House Aging, Children & Youth, Legislative & Military Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB625
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “we'll just start with the Senate bill 625 Senator Madison's all”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1019
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1019”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1028
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1028”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1037
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1037”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1036
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1036”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2094
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2094”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1030
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1030”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB710
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB710”
|
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 5, 2026
Members, before we begin, I would like to recognize or welcome Representative Cozart to the committee, so we're excited that you've joined us. Thank you.
Excited. No, no, no, we're not taking another picture.
Sorry. First up on the agenda today is House Resolution 1019 by Representative Murdoch. Representative Murdoch, you are recognized to present your resolution.
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
0:30
Thank you, and good morning to
Speaker 6
0:36
the committee. House Resolution 1019 is just an amendment of a resolution that I previously brought before the committee. We just had to change to add some names, different names. As Alpha Kappa Alpha, it's a commemoration for their contributions to the community. I was trying to do it on February Black History Month, and we left some names out, and that's why I'm back.
Members, you've heard an explanation of the resolution. Are there any questions? Seeing no
questions, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the resolution, against the resolution? Seeing none, what's the will of the committee? Representative Summers, you're recognized. Move, do pass. We have a motion, do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. any opposed no motion carries representative Murdoch since you're down there would you like to
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:34
go ahead and present House Resolution 1036 yes House Resolution 1036 is established a Furbush Furbush day of
Speaker 6
1:40
Lee County on the third Saturday of April in honor of William Heinz Furbush real quick William Heinz Furbush was the first representative from the district I now represent district 52 he happened to be an African-American again something I was trying to get done in the month of February to have it so named, but I'm here now in March. All right, members, you've heard an
explanation of the resolution. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions from the committee, is there
anyone in the audience who would like
to speak for the resolution, against the resolution? Seeing no questions or for or against, Representative Summers, you're recognized. Move, do pass. We have a motion, do pass. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed, no?
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
2:31
Motion carries. Thank you so much. Yes, she's at the end of
the table. All right, committee, next up is Representative Lee to present House Resolution 1037.
Speaker 20
2:48
Excuse me, you're recognized. Thank you. I'm glad you still recognize me, Madam
Speaker 21
2:54
Chair. House Resolution 1037 is honoring the significance of the Butterfield Stagecoach stop at Pottsville – at Potts Inn in Pottsville. If you've never been there, I'd like to invite – first of all, I'd like to invite all of you to come to Potts Inn. It's a really neat historic place to come to. But the Historical Society from Pope County is going to be in Little Rock,
and Representative Catlett and I wanted to honor them with this resolution. I don't know if you have the full amendment, so I guess I'm going to have to have a motion. Madam Chair, how does it go? You have to move to adopt as amended. Do you all have the full
don't have an official copy with a number, so we can't run it.
Speaker 21
3:51
Do you have a copy? Oh, okay. It ran through a member's own yesterday, and it just didn't get sent down. Okay. Is it an engrossed copy? Mine is an engrossed copy. Yes, ma'am. Let me just check to see
Speaker 29
4:08
if we've got the right one. Is the cost resolution? I made it ahead of technology. Wow. Let me just check to
Okay. I was going to let you jump ahead of everybody. I didn't realize it was going
Speaker 22
4:31
to be so complicated. I totally respect that. You can rule me out of
Speaker 21
4:45
order. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. If you don't have it, I guess I will just come back next time you meet.
We don't have it with the amendment. Do you care to come back on Friday? Not
a problem. Thank you. Thank you. Representative or Vice Chair
Speaker 42
5:05
Powers, are you ready to run your resolution? Yes. I was going to say, I mean, if
Speaker 44
5:12
there's anyone else in there, we'll be able to get something to meet you in here. There'll be something better. You think?
Speaker 43
5:27
Yeah. Y'all want to know. Representative. Okay. I don't want to pardon me that's
Speaker 49
5:33
what I'm going to get you laughing, but I want to go, you're tired.
I don't know. Next up is Vice Chair Powers to present House Resolution 1028.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
6:11
Vice Chair Powers, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. House Resolution 1028, if you see it in your packet, is a rather lengthy resolution relative to others that we see, but it really tells a whole story. As most of you know, I work in law enforcement with the juvenile court. I have the opportunity to work with policemen quite often, and two of my officers in Hope, who are good friends of mine and certainly good police officers, one, Sergeant David
Johnson going through health problems relating to kidney disease and got to the point where he had to have a new kidney to survive. A patrolman who at the time worked under Sergeant Johnson when Sergeant Johnson's family and we couldn't find a match, Sergeant Daniel Aller made a sacrifice that not many of us could have made. And this is a resolution about commitment and, in fact, I think heroism.
They're both good people, good officers. This really shouldn't make a difference, but Sergeant Oller is white, or he's a sergeant now. Daniel is white, and Sergeant Johnson is a black police officer. And I think that not only has his sacrifice and commitment brought the police department closer together, but an entire community. So I'm asking that we do pass this resolution and honor Sergeant Aller on the floor of the House of Representatives,
and I would appreciate a good vote.
Members, you heard an explanation of the resolution. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the resolution, against the resolution? If not, what's the will of the committee? Representative Hickerson? We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
8:09
opposed, no? Motion carries. Congratulations. Congratulations. Thank you, committee and Madam Chair. And I see Representative Shepard outside the door. Now he's gone now.
But I do have a couple of bills we can run now if you want to fill the gap. Or I can step outside to see what Representative Shepard is doing. He's got a witness testifying
in another committee, and he'll be down here. so we'll go ahead
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
8:35
and okay all right which which bill do you want me to go ahead and run the the two for Madison and Johnson 625 and 710 whichever one you want
we'll just start with the Senate bill 625 Senator Madison's all
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
8:51
right madam chair with your permission Lisa McGee is gonna sit at the end of the table with me and try to be the expert witness here on these bills okay
And I believe we have a few
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
9:03
handouts that we're getting to the committee. That's right. We do have a handout that I think may help clarify
some of this. Ms. McGee, will you go ahead and state your name for the record? Lisa
Speaker 65
9:15
McGee, and I'm an attorney with the Department of
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
9:20
Human Services. Thank you. And while the handout is being made, I would just make a couple of comments.
that Senate Bill 625 is a lengthy bill, but it makes relatively few amendments to this lengthy bill. The first 26 pages creates a new subchapter in Title IX pertaining to Division of Children and Family Services, and it has 20 sections. And the first three sections are new, and the remaining 17 are sections from existing law. Pages 26 to 50, the bill either strikes existing law that's now been moved to the new section in Title IX,
or the bill makes cleanup changes to language left behind in the original code. The substantive changes in the bill are on page 3, line 1. It changed investigations conducted by the department pursuant to court order under 99212 to adoption. Page 4, lines 23-26, it allows DHS to provide notice to fictive kin when a child is placed in foster care Pages 5 and 6 allows half and step siblings to be placed in a provisional foster home
Page 7, lines 8-15, it clarifies that juveniles can have trial placements with the person from whom the custody was removed Page 8 clarifies when notice is given when a child disrupts a foster care placement. Page 12, lines 10 through 19, clarifies that siblings will be placed together in foster care, and if not, that siblings will visit unless it's contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the siblings. Page 13 adds language required by the feds to ensure that all school-aged foster children attend school.
