Judiciary Committee - Senate

Sure saves a quorum I want to go and call this meeting of Senate Judiciary to order first item on the agenda today is Senator call will. I thank the first thing we need to do is send call as an amendment we need to adopt. He was here. Is there any questions of the member art we have a motion to adopt them and second to document any discussion. All of the favor say aye opposed members been adopted center call where you're recognized thank you chairman of the committee Ronald Caldwell senator from District ten this bill is pretty simple the title tells exactly what it does is act regarding public officers employees authorize the penalty for threatening a state employee in the course of his or her job duties authorize a penalty for learning an individual or entity of a state investigation and that's exactly what the bill does we we have a committee agency that have investigators to go out on the job anywhere from the agency such as the AD EQ state police the health department Plant Board DHS board pharmacy medical board plumbing inspectors electrical inspectors in there just many people that to work for the state to go in inspect and in the last few years and the has become somewhat hostile environment and the this would establish a the penalty phase crime face the for anyone is doing that they would also prevent any state employee from tipping off someone that the inspectors coming to their jobs like. Our committee for next plans to bill of any questions from committee. Senator Gilmore you're recognized thank you Mr Senator thank you for bringing this I just a quick question as to why you have chosen unclassified felony season unclassified misdemeanor verses just a a class A. B. or C. I see the subsequent is a is a D. felony but I didn't know if why you picked a unclassified felony Mr beyond for you sure give more a big that the larger bill or did okay thank you any other questions from committee. Saying none is anyone in the audience like to speak for against the bill which rose what you're recognized. Yes your name for the record you're recognized. Minister for the fire alarm here in Little Rock in the Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers our problem with this is the second part the tipping off of it is too vague. And sweets more than Dan is appropriate the question is what is an investigation and when does it formally stark and for instance if if there is a call to the hotline if a hotline call will be investigated but is is it deem demand an investigation at the time of the call is made it doesn't explain the second problem is the definition of a state employee that includes lawyers at the public defender commission so let's talk about hotline business for a minute let's say lawyer finds out there's a criminal investigation of his client and then finds out that there has been a hotline call telling the his own client about that and be aware is that is that a violation of the law that is that is dangerous another problem is is that I believe it's going to conflict with the whistleblower Act protections I think we don't have any problem with a the first part about you know threatening of physical injury or property damage that's already against the law it's already terroristic threatening in the first or second degree whether or not they're in state employee or not but I think the second part needs since shall we say significant tightening up and clarification of exactly what an investigation is and needs to be matched with the whistleblower law. Thank you didn't get to read this to last night restrooms wiring Reshoot your view and allow us Senator call will with L. my first thought on this road how broad the. state employee with the. And it real quick back many many many years ago. My dad was alive. An official with state highway for the state highway department was contract agreed to a all access on a new highway. I didn't get done my dad put one in. to have or you can go in and out studious DM have current come back. I was sent out there is a. Twenty zero. To stop the State Highway Commission taking that thing out into discussion. I put my vehicle my body after not told them they wouldn't they was not taken out that. When I have been. Violating this well it depends on whether you were threatening under when they told him they were not going to move me okay well the question is whether you were threatening them what it is illegal gun okay with physical injury or we could go on one more step yeah because it could have that that would apply only own property that I considered. Mine my family's at this what I'm getting into Is Your unintended consequence in your mind. If we if somebody if they come on somebody's places I'm here representing the state. And it may be. Somebody. It's out of balance but it turns into an altercation that's one of our best that's correct and this may also conflict with the US stand your ground law that was passed couple years ago but but if you're threatening someone with a physical injury that's already covered by a sol the assault statutes terroristic threatening staff same property damage also the obstructing governmental operations manager the interference with a law enforcement officer Spencer it's not a it is I mean this is the first part doesn't doesn't cover anything that's not already covered and but the second part is just impossibly vague and is definitely going the sweet people who I assume is not intended to sweep into a needs some serious work thank you Mr if I can. Question center calling. Yes Sir caller can you give any background that that it would help with that again unintended consequences we know we have state employees that come out and engage with the public supposedly under the power of the state of Arkansas we also numb though some that are outside their. By stay out of the they push it we say can you tell me any protection I don't something D. elevate I understand it's probably needed for the individual. But again the unintentional consequences of of the public's interaction with a state employee can you give me comfort on that the and you may be right we may need to go back in and make it tighter and what is the should have put to in in recent years other thereof in situations where billing inspectors have been Trenton of State Plant Board employees particularly have been threatens over that can be issued there's the. Several different places for this happened and there's also been reports that state employee shift have tipped off people that our inspectors coming up your place to get things cleaned up and that that's what we're trying to resolve I see were bills needed for print reach out of an hour ago and one of the share of the lead police to and and and and and and and we had one more location again during a call with our business never shut down did everything we could keep people employed we did a match we did station would put all of the notices on the door we were asked to do we did everything safer going to I was referred to in with the code actually the deer rock my apartment leased employees is isolated and when they had a but I had a state health inspector come in and he didn't come in and ask for the manager he came in and started talking ploys and saying you know they do this how to watch change we we've got everything up we've been asked to. I could