House Aging, Children & Youth 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 David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
0:00
I see you taking your seat and you
Speaker 2
0:04
are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, this is a
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
0:11
bill that has a personal interest from me. What this bill does, if you'll have a chance to look at it, is to give non-custodial parents a little more information on what their minor children are doing in daycare, in classes,
and other programs that are pre-elementary or pre-kindergarten. What it is, as it currently law is written, and non-consodial parents have the ability to ask for and get updates on programs that their children are participating in from kindergarten up. This just brings it down further into the more daycare, school, after-school programs or church programs in which the non-consodial parent will have the opportunity to be informed on what their children are doing.
For instance, if I may say a kindergarten or a preschool, a church school graduation program and the non-custodial parents are not informed. This would let them have an authority, a right to be informed about that graduation or that program for that non-custodial children. And what brought this on, just a few minutes of this, is unfortunately in America today, and it's Arkansas trends that, we have approximately about a 50% divorce rate.
So the only positive side to this is we are finding that the non-custodial parent who has visitation rights are taking a stronger interest in the day-to-day quality of life that their child has. They're being more involved with their children.
And so this has just been brought up to me several times by several fathers who would like to be more informed on what their children are doing in preschool activities. That's all this does.
Speaker 4
2:41
I'd appreciate it. I'll take questions. All right.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
2:46
We do have a couple of questions, But I want to start off, Mr. Hall, by just for the clarification. I'm sure most of the committee know this.
Would you give us just a working definition and maybe some examples of
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
3:07
a non-custodial parent? Those are the, unfortunately, in the divorce cases who have visitation rights, they're just classified as non-custodial parents. That's the parents that do not have the responsibility of raising that child each and every night. They do have visitation. They also share custody, but they are not involved in the day-to-day management of that children's life.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
3:40
All right, I think that's very good an understanding of that. This does not infer anything that a court order regarding someone that is not allowed visitation, you don't see that conflicting with any prior court order that doesn't allow visitation to a child, do you? No,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
4:06
sir. The court orders would supersede this bill
by just the nature of a judiciary system.
A court, a judge, can certainly prohibit anything or allow. It's just in the code as it's written right now, these activities are not included in the current bill or law, in which this just raises the opportunity for the non-custodial parent to ask the judge, you know, I'd like to be informed about what my child's doing in church graduation classes or daycare programs.
I'd like to just be involved. This is really a bill to get the parent who has that interest in their children, give them the opportunity to be involved in the day-to-day lives for their children as much as possible. All right, I
Speaker 11
5:03
understand and I agree. Representative Harris is our first questioner. Thank you,
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
5:08
Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. As a preschool owner and a director, I'd just like to make it clear that as of right now, we have protection
from not giving the non-custodial parents information as far as most of the times what we see is the non-custodial parent is not involved in the child's life and there's always a battle between the mother and the father of who has the most information and what is happening and I just see it as a protection. Do you think that's going to kind of hinder our protection as a preschool to be able to not give out information I guess is I don't think that would interfere with
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
5:50
it would really depend upon the judge and and the ruling of the judge or what
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
5:58
and I think the other comment question sometimes parents they don't have a judge or we don't have interference by the courts and so oftentimes we see it as a protection of the child from that non-custodial parent which we don't know the whole life situation and they never They necessarily don't need to know where their child's at. So also, do you think it would not protect the child, your bill?
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
6:23
I think it would protect the child in its current and existing conditions as it stands today. I don't see where this would interfere with your operation of your daycare center at all. It's really between the parents of the child that's going to make that determination. What this bill does is gives the parent the opportunity to ask the judge for the permission to have this kind of information, and the judge is going to probably rule on this one
way or the other, but as it stands right now, it is assumed that it just starts at kindergarten or five-year-old kindergarten, in which they are informed about activities in their school and they can certainly get their report cards and grades and things like that under the public school system or the school system. This just brings it down a little further where if the nonconsulted parent wants to go and ask the judge during their hearings, you know, I'd like to be informed, it gives
Speaker 24
7:26
them an opportunity to do that. As it stands
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
7:30
right now, they do not have that opportunity. But this bill is also, they won't have
Speaker 19
7:47
to have a court order, correct, to get that information? Well,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
7:51
I'm assuming they would during a divorce hearing that they could ask for that. That's what's happened in the past, but back to the point is that because of the high divorce
rates and the non-consodial parents are taking a greater interest in their children, they feel that they are being ostracized from being informed of what's going on. It doesn't necessarily mean they have to attend or they can participate, but they would like to know what's going on with their children and events happens, special events such as plays, graduations, and other events all the way down to the lowest denomination they can
Speaker 26
8:37
get as far as activities of their children. They just would like
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
8:41
to be informed. And, I mean, if they're really
involved, I agree with that concept. I just would like to make a comment that in our setting, most of the times what we see is we see fights at graduation, so really the child's not protected. That's why we have a little ability not to have to give the information out. It protects
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
9:06
the child. And so that's the only comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. I think that Representative – I want to address Representative Harris' question.