Page 21, lines 12 through 19, adds immunity for volunteers who perform foster and adoptive home studies for DHS. Page 21, 22, limits restrictions to foster and adoptive homes instead of restricting a foster child from another state from being placed in any home with a person with certain criminal backgrounds. And finally, page 22, line 3, adds domestic battery as a restriction to persons wanting to be foster or adoptive parents. And I understand that's a lot to digest in this lengthy bill, but as you look over your handout and the bill,
and if you have any questions, Ms. McGee and I will try to satisfy your questions. So with that, Madam Chair, we will take any
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
12:03
questions. Representative Summers, you're recognized.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Powers, two questions. First, there's no cost associated with this. Is that correct? That's correct. And in your experience in what you do with the juvenile, do you see this as having positive outcomes for foster children?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
12:25
I do, Representative Summers, and thank you for that question. And, in fact, every legislative session I've been here, we can always learn whatever the agency is, whether it's DHS or whatever the department may be. And as you know, there are a lot of issues that we face with juveniles, and particularly in the code. And so I think this is just an effort and an opportunity to adapt and to make changes that are for the betterment of this system.
Chair
Unverified
12:59
Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Gaskell, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Having been a victim of this a long, long time ago, how often do you check on these children? Because they
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
13:20
never checked on me. Well, I'm going to at least answer that. Dr. Gaskell. For child
Speaker 83
13:27
who's in foster care, we're required to visit them at least once a month,
Speaker 85
13:31
unless they have something that's going on, like if we transition them from one place to another placement, then we have
Chair
Unverified
13:38
to meet with them more often. One thing I want you to be acutely aware of is when this child is staying with somebody, they know in a heartbeat that these people don't want them, but they don't have any other place to go, and they're going to tell you whatever you want to hear because they need a place to live. So I just want to be sure that they're checked on once in a while. They just ignored the hell out of me.
Speaker 87
13:58
And I'm sorry that happened, and you're right. What we do now, too.
Speaker 88
14:01
This was 70 years ago, hon. Well, when we talk with our kids, too, we make sure it's not in the presence of the foster parents, because you're right. We're going
Chair
Unverified
14:12
to get them aside and make sure that they can speak confidentially. The only thing they were interested in me is could I drag a nine-foot pick sack? And to be honest with you, I had a hell of a life until I was 15 years old. But I'm glad to see this, and I'm very much for it. So anything
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
14:28
I can do to help you? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Gaskell. And I can tell you, in 70 years, it could be a long time for some, a short time for others.
But I will tell you that in my day-to-day experiences working with young people, I come in contact with a lot of foster parents. And, in fact, I have some of my own family who provide those services. So the bar has been set a lot higher over the last many years. And this is something that these homes are vetted quite going forward with these kids.
I think we've understood that young people, and someone made this comment on the floor in a committee yesterday, these are kids that we understand don't have all the advantages, And so it's very important that we not only be flexible, but adapt quickly to problems that we have. And I think DHS does a good job
of handling those cases. So I appreciate your comment. You certainly have my admiration. Thank
Chair
Unverified
15:33
you, Madam Chair. Representative Meeks, you recognize?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
15:41
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Powers, page
9, section 9-28-110, smoking in the presence of foster children is that something that it's current law or are we making a change here that is current law okay i just
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
15:54
wanted to double check because i guess
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
15:57
my concern is is the second part there it says allows an individual to smoke in the presence of a foster child i don't know if um you know how that if that could be used against a foster parent you know if
if they're out somewhere, and, you know, I guess I don't, you know, I'm just making sure that that's not going to be used against a good foster. Yeah,
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
16:24
I understand what you're saying, and I would say this, Representative Meeks. Our foster homes, we're in so much need of good foster homes. I don't think anybody's going to be out doing a gotcha on these people, And I think their body of work in virtually every case would stand up over something like that.
So I certainly hope so, and I agree
with you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Meeks. I have a question really quickly. On page 9, section 2, lines 11 through 14, if the court finds the agent, employer, contractor of the department failed to comply, it says they have to pay the proceedings. can you
explain that part to me is that new no okay can you do go can you go ahead and explain it for me to
Speaker 99
17:11
me thank you I can try to and I can tell you it's
Speaker 85
17:15
never been used and I think we've had it in there four years now and this is identical to language that the Office of Child Support Enforcement has we knew that Congress is working towards making us reach out and
Speaker 83
17:26
affirmatively notify family members when kids came in foster care so we went to child support and said you guys do a great job of finding people how do you do it and they go this great state law and I said oh cool and so we adapted that then for the Department Human Services. And so this allows us to be able to contact cable companies or whatever it is and try to locate family members when we have a child come in foster care.
And then there is this penalty section, but, again,
Speaker 85
17:47
this has never been used. This has not been an issue
for the Department, and it is in current law. Representative
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:00
Hammer, did you have a question? Okay. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. powers on page 13 lines 6 through 19 and addressing the school issue
and I don't I don't have an agenda in asking this question I just want to make sure that something is covered on here it goes through and lists all the schools
that a foster child would have to be enrolled in and it speaks of elementary secondary school it has specifically identifies home schooled under the section private elementary or secondary school the one thing that is not listed here, and I just want to make sure that this language will cover it with the attention being drawn to charter schools. Which one of these sections covers charter schools, and that is the only one that's missing out of the list specifically spelled out that way, or how is it covered?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
18:48
Well, Ms. McGee tells me that the charter school would fall
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:53
under the public school. Okay, so they would be regarded as public school under this terminology. That's
correct. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Powers. Representative Hubbard, did
Chair
Unverified
19:06
you have a question? Representative Walker, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Several questions, Mr. Powers,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:11
Representative Powers. Yes, sir. Is this act modeled after a National Uniform Act of some kind?
