children and parents who want to be good parents in limbo? It shouldn't
take any longer. Money? It may make the litigant have to pay money to serve them. My final,
I promise, Mr. Chair. Can you tell me the repercussions to the children? Because that's my first concern. This protects children
because it potentially cuts their life out of limbo.
because, again, my purpose for this is, number one, to protect putative fathers out there, but more importantly, to avoid an adoption being able to be set aside later on a technicality, and that can happen. Go ahead. Thank you so much.
So you're telling me this is better to do than have a father who shows up who hasn't been there for 27 years, three months and two days
for then him to show up and say, oh, yeah, I want little Susie or little Johnny? Yes, I'm telling you it's much better because a judge
is going to say, this man has done nothing. I'm not going to give him any rights, but I'm going to prevent him from being able to ever do anything again to affect this child's life because he's getting his due process. I will pray for that. I hope so Again, I'm not interested in wasting anybody's time here I'm trying to do something good
And tie up a loophole Where I see there are potential problems
out there Representative Fite, you're recognized
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
32:31
Would publishing notice in the newspaper As I frequently see For known or unknown fathers To come forward Would that suffice
here? Yes, and of course, that's what I said earlier This does nothing to impact the rules of civil procedure With how a litigant is served
And again, in an adoption You do have to do certain things to show due diligence That you've tried to find somebody And the last step is that publication when you can't find them I've looked for men in Alaska And I've looked for all over the place And it's a very frustrating process But finally, when you publish that warning order and you have done what you have to do under the rules of civil procedure, it's done. And they have no recourse to come back saying, I wasn't served notice, because they were. Okay. Representative Ferguson, you're recognized.
Okay. Representative Holcomb, you're recognized. She beat me to it. Okay. Well, I think we've got
everything answered. Is there anybody that wishes to speak either for or against this bill? Seeing none, Representative Ferguson, you're recognized for a motion. I move, do pass. Motion's been made, do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Chair rules that the bill has passed.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room that wishes to present a bill? I don't see any. So at this point, I appreciate again everybody for attending. You can always watch live if you happen to not be at the Capitol, ArkansasHouse.org. I just want to put that out there so that you all can keep engaged even when you're not here. And with that, the meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Mary Broadaway Chair
Unverified
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Representative Ken Bragg
Unverified
Representative Patti Julian Chair
Unverified
Representative Randy Alexander Chair
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 28
Speaker 2
Speaker 52
Speaker 53
Speaker 6
Speaker 61
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 76
Representative Jody Dickinson Chair
Unverified
Representative Sue Scott Chair
Unverified
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified