House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
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
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
0:00
I'm going to give a brief summary of what the attempt is on the Juvenile Code. It's some revisions, it's amendments to the current Juvenile Code. It is the intent to amend the Juvenile Code to clarify the role of the court to determine custodial placements after evidence from parties and the finding that such placement is in the child's best interest. It is also an attempt to amend the juvenile termination of parental rights statute consistent with the adoption statute and case law, providing that the court can determine that DHS unreasonably withheld its consent for adoption-based
and adoption is in the child's best interest. It also clarifies that the court can terminate parental rights on one parent and not the other parent if it finds that the termination is in the child's best interest. It amends various statutes to clarify the right to counsel of parents, putative parents, and custodians in dependency neglect proceedings. the addition of the Indian Child Welfare Act Burdens of Proof to Hearings section of the Juvenile Code. It attempts to amend the petition section of the Juvenile Code
to change the party status of a juvenile from a defendant in a dependency neglect petition to a respondent. It clarifies definitions in the Juvenile Code concerning CASA and home studies. And it also will correct the permanency goal in the 15-month review statute from termination to adoption. It will add the juvenile court costs and fines to the juvenile probation and service fee statute to support juvenile court and community programs with agreement of quorum court and full accounting provisions.
Ms. Connie Hickman-Tanner is with me from the Administrative Office of the Courts, and she deals specifically in juvenile matters, juvenile court matters, and we are both here to answer questions if necessary. Thank you, Ms.
Rogers. Members, any questions for Ms. Rogers or Ms. Tanner? In addition,
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
2:00
you do have a handout that's been given to you that kind of gives the what am I trying to do? How the, what's the word? Help me.
Speaker 6
2:13
Most of, I'm sorry, I'm Connie Hickman Tanner with the Administrative Office of the Courts. This is a bill that's brought to you by our juvenile division judges, and most of these actions deal with dependency neglect
Speaker 7
2:24
proceedings. And so I just brought you a flow chart that shows you those proceedings, kind of give you context of those hearings since these were brought by our judges. We also have worked with DHS on this bill and the county since the part that deals with the court cost and the fees. They're fees that are already the court does.
we just are putting them in a different fund and we ran that by
the counties as well before we brought
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:55
the bill. Thank you, Ms. Tanner. Members, any questions? Mr. Walker? Yes, in provision, in Section 2, there are a lot of fees that may be assessed. Have you figured out how much all of those fees, when combined, total their monthly fees? $20, $20, $50, and and then $500 for a period of time.
It looks like. Are you referring to Section 11? Yes,
Speaker 6
3:24
ma'am. On page 7? I said 2 by minute, 1-1, yes, 11. Actually, I will tell you, currently those are fees that are already collected that the
Speaker 7
3:32
judge. I will tell you the reality of collecting those fees are actually, it says the court may collect. Court costs generally are collected, the $35, but the probation fees, it says up to $20. Generally, for those of you who have had experience in juvenile court, they may get $5 a month.
Most of our people in juvenile court are indigent, so the court has to determine if they have the ability to pay. The fines are very unlikely in juvenile court, but if they do have the ability to pay, we wanted to have the mechanism of where they went and in a full accounting for those fees. One of the things is the county in which they're collected, It has to be because we have multiple districts that if they're collected in a multi-district county, they go to the county to serve the juvenile and the juvenile programs in that district.
So we just set forth those procedures of how it's done. But the actual how that's done, there will be an accounting and expenditure for that that we've not had in the past, and that's one of the things this bill does. And that's set forth in Section 13 on the Circuit Court Juvenile Division funds. They have to do a full accounting of the money coming in and the expenditures. We currently do that for the probation fees. That currently happens. But we don't have that for the court costs and fines.
And so to your point, that will now be done, and we'll know what's being
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
5:01
collected and what is expended out. Now, if youngsters and their families cannot afford to
pay, do they get further punished by way of further time or conditions? No. In
Speaker 6
5:12
fact, our law is very clear. For example, one of the provisions is like
Speaker 7
5:17
a revocation of probation, and you cannot revoke probation for inability to pay. And that is currently in our law.