Speaker 109
19:19
Ms. McGee's provided me the answer, and she says no. There is a National Act, isn't there, that's uniform? MR. No.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
19:29
Lisa said no. She said she doesn't know of one.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:34
MR. All right. Does this bill address the issue of single person being the foster parent? MR. I'm going
Speaker 109
19:42
to let Ms. McGee answer your question. MS.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:49
Are you talking about Initiated Act I? MR. Well, I mean, this is not Initiated Act I. act one this is senate bill 625 correct now your question about single person may it may a
single person be uh a foster parent yes they can that's a different section
Speaker 87
20:05
of the code that's the child welfare agency licensing act that goes starts at 9-28 but it's all to be taken together and yes there's a board that that the governor appoints that sets some standards out like the criminal
Speaker 83
20:20
stuff and the background checks and the standards for foster homes and then the agency can have a higher standards and so the CFS has their own promulgation of foster home standards too and I can tell you
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:33
single people can be accepted under both the minimum licensing regs and DHS policy. What about parents in today's world
we have a number of people who live together without the I wouldn't say benefit but maybe the benefit of marriage some of them call it benefit and some don't. Would those people be disqualified from being foster parents?
Speaker 99
20:55
And yes, they would. And that's why I asked you if you were
Speaker 88
20:58
going to initiate it, that one question. And that was the act that was passed by all the people of
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:04
the state of Arkansas, and it has been codified in the code book. You've answered, but let me ask you. I was leading to the question, if I may, one more. May
Speaker 99
21:15
gay couples be foster parents? The way that initiated act one reads, it says, a minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking
Speaker 85
21:24
to adopt or to serve as a foster parent
is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage that is valid under the Arkansas Constitution and the laws of the state. The prohibition in this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite sex and same-sex individuals. And that's at 9-8-304. Thank you.
if I may have another question I'm on page
starting on page 21 where it talks
about limit limits restrictions to foster and adoptive homes is that that's new correct new language no most of that's old language
Speaker 65
22:10
but there's a a change. Can you explain the change to me? Absolutely. What we had in current law and you can find it if you look
Speaker 85
22:18
to the back because you can see we struck everything out when we moved stuff over is right now in
Speaker 83
22:25
current law it says any child in foster care in Arkansas there's a certain prohibition against homes you can live in. You know there's a lifetime bar and there's a
five-year bar. What we also had in there was any child from another state who came into Arkansas
Speaker 85
22:39
was prohibited from being placed in any home, not any foster home. And we thought that was unconstitutionally broad. So that means if we had a foster child in another state coming to the state of Arkansas and they
Speaker 83
22:51
were going to live in a foster home with a relative, they couldn't live in that foster home with that relative because of that bar. And so what we did was apply to foster children in Arkansas the same that we would apply to foster children in other states.
Speaker 99
23:06
So we made it equal, and that was the only change. Other than that, all the
rest of this is current language. I'm sorry, just to follow up. On page 22, Section D there, Foster Child in Custody, that's current? If
Speaker 85
23:24
you look on page 42, so flip over to 42, and you'll see where I took it from 9-28-409, and that's in the Child Welfare Agency Licensing Act. And you can see where it says no foster child placed in the custody of the department,
and it has that list of crimes. And then underneath it it said no foster child in the custody of another state agency Shall be the place in the home of any adult and so that meant their own parents That meant relatives and we thought that was unconstitutionally broad Okay, and so we limited kids from other state now to foster homes and
adoptive homes Okay, and I noticed that it says a drug conviction or drug-related offense Is that a felony, drug-related offense? Because I know Representative Letting earlier passed a bill about a misdemeanor.
Speaker 65
24:13
So does that apply to this, or is it felony? This is limited to felonies. Okay. And this is from the feds. Okay.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:24
Okay. Thank you. Representative Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is
there still a pending lawsuit out there that was brought by parents who wanted, in the event that they should become deceased, their individuals that are of same-sex relationship to be able to adopt their children.
Is that still in the
Speaker 65
24:48
court system? MS. Oral arguments are tomorrow over at the Capitol,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:54
at the Justice Building. MR. Okay. The next question, then, on page 3, line 1, where it said the changed investigation conducted by the department pursuant to the court under 9-9-212 to adoption. Can you educate us as to how potentially the future outcome of that case is going to have impact on what you're asking us to change?
Speaker 85
25:25
this law today nothing because the other statute I just read you right here yes ma'am is also a statute and so that modifies this okay and and forgive my read the two of them together okay right here the fact that I put adoption doesn't trump overhear the restriction in the law all right just what would trump
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:47
the restriction in the law is what the court could do over here all right so just a real straight-up question if we vote to adopt what you're asking us to do today Is this in any way, shape, or form going to give any legitimate claim for same-sex relationships to be able to adopt children?
Speaker 85
26:03
No, not at all. And, in fact, if you'll hate to hold just a second, I will find where I took that from old law, and you'll see what
Speaker 99
26:14
I did. Look at page 26. On the bottom, on lines 34 and 35. right now I know what investigations are under nine nine two one two
Speaker 85
26:26
but I'll bet most people don't including most attorneys who practice law and so what we did what it means is investigations order pursuant to the home study section of the adoption code and so what we did was finally just
say let's just take that out so now it's going to read in any custodial placement by the department and it used to say in foster care or investigations consumed conducted by the department pursuant to that code
Speaker 99
26:49
statute, we had to give preferential consideration. And all we've done is just strike that by
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
26:56
out and just write in adoption, because that's what it meant. Okay. Just a reiteration, my last question. We vote for this. This does not give any leverage power or advanced opportunity to same-sex couples being able
to adopt. It has no impact whatsoever. Thank you,
ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a quick question again, and I apologize. on ads immunity for volunteers who perform page
21 line 12 through 19 is that new yes okay can you explain to me I mean I read it and it said it explained to me how they would I guess a case in which they would receive immunity
Speaker 99
27:36
okay explain that part to me as some of you might know we're rolling and the
Speaker 85
27:40
department has partnered with an organization that came forward and said we'd love to help you find foster and adoptive homes and it's called the call and we're very appreciative of it
Speaker 83
27:48
because they've gotten lots of foster and adoptive homes in pulaski county and now they're going across the state and what the call does is
Speaker 85
27:53
a part of the model that they have in place is ask within the church community if there are people who would train our foster parents and they train them on how to do it on our model that we give them and they also say to people within the community would you if you're a licensed master social worker would you do a home study for the call to get this home opened for the department and so what they call ask us
to do is is that if someone's if we have a
Speaker 83
28:17
memorandum of understanding with them which we do with the call and they recruit volunteers who will be willing to do home studies can that volunteer get the immunity that would get happen to our worker if our worker was doing the home study and so that's
Speaker 65
28:32
what this is about so it's it's just mirroring what the the dhs employees Correct. And that's why there's this reference back here from liability as provided for state officers and employees. Okay. Thank you. Representative Walker, you're recognized.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
28:44
Thank you, Representative Chairman. I have a question and maybe a little convoluted. If you have two people, let's say two sisters who live together or two brothers or two friends in an environment which promotes the concept of big brothers, are you saying that those two people, if they live together and are not a couple, that they would be precluded
from being, in effect, foster parents? No. What the initiated act one says that's
Speaker 85
29:23
codified in the statute is cohabiting with a sexual partner. I can tell you we had a case when Roy Kendall was our director at the division, and
Speaker 83
29:31
it was two nurses, I think, from England, because I think we do a lot of recruitment from overseas for nurses, and they were at Children's, and I think they were cousins living together, and one of them wanted to adopt, and she was approved to do that because it wasn't a sexual relationship.