have escalated I was already strained with that in in. I didn't know about the story but after being. You need to call little rock and find out what changed the jury's you're trying to tell me so this stuff happens I just would appreciate any tightening up with the thank you. The Senator Clark if questions. Thank you Mr the second part of the bill again the first part of the bill of an individual purchase or property damage to a state employee. Of. This road is what is that not all right is it already gets the law to threaten. It's going to your property damage to anyone I guess that's what I'm saying that's terroristic threatening the first degree for physical threat physical injury interesting threatening the second degree for property damage so the circle was there a need to to rework that nice on from thank you. Senator Tucker you still have questions you're good okay any other questions from anybody else the audience. Which speak for against took over here to pull a bill that I bobbled bill them mature in a private room. The only for them and we will get back thank you thank you Committee Senator Tucker you're recognized. Good questions Senator you what we want to work on his. I'm John I'm trying to help you Senator cooperation program was from a different procedural standpoint should we not to expunge the vote by which the man was adopted and that way that free Senator call up to put them in a member's own calendar yes we should because that amendment affected the we need it we need a motion to expunge a vote okay we have a motion to expunge a vote by which Amendment was adopted so and a second any discussion. Follows a favor. All opposed thank you committee I appreciate very much I'm looking out for you senator because I will I will come to your. Right here first Senate bill three forty two but before a Senator Stubblefield gets down there and situated I want to recognize some pages that are in the room I'm not sure where they're from I don't think there My pages but I see them and they look like pages want to stand up three. And say where you're from yes. I can't hear you. What brings what's your name. Why it. Okay why it. Little Rock. Little Rock. Brian. Right right. There is couple of recreation center. Hot Springs Leslie. Trace Springs we're glad to have you Senator Tucker do you think some of those may be yours too to the pages are here with me today yes yes madam chair James in the co both I don't know if you heard Niko but his last name is Garrity okay so some of y'all may know is something all may know his mother but we want we want to welcome all of our pages here today at but I S. personally special want to welcome the two pages you're with me James and the co. Thank you all for coming. McKee. Thank you senator flowers I've also got three from hot springs we're very glad that they come up and join us and I think you can I'll tell what kind of stock comes from hot springs. What grades are you all in. Are you all ninth graders what. This. Six. James what seven. The. Well. Glad to have you all. Hope you all can take something good away from here. Thank you. Senator Stubblefield Garrity board looks like as you a little mischief in his eyes Tucker. The. Thank you madam chair we're gonna start out with the Senate bill three forty two it's a bill that deals with the statutory threshold for settlement agreements involving minors The minor's act and I'm going to let the. Scraps here. Take over from here to explain it. Please identify yourself who you're with yes madam chairman my name's Kevin crass I'm a lawyer here in Little Rock Friday origin Clark I'm here today on behalf of several groups shelter insurance the National Association of mutual insurance companies as well as the American property and casualty insurance association of if I might say madam chairman my first of the parents in this building was as a page for my state representative from pine bluff back in about nineteen seventy one so maybe one day the these folks will be here as well maybe in your roles as well but that's a great experience and I applaud the bodies for bringing the pages in. The bill that is Senate bill of three forty two addresses a practice that has been going on in this state and in the in the for a long time and litigation unfortunately minors often get hurt have their own claims for damages under the law their parents or their guardians have to bring those claims on their behalf and in in current law if if there is a minor settlement it requires court approval. For an amount over five thousand dollars that's been the threshold for as long as I can remember what this bill does is raise the threshold for court approval to twenty five thousand dollars or less in other words the guardian or parent can go in and settle of case with or without a lawyer in the in their representation but with the the the defendants or the insurance companies and obtain a binding settlement twenty five thousand dollars or less without court approval court approval would require a lawyer to or to a pro se plaintiff to go in file a petition find the judge have a hearing it adds cost it adds delay to it and this allows a settlement below twenty five thousand dollars to be done without that to protect the minor in the funds being kept it for the benefit of the minor until he or he or she reaches age of eighteen there are procedures in this bill that require the money to be put in interest bearing accounts and the lawyer has obligations until the money can be paid out upon the injured party reaching majority of be happy to answer any questions. Thank you Mr crass. And congratulations on your appointment thank you senator. My question is. Okay you say the bill does provide for deposited the funds until. The child the minor reaches. Majority age correct. So that if it's a guardianship. Are otherwise would a court ever be given an account are. Some kind of yours diction over are in a county. Of this settlement but. Proceeds. I thank your honor only if the money were taken out before the child reach majority. At that point it would require a court order. Will generally do don't guardians have to do annual accounts this is not this is actually avoiding that formality of the of in the expense of the annual reports are counting from a guardian. So the court would otherwise not know about it correct. So we're trusting that adult. Guardian I mean if it's already a guardianship established I don't know why wouldn't. Be in the annual uncapped. At least a report. Your honor I guess if there is a formal guardianship already established there would be an annual accounting for the normal guardianship and this could be added to that obligation I guess it could it could in fact Be subject to that reporting requirements so the bill does not I don't think it's to disallow dresses what a guardian in the normal sense would have to do so the guardian is already required to file an annual report this would not change that and thank you for calling me on our. Senator Tucker did you have a question. Yes my shall I have one question. On on page two. Down toward the bottom online does that subsection to starting a line thirty one yes. It's twenty five thousand dollars but excludes reimbursement of medical correct so it could be a bigger settlement. Okay could you I just am curious for the is it could be much bigger depending on