Of course, this is what I do in my real-life job, deal with these situations. Anytime a judge, and my experience is over hundreds of cases, anytime there's a divorce proceeding and a judge grants custody, I've never known that judge not to encourage both parents to share information. And I think what Representative Hall is asking is that we clarify this in statute that more or less encourages those with this law to be able to share that information.
Now, I think I understand your point because that does happen because divorces are not always amicable. But I do think that Mr. Hall is simply going to change the law and really take that guesswork out of it for everyone, and you all don't have to decide whether it's good or bad for the child, even though in some cases it may be. But ultimately, there's a problem. I think a judge could put his hand on that. Representative Hammer?
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
10:22
Sorry, I'm sorry. You want to respond to that? Yes, I would like to respond to that. And just if it's court-ordered, we have to do it, and I don't have an issue with it. I just would want to make sure, as is now, that's what we do. And so this is changing that, am I not correct, to where
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
10:42
we don't have to have a court order to give out that information. I'm not sure if it's changing it. I think it's clarifying it because every court order that allows visitation, you know, there are certain rights that go along with that.
I can't tell you that they cannot have any information. I think kind of what Mr. Hall may be getting, you can correct me, Mr. Hall, it's kind of inconsistent throughout the state. I know that some of our schools where I come from, some try to accommodate, and some feel like you do, that they're protecting, you know, the interests of the child. So I think, if anything, this may take away some of that inconsistency.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
11:27
Representative Hammer. Thank you, and I welcome, as I ask my questions, you give input, if you would, because you deal
with this on a regular basis. And, Representative Hall, I think it's a good bill, it goes in the right direction. I just want a
couple points of clarification, if that's okay. It mentions that any child by means, child means any person under 18 years of age. What do we do
about the kids that are still in school as seniors and 18 years
and parents wanting to gain information about them, especially if they're in the judicial system. Could you just educate me on that, how that's going to take care
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
12:12
of that? Well, if you're referring to line 25 on page 1, the child means he the person of the 18. That's the current interpretation of the statutes as it stands today. We're not changing that. That's the existing one. Personally, I would think the parent would want to be informed on their senior graduating
student when he graduates or she graduates or not. But I did not change, I was not trying to change the law as I was trying to make it more, give the non-consodial parent the opportunity to address his concerns or her concerns with a judge and getting the definition of asking for further down on the child's well-being and upbringing on what they could be informed about.
But the existing 18 is already current in the law.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:14
Okay. Second and the last question. As I read this, it talked about dance and children's play and daycare and everything, but having been a previous director for mental health, it doesn't specifically address mental health, and sometimes I know under HIPAA violations there's some concerns and reluctancies, and sometimes the kids
get caught in the middle.
Do you feel that adding or did you give any thought to adding sharing of medical records or mental health records to help provide that information specifically? Honestly, no, sir.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
13:54
I did not. That was not in my radar screen dealing with mental health issues. That becomes more of a medical problem, and those are restricted information that can
be passed from the medical provider and the parents. Anyway, I would assume that would have to be under a judge's rule of their divorce decree other than I really wasn't trying to get into the mental health side of any issues here. I was just trying to give the non-consodial parents the opportunity to be involved
Speaker 24
14:29
in their children's lives more, if they so desire. Excuse me. I know a lot of
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:35
times, and I'd be interested in your input on this,
A lot of times what we see or what we saw was that a child is under the mental health services of a school-based mental health program, and the custodial parent would not share information, and then the child would go home with
the non-custodial parent for the weekend, and they would withhold their meds, and it's just a sticky mess. And I'm wondering, do you think if that was specified in here, it would give them greater freedom, or the language as it's written address that enough, do you think? Well, let me just say this.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
15:11
I think it's kind of getting onto a slippery slope because, obviously, it certainly could be granted in a divorce petition spelled out in those court orders that you do have to share information in regards to the medical situation with the child and whatever. Now, it can be easily addressed by that non-custodial parent. I can't imagine if the parent is still in good standing with the court that a judge would not enter an order asking that medical records be shared with that parent.