Speaker 100
29:49
They were living together because they were family
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
29:53
members and from overseas. So that you, the agency, would have the burden of proving that the two brothers or sisters or friends are cohabiting in the event that there
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
30:07
was such a suspicion? Representative Walker, I will tell you that in 2007, my initial term here in the House and on House Judiciary, we dealt with a bill involving the various situations that you speak of.
And, in fact, that almost mirrors one of the questions that I ask. You know, who's going to prove it? How are you going to prove it? You know, here. I'm not sure whether the bar is too high or not high enough. I don't know. But as far as the department having to prove that, I would assume that they would have to have some preponderance of evidence. Now, how they get that evidence, you know, I can't answer that.
I don't know. But that is kind of an age-old question here in the House of Representatives
regarding that very scenario that you talk about. Seeing no other questions from the
committee, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill? Sorry. Against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Dickinson, you're recognized. Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Bill passes. Thank
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
31:31
you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee. And, Madam Chair, we have Senate Bill 710. If Representative Shepard or no one else is here to run the bill, we'll certainly try that one, too, if you're
ready. You're recognized. All right. Members,
House Bill 710. is a Senate Bill 710 originated in Representative Powers if I could have
the two other people on the other side of you identify
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
32:08
themselves for the record we'll do that thank you Cecile Blocher
Speaker 140
32:13
the director for the division of children and family services
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
32:18
Paul Kelly with Arkansas advocates for children and families and And we have the
experts in the field here to answer questions, Paul and Cecile and Lisa, so I feel very comfortable. Senate Bill 710, simply the title amends the State Guardianship Subsidy Act.
The talking points basically include removing the means-based test, requiring a relationship between the child and the person getting guardianship, removing the requirement that the child has special needs, expanding the guardianship to include state funding if DHS determines money is available for children who are not eligible for federal guardianship subsidies, rewriting the sections to emphasize that the prospective guardian must comply with all foster home licensing board minimum regulations and DHS policy,
and secondly, the child must reside in the home of the relative for six months while in foster care before the child is eligible for guardianship subsidy, and that is the gist or the main parts of the bill that I think need to be pointed out, and we are certainly available to any questions the committee might
have. Representative Summers, you're recognized for a
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
33:36
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Powers, it seems to me that we ran a bill recently for DHS
that stated that the age of the child to object for adoption was age 12. Now, my memory's not real good, but it seems like that's what it said. And if that's the case, and I think your witness, Ms. McGee, would know, why would we do 14? I'm just curious. I'm sure there's a very valid reason. We're going to let her give you
Speaker 84
34:06
that valid reason, Mr. Summers. First, am I
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
34:09
correct in my memory? That would be something.
Speaker 87
34:13
And this is Lisa McGee with the Department of Human Services, and you are
Speaker 85
34:19
correct. And originally that was what we wanted to do with the adoption code, but we got some feedback that since adoption
Speaker 83
34:25
has been 10 for so many years, the feedback was they felt more comfortable going up incrementally. So we'll probably reach 14 for the consent and adoption, but right now we went up to 12 there. And the reason we have 14 here is that 14 is a requirement from the feds, And they are the ones who are initiating this new funding stream for us to be able to use Title IV-E now for guardianship subsidies, and they require the 14.
Speaker 18
34:49
Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question. You mentioned the funding from the feds.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
35:07
It's a new funding source. Can you explain it to me? Actually, it is already a current funding stream. But with this new requirement, it would allow children who are currently perhaps funding with state general revenue to be able to be funded with a 4E guardianship based on the
fact that it's with a family for six months, that they've ruled out adoption and reunification as a goal for the children, and so it's just a way it just allows a different use of 4E. Can you explain what 4E is? It's an entitlement program, and it's based on it's a very complex funding qualification. It has an income limitation.
It's got a contrary to welfare clause. It's got deprivation. There's many different qualifiers, and currently about 65 percent of the children in foster care are FORE eligible, and it's how we pull down the federal funds. It's one of our largest funding
Speaker 147
36:11
streams, and it's the only uncapped funding stream that DCFS has. Representative Harris, you're recognized. Good morning, Ms. Blucher.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
36:27
If reunification and adoption isn't the goal, what's the goal for the child? We have to rule out, like, the
reunification and adoption, and so it would be, like, another planned permanency living arrangement we call APLA. It would be adoption, or it may be the child who decides that they don't want to be adopted and there's someone that would want to be the guardianship. It's a different
permanency option for a child. Can I ask another question? So if the child's 14 don't want to be adopted, this would allow the guardians to continue to get the funding because, as it is now, if they're adopted, the funding stops.