Speaker 19
5:26
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Gilliam, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually was just wondering if Representative Steele's
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
5:42
attorney, Representative Powers, had any problems with this bill. Well, first of all, Representative Steele, it should
be called into question for sure. I have absolutely no problem with this. This is a good bill. I've looked at it. We've talked about it with Ms. Tanner. And I know that any time they present something before this committee involving our juvenile courts,
it's been well researched, and I have faith it's an excellent bill. Thank you, Representative Powers. Representative Williams, at the appropriate
Speaker 19
6:09
time, I have a motion. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Any additional questions? Seeing none, Mr. Eubanks, do you
have a question? Seeing none, anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this bill? Seeing no one, Ms. Rogers, would you like to close for your bill? We are closed and would appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Thank you. Mr.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
6:29
Gillum has a motion of due pass. That's a proper motion.
Any more discussion or questions? Seeing none, all in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Aye, 7th. Congratulations, Ms. Roger. You passed your bill. Thank you. Members, we're now going to run House Bill 1869. Representative Powers, you're recognized
for House Bill 1869. There is an amendment that's being passed out right now. Members, keep in mind that House Rules will not allow us to meet when the House is in
session. Only the Rules Committee can meet when
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
7:07
the House is in session. So we're going to have to leave here at least by 1.25 so
we can get to our seats and sign in. So just keep that in mind.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
7:21
Mr. Speaker, while we are passing out the amendment, I'm going to ask Keith Kavanis J.D. Gingrich to come to the table with me. And I would just further relate that the amendment is just making some number changes in the
bill and nothing really hidden there is this amendment that we need to shape things up here on this particular piece of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Powers. I recognize you for a motion to amend the bill. in favor of Amendment No. 1 to
House Bill 1869 by saying aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Powell. Now you can present House Bill
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
8:05
1869 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll just try to be as concise as possible because I know
our time is short. Amendment 80 recognized that it would be in the best interest of the of Arkansas, to come away with a three-tier judicial system. And those of you that are old enough to have sat on this committee, and Mr. Baker is who I'm referring to, he was here with me in 2007 when then Representative Harrelson ran the bill to start the consolidation of our district courts.
And we did fold in 19 full-time state district judges in 2007. In 2009, I ran a legislation where we did add six more. So currently we have 25 state district judges. Also in 2007, the District Court Resource Assessment Board was formed, of which I was appointed a member along with Representative Penartz, Senator Thompson, and Senator Whitaker, who we all currently serve on that board. The original charge of the assessment board was to take applications
and see who was ready, who fit the criteria to become district courts or statewide district courts or full-time judges. And we have done that over the last two legislative sessions. What the charge of the assessment board has been over the last couple of years is simply to develop an outline of how we will proceed in the future. This outline in no way is definite.
It is a fluid situation, but what we have determined that we will add some district courts in 2013 if this legislative session passes. And then we have a schedule for 2015, 2017, even up to 2021. The reason I say this is a fluid situation is because we understand there are some problems with geography, there are some problems with caseloads, and everyone doesn't fit the criteria at this time, and other reasons why some of our districts are not ready to go forward.
But to the best of our knowledge, those in 2013 are ready to go forward, and that's the primary thrust of this legislation today. I can tell you that this is, I don't suspect that we will go forward in future legislative sessions where there won't be tweaks and amendments and changes to the legislation. But it is something that right now pays for itself, doesn't come from general revenue. The system is funded well at this point.
It has proven to be, for those 25 current district courts that are full-time, It's proven to be worth the money. It's more efficient. As many of you know, state courts will be phased out in 2012, and this will actually make district courts more accessible to our people. And keep in mind that district courts are the primary courts that our citizens end up going to.
And so we do believe that this is a proper venue to go forward and hopefully continue to consolidate our courts. Now, I have Keith Cavanaugh to my left from the AOC, along with J.D. Gingrich, who have been instrumental in writing this legislation and being a part of the Resource Assessment Board. We will try to answer any questions or concerns that you may have going forward. And, Mr. Chairman, we are willing to take questions.
Thank you, Mr. Powers. We do have questions. Mr. Rice, you recognize
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
12:09
for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Powers, is this the one I talked to you about previously? Yes, sir. It is. And I respect, I know you all have done a lot of work on this, and I respect that. but this would be the one that I told you that my home county quorum court in my local city has drafted a resolution. They don't like it. That's one. Okay. Thank you for clarification.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
12:33
Okay. Well, I hope that's been helpful and you can support this legislation. Mr. Steele, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
12:44
several questions, if I might. I don't just like to hear myself talk. I can assure you I've just got a lot of legislation today that's kind of in my wheelhouse. Representative Powers, I do appreciate as much work as you put into this. And, you know, Representative Harrison, while he may be my first cousin, we don't agree on much oftentimes.