I've seen it done many times because obviously, as we talked a little bit earlier and everyone knows, these divorces between adults are not always amicable. So, but that would probably need to be addressed, as Representative Hall said, I think, by a judge at a future date. And my experience has been that's fairly easily done and it's
Speaker 11
16:13
been done many times where I'm from. All right.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:20
And the only thing I was thinking was that it could help, it would help eliminate that
need. Or, as referencing what you were saying a while ago, was that if you don't have a court involved, then you don't have
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
16:34
a judge to go to for it. Well, there's always a, you know, there is a court involved. And, you know, because that divorce has been recorded in some county somewhere. So, I mean, it's not that difficult of a matter. You know, probably, not in every case, but probably there was an attorney.
There may be some cost involved in it. But there may be some extenuating circumstances that you might want the court to have a
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
17:10
look at the medical records and so on. Thank you. Representative Benedict, I believe. Thank you. Madam Chair, Representative Powers, Representative Hall, I'm sorry. I have a question on how do you enforce, regulate, and implement this.
If I am the custodial parent, saying the mother, and I have a three-year-old daughter or four-year-old that I sign her up for a dance class, maybe later in the week for a one-day art class, who am I obliged to give this information to? Would it be the father whose phone
number I may or may not have, or do I go to a judge
and tell him what the schedule is for this child, or how do you implement and regulate this? As it's written
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
17:56
right now, you would have, in a timely manner, you would be able
to give their custodian parent the information.
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
18:05
Does that mean you would be, I mean, sometimes the non-custodial parent don't want you to even have their phone number. How do you get by those obstacles? MR. If
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
18:17
a non-custodial parent wants to be informed, and I would certainly think he would make or she would make her information available, those who are not interested in doing it or care less, they're not going to.
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
18:31
MS. So the custodial parent would be required to make a call to the non-custodial
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
18:35
parent, not the judge. MR. have to really ask, you know, I would like to be involved in my children's life, and the custodian parent, and they would work out the details. If they're not happy, they can always go back to a court and work out. That would be the, the recourse would be to go back to court if they weren't happy. And let a judge settle that. We're just talking about a child who is under five years old, because right now when they
enter four-year-old kindergarten or five-year-old kindergarten, they can be kept informed by the schools as it stands right now as you if you can read it it says non custodial parents rights to children's classic records is already in code now all we're doing is information about other activities other activities are and include could be children's play enrichment classes dance music art classes daycare programs pre-kindergarten programs and events and
And it says the information of other activities the child is involved in, which is given in a timely manner by the custodial parent to allow the participation or attendance by the non-custodial partner parent. All we're doing is if they are fighting, they certainly can fight this out in court. If they don't want that to happen, they have the opportunity during their procedures to limit that. But this is just saying, really, it just says, I'm a non-custodial parent. I'd like to be informed of my child's preschool activities, events that are special that I'd
like to participate in or be aware of. And if the custodian parent, if non-custodial parent is interested, they're going to make sure their information is available. Wouldn't you assume that? I would. If I
Speaker 17
20:22
was interested in raising my child, my child's . . . Well, I'm
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
20:28
just wondering what obligation is put on the custodial parent, you know, How technical or how picky you can get on what you inform somebody if you're doing or what you're not, or if that causes problems, meaning people are going to go back to the
courts more often than they used to say, well, if it's going to put an extra burden on the courts to regulate this,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
20:50
I guess is what I'm asking. I would doubt that this is going to be that big of a legal challenge either way. If you're into that type of environment, this is going to be hashed out long before we get to this point
Speaker 19
21:05
here about other custodial activities, non-custodial activities. Okay, but thank you, Representative Hall.