the size of the medical expenses or the attorney's fees so I'm just kind of curious about that portion of it you know I think Senator I think that the thought is that the this is the money that would actually go into an account for the benefit of the minor in this other would be passed through to both medical providers an attorney so as a dressing what's the vote bottom line benefit to To the minor. Okay. The I understand that but in truth center if the medical bills or you know hundred thousand dollars is not likely don't settle for twenty five thousand right good point okay thank thank you Sir. Any other questions by the committee. If not is there anyone here from the audience so to speak for against Senator Stubblefield would you like to close for you bill of. Yes your honor. Thank you. Hi I'm close to that I would appreciate a good vote do pass. The motion do pass second from senator rice of all those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The Bill pass. Thank you jim thank you Committee. Of. Recognized for Senate bill three fifty nine R. three fifty nine simply deals with medical records access to medical records in legal proceeding just like the times says concerning fees charged in duplication or those that are electronically stored medical records. So. Right now all of. The E. you definitely have to have an authorization to get these records is that right and the only thing this is doing is allowing them to be transferred to a disseminated by electronic if they have a Malek products two things your madam chairman there's been on the books a long time a statute that set a certain fee that can be charged by these companies that provide the medical records is typically not the local hospital labor outsource that to our for profit company and over the years that those fees for the medical records got to be pretty expensive so this body passed the statute that the basically said a reasonable fee but it didn't it only applied to the claimants and not the defendant so this one makes the same fair billing applicability of both and then it and then recognizing that motion medical records today or electronic and not over in a file folder it does allow for the companies to produce the it actually requires them to produce the records and electronic format all subject you of course to the protections of a the privacy statutes that were also concerned about when dealing with medical records. Okay so I see we're keeping me and on page two. Call for photo copies. No more than. Fifty cents a page caress twenty five pages and twenty five cents for each additional page and then we're. You still keep in the labor charge fifteen dollars. For each request and then no more than twenty dollars. For the production of the. Medical records is that just for the electronic transmission no snow no Senator that's for the hard copies if they come in that and that that's the fee that's been in existence for a long time this is just making it apple to both sides that are requesting these medical records okay. Because if there if it's not electronic you'll still have the per page fee of fifty cents correct errors. Twenty five pages and twenty five cents any other questions from the committee Senator Clark let me Tucker. Thank you Mr where is it in the bill about the defendant being able to request well it's in the additional Page one line twenty five is it says the adjustment of an insurance claim or the processing of licensure it's it's basically saying the The insurance company having an insurance claim they're the ones that typically are gathering the medical records right. But if I misspoke when I use the word defendant okay and that's and I'm not worried about that but on page four it still. It anybody requesting records under this law the definition of a a person authorized to request means a person who has a properly executed medical records authorization correct yeah you can't get without proper thought authorization okay thank you thank you. Other questions that the committee members. It's not anyone in the audience signed up to speak for against I don't see any of Senator Stubblefield would you like to close for your bill I'll close your honor and I would appreciate a good vote well again you might get. Okay your honor all day long. It helps you stand up every time they come in the room. Right. Okay Senator Stubblefield move do pass I have a second second by Senator Gilmore all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. Is have it your bill passes. Another chair rule approximately require the same respect that you show the lesson. In regard to your honor. Of. Center court Senator Clark you have a. Senate bill three eleven. A Mister chair yes I do I'm going to request you in the committee will allow of those five bills and wrote the last one is two sixty six of Mr Welch is going to help me run that he was here Monday and we overlook that bill I would like to ask your indulgence when that bill first. Okay going. Two six. Did you say to sixty six. Two sixty six. With your permission I'm going to. S. the of. Look of Mr Welch our you state your name for the record. Yes my name is Brian Wilson the executive director for the Arkansas Commission for parent council and I'm also the first one in the hot seat to make sure I call you your honor some to get that out of the way. Hi this is a. Pretty simple bill when we initially set up the commission there was some requirements as to who could Look closer okay sorry there were some requirements as to who could serve on the commission and there were four entities that were tasked with appointing members to the commission and any initial set up it was relatively easy because we were appointing all new commissioners but when we came to needing to replace commissioner there were some questions about which entity was required to appoint which person and that's all this bill does is just kind of clean up and clarify who appoints whom. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from committee. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. One of the questions Senator flowers you're recognized. So Mr Welch a under the present statute. Does the president pro tem. Get to Choose an appointment. Yes. Okay. So. That's not new no we did we didn't change any of the entities that were tasked with appointments it just. Match them with a requirement to make an appointment before it was just it name the entities and then and named the requirement separately and so when it came time to replace one commissioner they weren't sure who had that responsibility. So if I looked at the other part of nine twenty seven seven old three I'll see where the president pro tem of the Senate. Gets to a point. That's correct center okay. And the Chief Justice always had one appointment yes. But it just wasn't stated. That it would be a retired circuit judge that's correct. Let us see. So so instead of. The striking. Tourney's with ten years. Given. And then. You're having one with ten years. In child welfare matters. And then one with at least five years yes. How many how many. Members of the commission are there currently seventy seven. And then those other two. I would just have to be somebody familiar with the subject matter preferably but not required. Okay any of the bill sorry thank you okay president flowers anyone else have any questions. Any