But I've talked to you a lot about this privately. And, as I mentioned, I practice law in district court on a weekly basis. and I have a hard time really understanding why this is entirely necessary. Yesterday on the floor there was a lot of discussion. I forget which bill it was, but somebody kept saying, you know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This is a complete overhaul of our district court system. It's a 33-page bill. And I guess I don't see
exactly what's lacking that significantly in our district court system at present, if you might just touch on that.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
13:38
Well, I'm going to let Keith or J.D. either one chime in on that, but I'm going to hit on it first. Number one, as I mentioned earlier, the city courts will be extinct in 2012. I think there's no question that it's going to make it more accessible to our citizens. The other factor is, I think from a money standpoint, and I think it's been shown thus far, it does create, at this point, I don't think a huge windfall. But when we started, and Representative Rice hit on this, right now his folks are not amenable to this situation,
and it generally deals with there are some political reasons, I'm sure, and there are some geography reasons, geographic reasons. But I think the Amendment 80 strongly, though it doesn't mandate, I think it's strongly recommended that this, And the citizens obviously voted on that. So I think there are questions of efficiency and cost savings and ultimately a better experience for the people that deal with our district court, which I mentioned earlier most of our folks do.
So J.D. and Keith might have a different thought on that or be able to add
Speaker 41
15:03
I'm J.D. Gingrich with the Administrative Office of the Courts. You recognize me. Thank you. I
Speaker 40
15:07
would only just say briefly I wrote down a quote from Chief Justice Hannah's State of the Judiciary address last summer to the joint meeting of the Judiciary and the State Bar Association where he talked about this legislation and said it was the most fundamental and long-term improvement in the structure and efficiency of the Arkansas state court system.
And I think that's borne out of the practice of the last five years now of having the opportunity to see how these courts work in various locations. The fact of the matter is we've gone from having seven different limited jurisdiction courts with conflicting jurisdiction, all with part-time judges, which creates lots of problems both for efficiency, certainly for people understanding how they're supposed to bring their suit, but from the court standpoint, the ability to get the people's work done.
And what is happening in these jurisdictions now, particularly in areas that are either all rural jurisdictions or just jurisdictions that are multi-county and have urban areas and rural areas, you have lots of areas in the state that aren't served by circuit judges. And so under the joint action by the legislature and the court, The court's now issued three separate procuriums that deal with how district court judges, what their jurisdiction will be and how they will operate.
It requires that they meet with the circuit judges, that they draw up a plan with each one of those jurisdictions to determine what district court work and what circuit court work the full-time district judges will do. And, for example, in some areas, it allows a district court judge where you have no regular circuit court judge to do domestic relations work, to do initial criminal work, that are circuit court cases. But as it relates to the district court work, the court's primary concern in the beginning was the fact that these are just part-time judges.
And part-time judges, not just in Arkansas but all around the country, have certain inherent problems. You have folks who are practicing law this morning and are sitting on the bench in the afternoon. That's without suggesting that anybody that is serving now or in the past is doing things in any way inappropriate. These are good folks, good judges who do outstanding work, but from the perception of the public, there is a problem with part-time judges who are lawyers, and certainly the Supreme Court's position and preference and statement to the General Assembly is that these courts should be served by full-time judges.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
17:42
And let me just follow up with that for one thing I want to say,
and I don't think I would use the phrase, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm not sure that it's necessarily broke in every situation, but one of the key points of this legislation is we have 144 courts at this point. We're going to have 64 if we fold everyone in. I had a question asked of me by the prosecutors this morning. Well, is this going to make me hire more prosecutors? No, we're going to have less.
So that's one of the ideas that we will have more efficiency in our district courts. Mr. Chairman,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
18:26
several more questions. I don't know that we'll be able to get to any of them, but I'll yield
to someone else if we could have some questions answered at some
point. Let's have a little discussion with the committee on that point. We only have about 12, 13 more minutes to hear this.