Representative Summers. Thank you, Madam Chair and Representative Hall. I think you're trying to help the people that are interested in being involved, and I know There's not always that involvement. We wish there were more. But I think the only thing that concerns me about it is just the practical aspects. And Vice Chairman Powers, I think I'd ask you to this. And I guess you can always get all these different exceptions to things.
But I run a drug and alcohol rehab, and we have a mother's section where we have mothers and children there for up to six months to a year sometimes. And how do you see it working out? And rarely are those mothers, rarely is the non-custodial parent even involved. Many times they're in jail. But how do you see that working out with the concern about privacy, about HIPAA, all the different regulations?
And that may be too convoluted to even ask, But that's my
Speaker 10
22:22
concern. Yeah, I believe the HIPAA regulations
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
22:25
are a whole different animal, Representative Summers. But the key to and what I'm reading here on Representative Hall's bill is the key to this is that non-custodial parent has to make a request to be involved in that child's life. So obviously at that point, it's going to try to get him involved.
that's on the last paragraph on page one, says a non-custodial parent who's been awarded visitation rights by the court with respect to a child shall be provided upon the non-custodial parent's request. So that person is going to have to ask to have these privileges. And I think that eliminates, you know, the spectrum runs, you know, to parents that you'd never have to think about neither one being involved. It runs to mom and dad who are divorced, and one has visitation rights.
They kind of yin-yang back and forth, and then you have some really harsh feelings between the two, and then you have the ones that don't want to be involved at all. In answer to your question, I think that the exception may be to situations that you're talking about, But I would trust, and I think one of the good things about Representative Hall's bill is I see it, it fosters a line of communication that in many cases in these civil proceedings hasn't been there for whatever reason.
And so if anything, I think whatever bugs that we may run into regarding HIPAA laws or regarding your situation, your alcohol and drug rehab, I think it's in the best interest of the child, as any judge will tell you, and that's what the juvenile code is based upon, that if that parent is in good standing to still have visitation with his child, I think it's a good thing to have that line of communication.
to your question. The other part of it is, over the past term, we heard many issues with grandparents' rights. That's correct. And this doesn't address that, and I suspect, and I don't have any science to back it up, that grandparents are involved as often, if not more so, than non-custodial parents. I'm not trying to muddy the water, Clark, but I just... Mr.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
24:59
Chairman, I can address that. I understand there's another bill that's being filed by someone else on grandparents' rights.
But to answer your questions, Mr. Representative, this is to non-custodial parents who have been awarded visitation rights by the court. We're not talking about this has already been resolved in the court that they have visitation rights. So they're just asking to be, if I have visitation rights already, I'd just like to be informed about the activities, special events that may be happening to my child.
So I think we respectfully disagree in the fact that the HIPAA laws really did not apply to this piece of legislation at all, or the security of someone's medical records. We're not addressing that at all
in this bill. Representative Hubbard, sorry.
Speaker 66
26:00
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd just like to make a comment. In my 15 years in education, I can understand Representative Harris's concerns.
I'm sure there's a lot of concerns in that direction about situations that we've seen in the news over the years. But I think in cases like this where there has been custodial rights already granted by the courts we should remove whatever barriers to the positive involvement in their children's lives that are there and I think this bill is a very good idea to address that that possibility thank you representative Sanders I
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
26:42
would concur with with representative Hubbard I mean
represent Hall what you're trying to do is encourage positive parenting at a point in time in a child's life where it's very crucial you know we make a lot of arguments up here about needing education you know at below kindergarten here we're trying to encourage parenting at a very crucial time in the life of a child and you both pointed out this is to this is for non-custodial parents who have already been awarded visitation rights this is a good bill and I would say I would like to make a motion do pass we've got one we've got a few more
questions and then we're coming at the appropriate time okay thank you representative
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
27:23
Hickerson I was just gonna move so he took care of it
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
27:29
representative Subblefield I think it's a good bill too Mr.