Is that correct? No, the funding does not stop when children are adopted. There are certain – if they get the subsidy, which is special needs, and so it's based on their age, the race, their medical condition, there's qualifiers that we've set in the law. That got – the parents, when they adopt, they do continue to receive an adoption subsidy until that child turns 18. In some cases, can ask for it to be extended until they're 21. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
37:42
Representative Elliott, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to be clear with some things. Now, this is a child who maybe parents, for whatever reason, their rights have been stricken from them, and then at 14, 15, they decided that they don't want to be adopted, adopted but there's a guardian who's there who's willing to take care of them
and this will allow that guardian to receive resources to help with that child is that correct? Lisa McGee again yes these
Speaker 83
38:26
are this is guardianship socially it's only for kids who come in foster care and so on your term parental rights were stricken not necessarily it's just the parent doesn't have custody anymore so we have a child who's now in foster care and so the reason that I think guardianship is a viable alternative for family members is sometimes an aunt or grandma
Speaker 85
38:45
will say I don't mind raising the child to adulthood
but please don't terminate mom and dad's parental rights and so to get the guardianship subsidy you have to officially terminate parental rights and then have the adoption and so this is why we think in the companion bill that Representative Leading did that came through the committee here that said let some felons be guardians this is the companion bill to that so we want to be able to say some family members and you'll see this
Speaker 83
39:08
is the restriction now because I told everybody remember if there's restriction has to be family and they have to live there six months and meet all the standards so this is that bill that says so so the family members when you don't want to
terminate parental rights and they're and that's not going to be the goal is adoption they're not be able to go back home this is now a new thing that we can do for the family members to be able to
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
39:31
raise their kids and get them out of the foster care system well let's still have the restrictions of qualifying for for here in the house I've got what they call yes it'll be the same yes and I
Speaker 99
39:41
want to apologize to the committee again by the way I am so sorry I said kidnapping was a waivable offense so I brought my thing here today to remind myself to apologize to you guys for that so yes that the standards are still
going to meet on the lifetime bar and the five-year
The bill that Representative Leading ran
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
40:04
for us, that was a part of this package. Okay. Representative Summers, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Madam Chair, on first page, item one, it talks about the child's been removed from the custody as a result of a judicial determination. Is there any determination about the natural parent's ability to support that child
where they would need to pay child support?
Speaker 83
40:26
I suspect it. Yes, and that's over in the juvenile code. This section right here, this 9-8, is in front of the adoption code in the very front of the family law section, and the juvenile code's all the way over at 9-27. And in 9-27, what it says is when a child comes into the custody of the department, the judge has to look to
Speaker 88
40:46
see whether or not the parents have the capacity to pay any child support, and if so, they can order child
Speaker 167
40:53
support paid. In reality, is that ever done?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
40:56
Let me answer that for you, Representative Summers. I can tell you that by my personal experience, yes, it is done. In fact, I'll just give you a real-life scenario. I get calls from time to time. The police will call me and say, you know, I'm tired of this kid. I don't want him. You know, we're going to, you know, call DHS to come get this kid. They're ready. They're ready to send him on because he didn't wash the dishes or whatever.
know the case may be you know of course that is an extreme and we were you know we normally realize they're emotional so one of the tricks of the trade that I use is simply over the telephone I'll tell that parent well that's fine I'll call DHS as soon as we hang up but you're going to have to pay child support because my judge orders that so usually they find a way to come to a reconciliation that at that moment so it is used and it's not overlooked by the of court.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:57
Thank you. And thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Hammer, you're recognized. Would you just
reiterate one thing, please? A minute ago the question was asked, and it's regarding the funding. Am I understanding it correctly if I say that a child is in foster care and that child, whether they themselves or the the guardian decides that they the relationship is no longer working for whatever reason and the
child is removed from the home tell me again about the funding stream with that child that funding stream continues to go to to who and for how long or is it terminated at that point would you restate that please okay okay the 4e funding stream
Speaker 83
42:41
is available to us the feds will allow us to claim certain things if, number one, if we can make reasonable efforts to keep the child in their home, we have to do it. So Representative Power is saying to the parents, you know, if you drop your kid off, we're going to – that was a reasonable effort to keep the child in that home.
So if we can go out and clean a house up and not take kids in foster care, we have to do it. So the feds say first thing is you have to make reasonable efforts to prevent removal. The next thing we have to have is this judicial – and Representative Summers read that language – The judicial determination that remaining in the home is contrary to the welfare of that child. So that's
Speaker 85
43:17
the next thing. It's contrary to the welfare finding. The next thing is it's tied to the old 4A program, and it's in 4A of the Social Security Act, which is the old AFDC, by the way, that's long gone away with.
But when a child comes in foster care, the next thing to make them 4A eligible is to look over to see whether or not we had deprivation. It was daddy in jail, not in the home,
Speaker 83
43:39
that kind of a thing. Nobody was working in the home. So if you can meet those requirements, then we can get a 4E funding stream. So 4E pays 75% of the board payments and 50-50 on administrative costs. And Cecile Blucher, our division director, just said it's 65% of our kids in our state because we have lots of poverty in Arkansas. Some of the states in the north don't claim as much on 4E.
Speaker 85
44:00
So what happens now is 4E has an adoption subsidy program. So for kids who are 4E eligible, we've been able to move them into 4E adoptions. adoptions the feds recently expanded that and i don't want to confuse you but they've recently expanded that to now allow some non-40 kids to be able to get adoption subsidies and then the part of that big bill that they just passed fostering connections they said you know what now for 40 kids you can now do guardianship subsidies with the money too and so that's why this is such an important bill
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:30
okay i just got i guess confused because i heard something said about a child
decides they don't want to and the funding source continues to be received by somebody? Or did I misunderstand that? I hope that was
Speaker 83
44:41
a misunderstanding because what will happen is we're required to consult with kids at age 12 now with Representative Summers' bill on adoption. The court has to consider the wishes of the child, and under this one it will be age 14. So we could go for the guardianship subsidy for a 10-year-old, and we'll certainly consult a 10-year-old. But if they're 14 now, the statute mandates
Speaker 85
45:01
that we consider the wishes of the 14-year-old before the guardianship is established.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:05
Okay, and final, the reason I ask that is because I just want to make sure that no funding continues to go to someone after the child has left the presence of the guardian or the foster home. I want to make sure the money stops.
Speaker 85
45:17
Okay, foster homes, when they leave a foster home, the funding stops. For the guardianship subsidy, there should still also be a requirement in our thing that says they have to care for the child to get the guardianship subsidy. Adoption is different. And I know because I took a case up to the Court of Appeals and lost like a big
Speaker 83
45:34
dog. And then on the adoption one, these two people dumped two of our foster kids in Florida
and said, still pay us the board payment. The adoption subsidy, and we were
Speaker 85
45:41
like, no, we're not going to do that anymore. And we were told we had to. But what we could do is ask for child support. And so that's what we have to do on an adoption when they're getting a subsidy, and the adoption disrupts because it's an agreement between the party, the department, and the party. Unless
Speaker 83
45:57
we terminate those adoptive parents' parental rights, we still have to pay the adoption subsidy. And what we do is ask for the court, which the courts are
Speaker 99
46:03
willing, more than willing to do, is for an amount of child support usually equal to, if not more, than the adoption subsidy.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:10
Leverage. Yes. Okay. Mr. Powers, in the example you used, was that a case of adopted parents who wanted to dump their
Speaker 130
46:18
kids, or was that biological parents who wanted to dump their kids? Frankly,
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
46:24
I've run into it so many times, it's been both. So it's not an unusual situation in either scenario, Representative Hammer. Okay.