other committee members anyone in the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Are saying none Senator Clark you want to close for you thank you Mr chair of this bill has been filed a couple weeks no one has reached out to me in opposition and I would appreciate a good vote moved that you passes SB two sixty six okay we have a motion to pass Senate bill two sixty six second. In discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed graduation actor call court. Do you have another one SP three eleven okay. I want to ask of fuel I mean have Clint Lancaster come to the table I will do you have an amendment with this bill we do. Two amendments. One I believe okay. We're going to explain the amendment. I'm sorry Mr. We're going to explain the amendment yes there was already an amendment engrossed to make sure that DCFS in DHS well we're not affected which they weren't but we uh and then. Of both child support and the Bar Association notice that we needed to affect another place in law which we did of the Bar Association and judicial council came back to us that We needed to be sure that a. A child. Child support order already in place could be enforced which of course we wanted to do so that's in there and also that they wanted to be able to go back some period of time of word the bill originally did not allow that for child support one save of parent was notified in which the consensus that we came up with there were those who want to shorten those who wanted longer was three years of and that allows a child after they become eighteen to. The. Your record and be awarded the child support that was not previously awarded of from the time they were fifteen to eighteen if the judge saw fit. Okay you could center of. Flowers you're recognized. So full year amendment. You have delete section one in its entirety. So on the original bill is built with nine fourteen one oh five is that part of the code you were amending so you're deleting all of that in section one and substituting. What you have in this amendment dealing with nine ten one eleven eight. May I your honor. Yes answer that question I'm Clint Lancaster yes that that is accurate it delete section one it replaces section one with the language that you see in the amendment. So so then why. Nothing in. Is president bill dealing with nine fourteen one oh five is going to be dealt with in this section that he's delete and it's going to go into this section. Two. Which built with. Nine fourteen one oh six. And he's here in the amendment. That section to. Arkansas Code nine fourteen one oh five is amended to read. And then goes into nine fourteen one oh five. So is being. The rest of what's in the original bill Page two section to deal with nine fourteen one of six. That is my understanding yes ma'am. Then all Page four. Thirteen. Through fifteen or delete it. Sixty. Okay if. It's all understandable better when it's all engrossed in the original bill. Thank you. Or any other questions on the on the amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment the second any discussion. All those in favor of adoption of the amendment say aye opposed party members been adopted Sir Clark you're recognized to explain Senate bill three eleven. Explained. I can't explain it if you if that's okay your record owners of thank you so currently in Arkansas the our with our case law and to be clear I'm an attorney here in central Arkansas area I practice in family law or have for a number of years including complex child support cases and so what we currently have in Arkansas as our case law makes depreciate differentiates between custody and support their entirely separate a person can be a financial deadbeat but still have a right to have visitation or joint custody with their child and on the opposite end of that as a some of the one of my clients right now has a child support order and there is absolutely no custody custody or visitation for the father by his choice so what this bill does is currently for a child a child can turn eighteen and then come to court and ask for eighteen years of retroactive child support and so that it can often lead to a financial windfall for the child and it's used in a it's often used instead of using that as a shield to protect the child's of financial interest that uses a sword to cut off a parental rights and so once you're eighteen a court can no longer order that the child have any type of visitation or custody with the father but can still order the father to pay eighteen years of retroactive support and what this bill does is it cuts that off it changes that limitations period and I believe that the changes in that it may comply more accurately with the due process clause of the Arkansas and U. S. constitutions because often times when this is used there may not may not be a knowledge that there's a child out there there can be a a father who is spent eighteen years living his life and then turns around and finds out I got sued for eighteen years of child support for a kid I didn't even know I had there are so. Inherent problems with that because what was the pay orders income back when the child was to get it changed when the child was for the change again when she here she was eight or ten or twelve because the pay your would be entitled to a reduction in the amount of child support that he would have paid for those time periods but I can't even get bank records going back ten years more than ten years so this ends up making an evidentiary problem which unfairly prejudice is a pay or whether that pay or is a mother or a father because the ability to obtain evidence to support the child support claim is often lost. So that is that is the main aspect of this bill it also goes on to address dependency neglect cases in DHS what happens in those is under our statute once DHS opens a dependency neglect case it has exclusive jurisdiction meaning it is the only court that can make findings of paternity support custody and visitation those are done to protect children who are in bad situations or with parents who aren't fit to parent them because of drugs or environmental conditions and so it does allow for the this bill does allow for dependency neglect court to can continue to contain paternity child support in those issues in a dependency neglect cases. Our. Senator flowers you're recognized. So. The Amendment. This this section one eighty two. If the parent ordered to pay your support was not served with a petition. By the initial pleading within ninety days after filing. And the court finds it button intentionally evading so are you saying. Service by publication can be made I do believe service by publication can be made however the service by publication can also be costly and expensive to do it especially when you're looking at maybe having CSE do that for you know thousands of cases annually or a hundreds of cases how ever many they have or even just if you're let's say you're a mom that's you know you're you don't have a great job you don't have a lot of money you're trying to get support and you don't have CSE helping you now you're having to pay the cost of that warning order and I rarely rarely get attorney's fees award back to me or my client in a child support case it's so rare that I I'd I require my clients to pay for my fees at any cost in advance. So public service