Hall except I may have been raised a little different than some some of you in here when I was 18 I wasn't a child anymore my dad bought me a car and he put me through school and
and I was an adult and you know when you get in college like this line over
here on the back on line one on page two if you haven't if you haven't established a trusting relationship by the time you're 18 19 or 20 with your mother your father as
to whether or not you want them to know what kind of grades you've
got in college you know it's like the health care bill if my mom and dad had to leave me on my health their health care bill that's 26 I'd need a health care bill that's the only problem I have with this is when do you cut off when it When is the age that you cut off a child being an adult? I mean, when do they turn into an adult and
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
28:46
start accepting responsibility? First, I'd like to say this, if I may. Some children at 16 are adults and some are at 26.
I'm not so sure about. However, the line you're referring to here is already in the code. I'm not changing that at all. That's existing statutes right now. The copy of the current record as a child, school districts, or college, That's the current statute right now. We're not touching that. Whether we move this bill forward or not, that's the existing law as it stands today. Well, it's also
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
29:20
on page 1, on 26, I mean, line 26 on page 1.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
29:26
College meeting any public institution of higher education. Yes, sir, and that's the current statute as it sits today, yes. The only thing I am changing, have any change on any of the statutes right now, is what is underlined. We have not changed that. That's current. That gives the parent the authority to go to a judge or ask for those records if they so choose. I mean, that's just the way the law is written right now. That's current statutes. Okay.
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
29:56
Okay, that's all I have. Representative Mock. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Powell, as a non-custodial parent, I want to personally applaud you for this bill. I like it. I can't count the number of times or the number of events I've missed due to this, not knowing what's going on in my children's lives. And the children shouldn't be caught in the middle of a divorce. That's right.
And unfortunately, they are. And all they want is both parents to be there and not be caught in the middle. And it's for their mental health as well. It does affect them, whether you like to admit it or not, it does. And I wish we'd have had this when I went through my divorce. But I will vote for this bill. I thank you for it. I appreciate
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
30:50
it, Reverend Mark. I would tell your brother that when I see him this weekend, he's from my hometown here.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
30:58
Representative Williams. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to have a comment. Representative Hall, I think this is a good bill also. We spend a lot of time on bills. This is one I think we shouldn't spend much time on because all he's doing is simply extending to young children the rights that are afforded to children who are older. This is really not complicated or complex and should not involve any concerns about any additional laws because most of this we're already doing for kids who are above pre-K through college. He's just doing this for kids who are below pre-K in the most sensitive years, and I think
this is a great idea, a good bill, and I appreciate you bringing it. I look forward
to voting for it. Thank you, sir. All right. We have a motion from Representative Sanders of do pass. What's the will of the committee? All in favor say
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
31:44
aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Hall your bill passes thank you committee thank you madam chairman next up we have representative Karen Hopper to present house resolution one zero zero
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
32:00
one representative Hopper thank you madam chair mr. vice chair and and particularly members for being here today. When you look at the content of this House Memorial Resolution to the late James Ed Gilbert, I know he too would appreciate your presence here today. Representative Gilbert was held the seat that I currently hold when I moved to this great
state almost 24 years ago, and you will see that he held this seat for 18 years, and the resolution, of course, is filled with many great comments, not only at the state level, but at the local level for his contributions to our state and our community. And I'm sure in those 18 years, he made decisions just like we all are making here today in that I'm sure there was a snowy day or two in his 18 years of service. I think the resolution pretty much speaks for itself, although I would take questions,
vote. Representative Summers, you're recognized for a motion. Move, do pass. All right, we have a motion of do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Congratulations. Your resolution passes. Thank you very much. No other business to come before the committee.
We are adjourned. Thank you. Oh, and also, I just wanted to make a quick announcement. I don't know if y'all have seen in your e-mail, we're trying to work on a committee dinner. I'm trying to figure out a good day or time that would be best for everybody. So if you would e-mail us back and let us know. It looks like we're all going to be
here tonight. I know. We made us. I'll go back to the other way. So, or just come up and let myself or
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
34:12
Vice Chair Powers know, or Ms. Smith, Benaria.
If you'll let Benaria know. Just tell us. I'll be there. And we're also retaking our committee picture, and I will
let you know when that is. We were supposed to do it today, but it had to be
Speaker 115
34:33
rescheduled. What's wrong with it? He did.
Agenda
HB1145
HB1024
Call or Order
HMR1001
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 2
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 11
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 24
Speaker 26
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
Speaker 17
Representative Tim Summers Chair
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 9
Speaker 66
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 115