I am willing to, after, we have a full calendar on the House floor today and a full budget calendar. If the committee would like, we can come back to hear only this bill, the remainder of this bill. No additional things, so we won't be here until 7 or 8 o'clock like some committees have been. If it's okay, we can come back. We'll let this on the table and come back to hear only this bill, if that's okay with the committee members. Ten minutes after adjournment. And to remind you, we're going to adjourn probably late because we have a three-page regular calendar and a pretty full budget calendar, and, of course, some of those will be batched.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
19:18
Are you guys okay with doing that? Mr. Chairman, if I could, and this may be helpful, and I've had this talk with many of the folks on here have full-time state court judges. Really, the essence of this legislation at this point in time and the only effect it will have in the immediate future is those courts that have willingly agreed to go in in 2013. In effect, we're not doing anything different than we haven't done in 2007, 2009.
And when I mentioned earlier the ability or flexibility that's built into this legislation, when you guys come back, I wanted, we all want the flexibility for you to do what is best, not only for the state but your district. So, in effect, you're not doing anything by passing this legislation out of here that's going to do anything more than what we did in 2007, 2009, not costing the state a penny. The funding formula is in place. Nothing's changed.
And as you go through the legislation, you see a guideline or a map, if you will, of how we would suggest it is at this point. But that is the gist of what we're trying to do. You know, if we're going to debate whether or not district courts are worthy, you know, we should have had that debate a while ago. We are, for lack of a better term, and I hate to use the term, we are adding some pilot programs,
Speaker 30
20:48
and there's a great deal of flexibility as you go forward in future legislative sessions.
We'll just continue with the questions, and we'll get to about five minutes before we've got to get up there. Sure. to
stop and then we'll lay it on the table because we have at least two people that want to speak for the bill, so we
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
21:06
wouldn't probably have a chance to hear them. Mr. Wright? I'm sorry, you still have questions?
Speaker 34
21:10
Go ahead, Mr. Still. I'm sorry, Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
21:13
here last time. I would have asked all these when this whole thing started. Given my voting on that stocking bill, I might not be here next time, so I'd like to get as many of these out as I can. Again, you talked about accessibility. I know in my particular map, and we've talked
about it quite a bit, but under the proposal, I'll have one district judge over four counties. Could someone explain to me how that would make a district court more accessible? I would assume we're going to have problems getting search warrants signed over those four counties. We're going to have a problem with that judge managing four different clerk's offices. There's going to be a lot more travel and expense involved, so could someone explain to me how not having a judge in each county as we do now, and having one in four counties would make a district court
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
21:57
more accessible? I'm going to let my experts First, take this, but I'm going to say this quickly.
Your particular district kept several folks up at night, and we frankly can't come up with a better idea at this point. We're hoping, and I think we have to fix it. But to do what the legislature charged us to do, which is to create a map knowing that we can fix it going forward when someone can suggest a better situation
for us. but J.D. and Keith can identify the problems much better than I. I'd like
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
22:31
to get in some of that criteria, if I could, about how these maps are drawn out.
My understanding is it's primarily caseload. Is that correct? That was a fundamental issue. And when you say caseload, we're talking about, in district court, we're talking about speeding tickets and
Speaker 40
22:50
things of that nature. Is that correct? Well, it's
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
22:53
a different mix in every jurisdiction. Okay. But if someone like Representative Wright, who lives around the interstate in Forest City, may have significantly more speeding offenses than I do in the southwest corner of the state, does that increase the caseload? Does that mean that his district court district would be smirled because of that quote-unquote caseload,
which is probably just by and forth of
Speaker 41
23:13
it on speeding tickets? Well, because there's a different mix, that's why over the last 10
Speaker 40
23:19
or 12 years, as this process has gone forward, from time to time, both the advisory committee and the judges' committees have used a weighted caseload system rather than actual caseload to try to make sure they understood what was the real amount of judge time that's needed in order to deal with the caseload. So you're hitting on a good point if certainly a court that has only traffic cases can deal
deal with many, many more cases than one that has a different mix of
Speaker 46
23:47
kinds of cases before it. And you have to be aware of that as you make these decisions. Okay. And you mentioned
Speaker 47
23:54
that under the proposal. Mr. Phil, I hate to
cut you off here. We probably need to be making our way so we're not late. I've got a motion from Representative Bias laid on the table. Take it back 10 minutes after adjournment right here, and you'll be asking questions when we get back. That's okay. I apologize for actually came down, but I want to make sure you get a chance to be heard. don't have to come back another day. Mr. Powers?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
24:15
No, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we'll be back as soon as we adjourn.
Agenda
HB1812
HB1869
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 7
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 19
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 41
Speaker 33
Speaker 30
Speaker 34
Speaker 46
Speaker 47