by publication can be made yes ma'am. And that would satisfy the. Service. On that parent. Our leads parent within the ninety days I believe that to be accurate yes ma'am. That's not real clear to me I mean it's. Not serve with the petition. That to me that it's not real clear here yes ma'am if you if I may if you refer back to the Arkansas rules of civil procedure I believe it's rule for which talks about the methods of service once a statute these so these aren't special proceedings like you would see in a guardian in about your language here yes ma'am I guess what I'm attempting to to say is that the red the red the method for that is found in the Arkansas rules of civil procedure not in the statute. And you thank you mentioned something about. Parental rights being terminated in a. In effect parental rights would be terminated I didn't understand what you were saying aye those are in your dependency neglect cases with DHS were DHS takes custody of a child and then the the judge the court in that case can determine that you're not going to have parental rights terminate those and and will allow DHS to place that child up for adoption. But what's your point as it relates to this bill so my point is is that this bill contemplates those actions in dependency neglect cases were not leaving a hanging threat out there. So what you're saying you want to cut off the child. Under the law now. Who can. Make a claim for child support after they reach majority eight. And limit that to just three years yes ma'am. Why because there's a. There is a remarkable unfairness that a person would have to go back and pay eighteen years when that pay or may not have access to his income information or her income information from when that child was to I have my children are only six in eight but if they were eighteen I couldn't tell you how I would prove how much money I made when they were to. And so then I would have to be stuck with my current income and I do make a little bit more now than I did eighteen years ago. It seems like the trial. It doesn't have the benefit. I mean I don't we don't know what kind of situation he grew up the and for those eighteen years. But why why would you cut off the child's right. This this bill tries to strike a balance between fundamental fairness and the need to support a child at a one of those if we put it each in extreme it's going to be unfair to somebody and right now it currently airs on the side of the child but it's affecting the due process rights of the parent which is also very unfair so this bill strikes a balance of three years to go back and have a look back period for three years which is consistent with a large number of our other civil causes of action. Okay thanks for reading of question from Sen Tucker you're recognized. Thank you Mr. First I'm just gonna have to I'm just wanna make sure I have my mind wrapped around the mimics there is a there's a bunch and and my may not my main but I had a concern about cutting off the minor's ability to file a petition upon their eighteenth birthday but it appears to me that's been removed in the amendment. If you're looking at for example. It has Senator Tucker yeah okay. so at this point even though upon minor's eighteenth birthday and up to five years there after they can still father a petition correct after the number okay. thank you I just wanna make sure I was reading that right and I think that's a positive change and understand what you're trying to do that I am open minded about your presentation anybody else in my testify but my I guess the other question I have for you is about your proof of income is taxed tax returns I don't have files about the most most people do and you could have access to your state tax returns from the FNA your or your federal from the IRS you can request the going back are many years you would like. Do you have any thoughts on that yes yes senator I do so this is a real life case that I had once a of my client back to was the other party found that we did a paternity action he's adjudicated the father he's order to pay child support but now he because of the amount of money he's working he wants to change jobs get a different job maybe a better paying job or or a lower paying job so he could spend time with his child and so those factors are removed the ability of that parent to go back to school sixteen fifteen fourteen years and make that change or decide I'm going to go to college and make more money or I'm you know I'm going to go moved to the Bahamas and run a dive shop you know all those factors that a parent could make a parenting decision that could be made are cut off and it says I have not seen a single case where there was not some sort of nefarious conduct on the part of the custodial parent and I I literally I tell my clients I I have a client right now he says I know that this is her dad he probably knows it's her dad but I don't want him to be anywhere around the apparently the guy was a former member of the Hells Angels and so I said but you said I do want child support so I said well you just need to hang out right you need to hang out until your daughter is eighteen years of age and then filed because the law allows you to do that and you can accomplish what you're wanting and still get the money and still get the child support and I will I give the best advice that I'm paid to give but I'll be candid I don't like that approach. Thank you. Yes Senator Rapert you're recognized. Thank you and when I read somebody visit me on this few days ago I was surprised that somebody could go back not. Knowing as a. The father responsible way responsible whatever else that you could come up eighteen years later and say Hey I'm your kid and improve the. With the test but had no rights at all it again then you get into all the stuff on trying to prove you're not legally required to keep records eighteen years. What and how do you determine okay I I'm I'm like others I will childhood right shin it's not their fault be taken care of what what do you do if there was somebody else and you hear about these cases somebody that's not a biological father but steps up and takes care of the child because. Whatever is back before paternity test I guess but. They've got some compensation to help them get to their eighteenth birthday is my point had how would that be taken in consideration on this does that qualify for somebody the other state and enters the real father on the hook the my understanding is the real father is still on the hook because anything that comes from a noncustodial parent is often considered to be an interview votes get to in the lifetime get to get to the child the other place for that crops up is in adoptions so when in a non biological parent adopts a child our law creates a parental relationship that severs the biological fathers rights and so at that point in only in that point with the biological fathers obligation for such child support in because our law passes that on to the adopted father. Thank you for the information every time out thank you for most everything you do sure I new stuff comes up all the time thank you senator flowers you're recognized. How if in any way does this affect. The office of child support enforcement. Pursuant. Child support. What. After an assignment. By a. Mother. Who is receiving. State assistance. My