Thank you. A quick question again. We've been mentioning funding and federal funding. Is there any
concern, given the way the federal government is going,
are they going to work today, are they going to shut it down? Is there any concern that this federal funding
Speaker 156
46:54
will be cut for this? I don't think that the federal funding will be cut. There
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
47:00
is some work going on on how they may revamp 4E, and that would be that you receive enhanced 4E funding to keep children from coming into the system, and you're penalized funding on those children who stay in the system too long.
The delay is holding up the release of the federal money to us. It's the only problem that we're encountering right now with the federal showdown going on. Seeing
no other questions from the Committee, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill, against the bill? Representative Powers, I
assume you're closed for your bill. We are closed,
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
47:38
Madam Chair, and I would like to thank the Committee. Very good questions, and we ask for a good vote. Okay.
the will of the committee I represent Elliot you're
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
47:49
recognized thank you madam chair I make a recommendation that do pass
we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye any opposed no motion carries the bill passes thank you very much thank you committee representative Shepard is getting his witness and will be here shortly so if it's okay with you we'll take a little break I
apologize, Representative Meeks, you do want to run your resolution.
I apologize for that. How – you are presented to – or you're recognized to present House Resolution 1030. Thank
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
48:35
you, Madam Chair. This is probably the most non-controversial bill I'll actually run this session. House Resolution 1030 is basically committing the Conway High School wrestling team on winning the state title.
Wrestling is not a sport that we necessarily think about. It's usually football, basketball, and the like. But I thought it important to recognize the wrestling team on winning the state title. Also, too, they have many achievements, as you can see, down through the resolution, as well as the coach. Ray Session was named Coach of the Year. And with that, I am finished. So if you
have any questions. Representative Elliott, you're recognized
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
49:15
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Meeks, if we pass this resolution, are we going to have
to recognize all the wrestling teams in Arkansas? No, because Conway is
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
49:26
the only one in their division that won the state championship. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing no other questions from
the committee, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the resolution? Against the resolution, seeing none, Representative Meeks, are you closed for your resolution?
Representative Meeks is closed for his resolution. What's the will of Representative Summers? You're recognized. Move. Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
50:33
Well, I'm a no, because we have an Arkansas-side Walmart that people from one-half mile away won't be able to buy it, because they don't have an Arkansas-side
Speaker 187
51:01
driver's license. Our Texas shoppers will be totally cut off from our Arkansas Walmart.
And they do come to our Walmart. There's Richard right there. Yeah, the
Speaker 189
51:10
people who visit from our state. It's not just visitors. It's people that
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
51:14
live in New York County. Well, that's what I'm saying. With that, what's that? What's out-of-state college do you still have? And here's
Speaker 113
51:22
Richard right over there. I've been emailed. Why did they put driver's license on me? Thank you.
All right, committee representative Shepard has made it.
And had I known that was the witness you were waiting on, I would have
gone ahead and started. Hello. It's my prosecuting attorney,
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
54:25
everyone, Dan Shue. Representative Shepard, you are recognized to present House Bill 2094. Thank
you, Madam Chairman, members of the committee. It's certainly my pleasure to appear here today to present House Bill 2094. This bill would amend the definition of child in certain statutes related to sexual performance and other criminal offenses.
Basically, the statutes, as presented right now, protect children under the age of 17. And this bill would simply provide protection to all children under the age of 18. And with me today is Dan Hsu, who is the prosecuting attorney from the 12th Judicial District, which is Sebastian County, Fort Smith. This is a bill that is part of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association's legislative package.
And Mr. Hsu is available to comment further on this, if the committee would so allow.
If you would please, sir, state your
Daniel Shue
Unverified
55:32
name and who you're with for the record. Mr. Chairman, thank you, members of the committee. Thank you. My name is Daniel Hsu. I am the prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District, Sebastian County, and what always happens with some of these is a factual situation presents itself and we're unable to help. And it happened to be a situation involving a 17-year-old, and looking back at these statutes,
And they're rather old. One of them was passed in 1979, and that was dealing primarily with visual and print medium. And then the other one was passed in 1983, primarily dealing with performances. Obviously very sad, horrible crimes to have committed, but in the case that came to our attention, it involved a 17-year-old, and we were unable to prosecute. Really these are meant to protect minors.
They're meant to protect children, someone less than 18. Why when they were passed and they were drafted, it did not include 17-year-olds, I cannot speak to. But this is a chance to remedy that and provide that protection to someone less than 18. Committee, you've heard an explanation
of the bill. Is there – are there any questions? Summers, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
56:59
I'm sure, Mr. Shue, this is covered somewhere else in the code, but what happens?
This is Arkansas, you know, what happens if a 17-year-old is married? Is married? Is married if the 17-year-old and the 17-year-old spouse carry on. engage in the things that
Daniel Shue
Unverified
57:23
are prohibited by the act it would be no different
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
57:28
than a 16 year old perhaps i'm going with your your your hypothetical how
Speaker 213
57:38
would that crime come to our attention
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
57:42
well maybe i'm not making myself my question clear and i apologize if you've got a 17 year old married and i assume it'd be male or female Yes, sir. And
I'm not clear on exactly what the violation would
Daniel Shue
Unverified
58:02
be. I don't think it would be a violation of this. If these are married consenting persons and somebody is going
to have to have that minority set aside, have permission to have married,
I don't think it's going to be a violation under any hypothetical of either of these two statutes. Okay. Thank you,
sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. Representative
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
58:34
Walker, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Representative Chairman. if you change the definition of child to include a person who may be graduating
from high school maybe even as much as a sophomore in college are you not limiting that person's liberty I mean of course everything limits liberty at some point but aren't you live in choosing my limiting that person's liberty in a way that's not necessary I mean let me see if I can make it clear that following up on the question that was raised by Representative Summers
under this definition it appears that a person seventeen years of age cannot get merit because the definition of child is changed to include a person such a person and when you start talking about sexual performance that means any performance that includes sexual conduct with the child under 18 I mean that means as he points up however you look at it that if some parent wants to
prosecute a a married person assuming that they can be lawfully married they can do so and that it becomes judgmental for the prosecutor and to decide whether to prosecute but prosecutors always have the discretion to prosecute they can prosecute anything they want or they can decline but there is nothing that keeps it from happening in the 18 year old case or the 17 or 16 year old case And I come from an era when many parents were 15, 16, 17.