understanding of that senator flowers is that CSE but feels it's obligation of the federal government to enforce the child support laws the legislature axes and so just like any other cause of action it's going to be obligated to enforce the statutes as as written in past so they would be held to this bill but it doesn't affect it let's say they get an assignment they get a judgment this is an undoing judgments this is just forward looking and preventing new judgments for a three year period after the child turns eighteen. Does that square with federal law I believe I don't I know no federal law that prohibits that. Well someone here from the office of. Child support enforcement I think. I'd like to. To get there. Testimony in the chair would allow or are you Miss Hoover. Clark if you want to go in the table in this state your name for the record you're you're recognized. My name is Barbara Williams not DFA I'm you Mr Turner Michael. It's to some sport closer to. My name is Barbara Williams DFA I'm the administrator for the office of child support enforcement Mr Lancaster statement what was actually correct in that this is an area in which a federal law does not direct the actions of the office of child support enforcement in terms of the retroactivity at of a child support obligation. Yes. So so what you're saying is even though. State assistance is given to the mother. The. The custodian of the trial. Federal law does not require you to try to get. Those payments back. It does not state there's that there is no requirement as to any the duration of any rational active support and typically. I believe that that the type of cases that you're referring to are those in which the custodial parent is receiving a former cash assistance under the tennis program currently those are very very small portion of our caseload in in those cases we would seek child support for the duration of either is that the. Your time is that the parent receive ten F. or under the statute. In the statute is what. Currently there is no limit on on retroactivity period so you can go back to as long as the parent has been receiving. Assistance. For the benefit of the child correct. And again there's a whole other category of cases in which a parent is not receiving that cash assistance and again that there may be those cases in which we're seeking retroactive support. As allowed currently by state law that would be payable to that custodial parent. Well in the incidences where a child is born to a mother that does not have insurance. And so the state picks up the tab. Thanks for the birth of the child. You saying that's not recoverable. Would that be recoverable if it's beyond three years prior. Under this bill. Mr Astrakhan that answer that but I want to know that the state ever pay for that and medical care. For the birth of the child the House the child support enforcement does not seek reimbursement for those medical expenses we would be in a room at a past due support that we would be seeking would be here late child support as in the amount as appropriate based on income and that child support guidelines. It seems to me like I called the statute allowing for. The cost of. Of medical care. for the birth of the child. That is not at that that the also child support enforcement seeks to recover. I cannot speak for any rat recovery actions by DHS. Senator Clark. Yes The. We're of a family and child or on state support. Of and they're not receiving support from a. A parent you do go after. The support from the parents is that correct. Correct okay and this bill would allow you to continue to go back three years correct thank you. Have questions yes. Normally when a parent missile over. When a parent Clause for. Assistance. There is an assignment given by the mother is that correct. Two. To the she assigns a right to the child support to be collected to the office of child support enforcement. Can you walk us through that process how is it done. When a parent receives cash assistance under the tennis program they receive the right to choose. A sign there right to child support up to the amount of that cash grants for the period of time that they're receiving at. For any kind of rational active or add a judgment for a past period again the amount that would be retained by the state would be the maximum of the the grant amount for that time period and then going forward any payments receive or any child support due would be a sign and retained by the state anything that's it M. collected from that non custodial parent in excess of that cash grant would be disbursed to the custodial parent. So is the obligation of the office of child support enforcement at the time the grant is made to that mother for the child. Two. Initiate. Paternity action is necessary or thank. To get child support. I'm not sure I understand the question. Why is the assignment may. The sign is made by operation of law by statute when a parent apply it applies for that assistance at DHS and what is that supposed to initiate. What happens as a result of the assignment what supposed to happen. I believe what you're asking is how does the office of child support enforcement come involved at that point yes once they get the assignment water responsibilities. One second once the Cash assistance is approved there's an inner data system interface between DHS and also child support enforcement which will transmit that information regarding that custodial parent that child in as much information about the non custodial parent as a parent knows and provides to DHS from that point in time and cases open within off the off the child support enforcement we will assess the case reach out to the couldn't that custody a parent and require him or her to cooperate typically by providing information about the other other at parent about the child it may be attending coming to our office to for an appointment maybe participating attorney to testing attending court hearings but with their obligation is to cooperate with our office in establishing and enforcing for child support. And so my point is is it the obligation to the office of child support enforcement want to get the information. And and you see the assignment. To initiate a paternity action yes. Okay if that is an issue yes. Right. With your obligated under law to do that. Correct. At that more often done then not. I mean you have to do that right. Initiate the action to establish the support obligation and initiate yes. And efforts made to locate and serve that. Allege. The father yes. Do you use all the. To service in the code the publication if you necessarily have to. Yes publication is going to be extremely extremely rare. Okay is you normally can find the father we can normally find yes okay. In the event that. Service is not made on him within these ninety days at this amendment says. Then what happens what what do you all do he'd get a default or something do you. What I'm sorry I have not seen them in. You have heard them Amendment. She is. Thank you. I'm sorry what was the question. So. If if the father alleged father. If you don't accomplish the service within the ninety days what what what do you all do. We would. Continue to attempt to established. Obtain service if we were unable to do so and had to dismiss the complaint we would refile it once we had obtained an address and