Representative Gaskell is gone, but many parents, many good parents were less than 18. So I'd not like to be in a situation where I put a restriction on marriage, even though that's not the intent of this bill. Or on parentage, where you have a 17-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy, a 15-, 16-year-old girl, and an 18-year-old boy who have children.
I mean, I would certainly think that you don't want to punish a child by sending him to prison and having him or her prosecuted because they cohabited when both of them are underage. When
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:01:09
I say cohabited, they had a child. So you're, by your hypothetical, sexual performance means just
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:01:15
the sex act itself. Well, I'm saying it's any, well, I would certainly think sexual performance that you have here, it means any performance or part of a performance that includes sexual conduct.
I mean, see, I'm not using performance as a display of sexual behavior in the public domain. I mean we're not talking about people out in public performing we're just talking about two people engaging in a private sexual act they could both be 16 they could be 17 18 you're keeping them from not only having a sex act but you're keeping them from having children or having responsibility adult responsibility I'm not saying that's bad but I'm saying that that is that
conduct is reachable as I see it by this act and it's prosecutorial discretion which is unrestrained under those circumstances I beg to
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:02:10
differ what is outlawed is it lawful for a person knowing the character and content
of the performance to employ authorize or induce a child under this age to engage in the sexual performance in
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:02:26
all due respect now that's vague for a person
Knowing the character and content of the performance. That's current law. Well, I understand, but it's still vague. And you're just changing it. I'm simply saying, well, I mean, whatever. But I don't see by that one act that you mentioned that it's necessary to change existing law. I mean, do you have any other, do you have any body of information that makes it necessary to tamper with existing law other than the one example, the hypothetical that you have presented?
No, but it would have made a difference to them. Well, I understand, but one act in the state, I mean, if we just take one act throughout the state, every time
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:03:15
one aberration occurs that somebody doesn't like, then we'll be always changing the statutes. That'd be
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:03:21
one act under every county. That'd be 75 acts. Well, then you're looking for conduct that has not thus far become so socially offensive as to warrant the attention of any significant organization charged with looking after children.
The children and family people have not said that this is significant. I mean, I haven't observed that it is. I do observe that children are graduating from school younger if they graduate often. They are becoming adults and having adult responsibilities imposed upon them at younger ages. Why are we going to deal with them this way? Representative
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:04:00
Walker, if I might address some of your concerns, and additionally, Representative, I believe, Summers raised some issues.
I certainly understand the concern with regard to some of these hypotheticals presented. I said, based on my recollection of the law, those hypotheticals and concerns with regard to marriage, those would already be concerns. The law is already in place. What this bill simply does is include 17-year-olds in this protected class. And in my view, and certainly I think Representative Walker can appreciate this, I think he knows that I tend to thoroughly vet changes when it comes to criminal law.
In my view, for whatever reason, I think that in the Arkansas Code, the age of 18 is an age that the law typically looks at as coming of age. And if you're under 18, generally there are certain protections provided to those individuals. And that, as I said, this is a bill from the Prosecuting Attorneys Association. And as I looked at it, that's what motivated me to go ahead
and carry this bill, was to bring greater consistency and provide protection to those 17-year-olds who I think in most instances are provided the same protection as other minors. Now, I know there are certain situations where there are various ages or various protections afforded. But I think we all can acknowledge that the age of 18 has historically been an age and an attainment of age that is given special significance.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:05:50
And that's why I brought this bill. One other question. You're right, Ms. The, if I'm not mistaken, a person may enlist for service at
Speaker 227
1:06:09
17. Is that right? I'm not sure. That sounds right, but I don't know it for
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:06:16
a fact. I don't know. All right. Now, in terms of Section 3, A, at Lines 34 and 35,
you have the term of course this is already in there but I'm relating it to 17 is over against 18 induce a child of 18 years to engage in a sexual performance so what if you have to consenting adult to consenting 18 year olds or 17 year olds who want to engage in a sex act I mean cannot they be be prosecuted under this
Speaker 227
1:06:53
act representative Walker I think we just
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:06:58
were brought in a copy of the criminal code performance which I think is really what some of your questions are getting at the definition of a performance states is used in this sub chapter means any play dance act drama piece interlude pantomime show scene or other three-dimensional presentation or a part of a play, dance, act, drama, piece, interlude, pantomime, show, scene, or other three-dimensional presentation, whether performed live or photographed, filmed, videotaped, or visually depicted
by any other photographic, cinematic, magnetic, or other electronic means. So I don't, I certainly don't believe that this is. Well, I guess
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:42
it means that West Side Story could be outlawed and the participants in a high school play at 18 years of age could be charged if someone chose to do the job is that okay by share powers you're recognized you touched on one of
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
1:08:05
my favorite musicals represented Walker Reverend Shepard I
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:08:09
understand I think I understand I think you explained it Pretty well. You're simply lining up current law with the age of consent, I guess, in this state. I know the juvenile code defines anyone under the age of 18 as a juvenile, and anyone over that age is an adult. And our arguments on this law, now, you know, I might have a philosophical argument with you,
but you're not trying to take on that challenge here today, are
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:08:45
you? No, no, Representative. Just, again, trying to bring some consistency. And one of the other things that would be relevant is with regard to sexual performance under this. It means any performance or part of a performance that includes sexual conduct. Sexual conduct is defined under the code and is, I would prefer not to have to run down the list of those things. Well, I don't want you to run down the list.
I agree with your question that this is to bring some consistency. But I would say this. If we are
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:09:18
arguing current law, my question would be to you, could a 20-year-old married to a 17-year-old, could that 17-year-old be exploited? But I do understand, and I don't want you to answer the question, because I think there are plenty of questions that could be asked about the current law. The only thing you're doing is you're lining up this statute with our state law.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:09:45
That's correct. That's the intent. All right. Thank you. Representative
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:09:53
Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think most of my fears have been concerned, but to get away from the hypothetical and to give you an actual example, my grandfather was 21 and my grandmother was 16 when they married. Of course, this was back in the 40s. So I'm not sure if it still happens today. But, you know, when they were asking the questions, it did give me pause to concern because I know of actually somebody that something like this would affect.