location of that individual. Well the looking at the amendment on page one at a. Two. Section subsection of section one. The it reads. If that parent ordered to pay support was not served. And I guess that comp that contemplates an order had has been entered. had hasn't been served within ninety days after the filing. And the court finds that the parent was not intentionally evading service. I'm not sure I understand that language if the parent ordered to pay support I guess that could be after a judgment default judgment or something I mean is this office of child support ever petition the court for default based on an allegation of evasion of service. Not based on an allegation of invasion we would have obtained service according to the rules of procedure. I can't hear you. The. And as a default order wouldn't normally be entered based on evasion of service. Well how would you read this. A. Two. About the court finding that the parent. Was not intentionally evading service if. If service hasn't been accomplished. Not I don't know what it that I can speak to what what the authors have had intended but just for my remarks quick read of this I'm saying that in section a wine support could be at judgment for support could be awarded from the date of the petition. That would be the earliest. But then if it took longer than three months to obtain service on that individual And the court. And if the individual was Not evading service then it would be somewhat later if say aye service was obtained at that form four months then that would be the four months after the date of following that would be the earliest that the support to go back again I don't know with the intention of the authors were. Can you speak to that yes ma'am so in the example I gave earlier there was a father who said he was moving to the Bahamas to run a dive shop in let's say he did that for the purposes of avoiding service in paying child support now you have an exception so this is not meant to go in there and let fathers hide from service and use the statute of limitations as as as as a sword to avoid paying support instead if the what this bill is doing is protecting unknown fathers who are who don't know about this kid who are going out there in trying to avoid a parental relationship and later come back and have a financial windfall and people of a service all the time on these things the CSE does a good job I have seen them have to non suit some case is in re file but they do it they do a good job I I can commend them on that. May I speak to this. The. Originally the bill. Said. That bill pawn service and it was brought to our attention that that wasn't necessarily the right language because people aborted service we agree and so it was. Going to be changed to upon petition and then it was brought to our attention that you could follow suit. Non suited and never never actually serve the person come back eighteen years later and for the purposes of what the law said you had filed petition eighteen years before and so you could go back for support all the way back to that date so it's the in between the so that a judge. Biological judge can look at and sent the check if they were avoiding service it goes back to the data petition if they weren't boarding service and it took a little longer than it goes to that it goes to the date that they were actually server and it's up to a judge to decide. Any any other committee members any questions we have a. Little Miss Lauren Hoover signed speak against the bill. On the bill or use these questions. If you want to take your seat if you have the table state your name for the record you're recognized. Thank you chairman is. The push the button. I'm or nearly very loud so my name is Lorn Hoover I'm a family law attorney here in central Arkansas practice generally four five counties just that radiate Little Rock let's just kind of take a big picture view here in a part of all I think Senator Clark for his amendment on the three amendments I think it is a worthy an excellent amendment I agree with my colleague Mister Lancaster that there are cases out there though rare there are cases out there in which it it becomes an issue of fact for the circuit judge to say did you know or not know about this child the case that there are referring to is out of White County the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded it down to the trial court to say okay fine he would owe a hundred and eighty thousand dollars for eighteen years of child support but you Sir are your honor circuit judge here to figure out whether that judgment should be barred from being enforced due to equitable defenses fairness. Waiver estoppel mom knew the facts knew where dad was made a choice the nefarious choice as Mr Lancaster referred to that if I see child support while this child is under eighteen I'm gonna have to share this child and I don't want to have to share the child so wait to the kids seventeen and a half to file and so that cases on remand and I don't think it's we're going to get a good result out of that so I do think the three year statute of limitation on initial child support orders is while is it should be strongly considered by this body and I I would support that that limitation. Senator flowers. Let's use your example because I do agree with you when I saw the amendment as I got here this morning the first thing that I read was you have to serve somebody to get a judgment against them otherwise you never had jurisdiction and that judge that judgment is a void all right it is a nullity all right. What the amendment should do in the looking at a section one that is relating back to nine ten one eleven. We have a hundred and twenty days to serve anybody with a lawsuit including a petition for paternity your support. All that this provision needs to say to clarify all the confusion you had earlier is that or other initial pleading within ninety days after the filing okay. Provided that the person is otherwise timely service so I think what they're trying to get out I think what the authors of this bill I I are trying to get at is that I can file a lawsuit senator and I have a hundred and twenty days but I can also extend and request the circuit court to give me more time I can ask for another sixty eight that's for ninety I can ask for a hundred and twenty and this body at the last session said correctly in my opinion. When it modified nine fourteen one oh seven D. that so we can't go back behind the data service to modify any existing orders because there were parents out there filing these petitions waiting a hundred and twenty days maybe they extended it through proper orders extending service meanwhile the parent at that time it's paying support has no knowledge Hey you know what I might be asked to pay more and so there was a fundamental unfairness there that the judge could go retroactive to the date of filing but the person who were seeking a modification from has no knowledge because they've not been served. So this would be consistent with the general assembly's decision two years ago to make that change to date of service and would be consistent with what senator Clark schools are in that it's fundamentally unfair for someone to wait till seventeen and a half then get a child support judgment against a parent after that parent is no longer able to be