But in essence, what you have said is that you're just bringing it online with other state law. So
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
1:10:29
appreciate it. Thank you. Representative Hickerson, did you
have a question? Motion passed at the proper time. Okay, we've got a few more questions and I'll come back to
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:10:40
your motion. Representative Harris, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Shepard, I am thoroughly enjoying this because I've got Representative Walker on this committee and Representative Powers and Deffenbaugh because I've been on your end over in Judiciary.
And y'all are very tough. So I'm proud to have Representative Walker in here so he can ask the hard questions.
But joking aside, Mr. Hsu, could you please tell me again what happened, why are we doing this bill? Because I think I
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:11:10
missed that at the very beginning. The protection does not extend to 17-year-olds. If you have a violation of this act, it only extends to 16-year-olds and below.
It does not extend to 17-year-olds. This just includes one more year in the protection. Okay,
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:11:28
so since I'm not an attorney which thankfully not and I'm thankful you are but Goes without saying yeah You so by doing it to 18 it protects 17 and below not 18 and below right That's and I didn't understand that so that kind of makes less than 18 less than 18 So once you're 18 does it protect the 18 year old?
you're an adult at 18 so we're not I mean there's nothing really hard to this bill I mean we're just protecting 17 year old which
are children so okay thank you representative Deffenbo you're recognized thank you madam chair I have several questions and
that's all right they're quick I think they'll all be quick it's just clarification my understanding is you know I'm reading this all we're really changing is the definition of child we're not is that true yes sir we're not
changing the definition of sexual performance that's our current law okay um so and you've probably been asked this in several different forms but if a 19 year old marries a 17 year old and she's got let's say the 17 year old girl she's got permission
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:12:49
to get married that's fine right But, again, the definitions of performance and sexual
Daniel Shue
Unverified
1:12:55
performance, I mean, we just started reading those. I mean, we'll not cover that sort of activity.
Speaker 210
1:13:01
It's not a violation of the law. Okay, okay. Now or after, assuming this becomes law, it
will not. Okay. So it's got nothing to do with two 17-year-olds that are not married or are intimate, and that's none
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:13:19
of our business, right? Unless you're the parents. It would be a lot of business, but yes, sir. All right,
then the last question is, you know, it might be a tough question,
but would this have authority over some religions that allow you to marry, like, nine-year-olds? would this would this law have anything do that not to my knowledge okay so that's just we're gonna leave that alone
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:13:53
right I'm just curious yes sir representative Elliott you're
recognized for a question thank you madam chair if
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:14:07
you can turn to page two you go from three to I think six well I'm sorry from 1 to 6, it says a child under 18 years of age to consent to a participant by the child in a sexual performance, and then it goes to say a person who violates this section upon conviction is guilty of a, and that's a Class C felony and a Class B felony.
So if it does not pertain to teenagers that may engage in that, and what we have to understand is our teenage pregnancy rate in Arkansas is very high, so we know that they're out there actually doing this, but in this bill, what I'm reading, what certain black and white is saying that these kids can be charged for the Class C
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:15:05
felony. I agree. I mean, again, this is directed at
sexual performances. So it's not directed at private relationships. It's directed at sexual performances, which necessarily involve sexual performance as defined under 527.401, which is the definition that I read a while ago that deals with, you know, live or photograph performance,
filming, videotaping, and other depictions. My next
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
1:15:56
felony or Class B felony, these children can be charged as adults and actually have an adult, actually, you know, depending on how what happens, go to the Department of Correction for having sex at a young age. Is that correct?
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:16:13
If it involves some type of performance and the employment authorization or inducement in such a sexual performance, or if it involved producing, directing, or promoting a performance, then yes. But again, that's already criminal under the law. We're only extending the protection to include 17-year-olds.
Speaker 66
1:16:43
Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, Representative Hammer, you're next
Speaker 44
1:16:48
on the question list. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some questions. There's about three or four, but they're yes or
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:16:55
no answers, please. There's been several references to children 17. I just want to qualify something. If a person chooses to join the military at 17, that is their choice. Is that correct? If a child graduates from school early, either because they are achieving at a rapid rate or they are willing to pay the price to graduate early.
That is their choice. Is that correct? Yes. If a girl chooses to get married at 17 and the parents consent and sign, that is her choice and her parents' choice. Is that correct? Yes. Is this change directed at protecting those, this change in law, Is this directed at protecting those who may be put in a situation that is not of their choice and just simply trying to bring it into compliance with the other standard of what is considered adult age, which is 18?
Is that a fair statement? Yes, sir. And one other thing, if this has, I know it is in other committees. I'm not really sure that we have defined it as a rule in our committee, But if this is going to introduce people to a Class C felony and a Class B felony and have, should there be a fiscal impact with this as far as how
it may impact the prison system? And I'll appeal to the chair and ask that question. Representative
Hamer, there does not need to be a fiscal impact.
And this is current law already. They're just changing the age. Okay, but if it changes
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:26
the age and that results in more? This committee does
not require a fiscal impact. Thank you, ma'am. Just want to qualify that. Thank
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:33
you, ma'am, Chair. Thank you all. Yes, sir. Seeing no further questions from the
committee, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill, against the
bill? Seeing none, Representative Shepard, are you closed for your bill?
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:18:53
I'm closed for your bill. Thank you, committee members, and I appreciate the questions. Thank you. what's the
motion of the committee do pass you have a motion
do pass all in favor say aye any opposed no eyes have it your motion carries thank you committee see
no other business to come before us we'll adjourn till nine o'clock
Agenda
Call to Order
HR1019
HR1036
HR1037
HR1028
SB625
SB710
HR1030
Break
HB2094
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Stephanie Malone Chair
Unverified
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 21
Speaker 18
Speaker 22
Speaker 29
Speaker 30
Speaker 42
Speaker 44
Speaker 43
Speaker 49
Speaker 51
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 65
Chair
Unverified
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 85
Speaker 87
Speaker 88
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 99
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 109
Speaker 100
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 84
Speaker 147
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 130
Speaker 156
Speaker 187
Speaker 189
Speaker 113
Speaker 194
Speaker 199
Speaker 163
Speaker 190
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 213
Speaker 227
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh Chair
Unverified
Speaker 210
Speaker 239
Speaker 66