awarded any type of visitation rights or communication et cetera. So if I if we could just give an example on how that ninety days is in play as I read it. If I have a five year old child. And I filed my initial petition no support order has ever been done initial petition is filed day one okay I serve that petition on whomever I'm supposed to serve it on on day one hundred I still have twenty more days under the civil procedure rules. But I serve it on day one hundred and this child is five. Under this bill as written then if the child is five when I serve I have to go from that date right there day one hundred and I can only go back three years from that date so if my child is five in that example there will be two years of support from date of birth to two years whatever that is and which no support can be ordered and if that's the intent of this body then so be it but that's how I understand the limitations period because paternity actions being different than divorce cases We don't know of a child to be born yet right we know people are pregnant we know they carry child there is I'm not going to go that way but that's why it's from date of birth in a paternity case number one we may not know who the father is all right number one. Also mom to just delivered a baby they might need a second before they go file a petition to get child support say my dad's they might need a second after the birth of the child before they rush to court hence what I believe in history that bill shows that's why I can go back to the date of the birth all right but NET because this is date of birth there is this example out of White County and there's been others I would probably say one and. One to two in the last five to ten years that this can come up all right and so I understand that this process so once the initial orders done then it's game on the other rules apply. If I can get back to the concern about the income figures. How do we prove what our incomes were first on Arkansas as a result of the Arkansas Supreme Court and this assembly two years ago both parents are obligated to to have their incomes reviewed we use eight income shares model the administrative order number ten most recently amended on October sixth twenty twenty two says all orders of support after this this October six shall be governed by these rules we would no longer in my opinion that we would be argued I guess depending on how it would work out in my opinion we're no longer focused on that three year period should this bill pass on just to. Parent As income is we're looking at parent As income and parent bees income but the way that the family should support chart works if the parents income combined is more than thirty thousand dollars per month combined for one child that is one thousand nine hundred and fifty two dollars of which we will divvy out proportionally based on the share so the numbers of what we used to look at where I'd only look at this Mr Lancaster and say Mr Lancaster your client is going to be ordered to pay roughly fifteen percent of his net income it in matter what my client did. So the numbers are scaled differently now such that what we may not get it perfect okay where do you live at this time did you rent do you own okay so we're going to use that you made like five thousand dollars that month that for that that period of time eccentric center that to me is not going to be the difficulty it's that I could change the way that I was acting in terms of my spending in terms of how it was that I was looking so I don't want to get it or remarriage I'm not make different steps if I know petitions been filed rather than one lurking out there for potentially up to two hundred and forty days does that clarify and help the center Senator flowers and understanding I just think that the bill if you look on the amended The Amendment. If it would just stay within ninety days after filing okay. But right before we get to before the date of service there needs to be something in there that the parent has otherwise been properly served. Okay because otherwise we can't get a judgment against anybody initial or otherwise if they've not been served. And and the way you do that senator flowers as you pointed out from the the John is that as a lawyer if I take certain steps and I make a showing approved to my circuit judge of the steps that I have done to try to find the parent. Then I can provide I can get a warning order and I can search by publication all right so most of them I can get this hunter in twenty days done. On the proof of publication. So would you say is. So they're in this amendment. The time for service. Seems to be. Read I don't think that Senator Clark I don't think that's what. That the intention was I think they are just trying to put a stop gap for a parent we just keep talking about fathers you all know prepared to raising kids from the date of birth this marks for for grandparents with the right to support this could work for a father who comes in and takes over care of a drug addicted mother and he would he or she would have the same limitations alright this isn't just for father so the examples in the in the cases they are fathers but it does it did appear that way to me to Senator but as I continue to read through what I believe that the intention was to not alter or reduce the hundred and twenty day service period in the rules of procedure enroll for ask Mister lane counter but just to put a stop gap measure that it will be petition or it'll be if the if you've not done within ninety days then it's going to be the date you actually serve somebody but I'm I'm I first read Senator same thing same thought I just don't think that's what the intention was and if senator Clark wants to speak to that I think that would be appropriate. Well. I'll say this. What we put on paper and what we pass into law. It's supposed to be the of a rule for lawyers and citizens of the State of Arkansas to follow it is confusing to me. And is it is contradicting. What the time for service he is. I'm I'm not. In that I just don't understand it. One one last thing. I reference administrative order number ten our child support guidelines there reference repeatedly in the code in the nine fourteen one hundred areas as a component of child support under the new income shares model that we've been following since July one at twenty twenty it was amended in October for joint custody parents and how to calculate that but the cost of the health insurance premium for the child along with work related to childcare and extraordinary medical expenses those are now all components of child support they are factored in and the calculator that many of you all have seen and they only example by go back to the five year old example that I've got the five year old. And parent or C. estate therein a files that petition and serves that petition at a hundred days and the child is five. If that child had had extraordinary medical expenses between date of birth and your to. I read this amendment as a limiting. Any parents right to seek collection. Or a support relating to those two years worth of extraordinary medical expenses that may be a rare a rare thing that occurs it may not I don't know because I hadn't thought about it that much but as a mother I know that my most expensive years at least until they turn sixteen was that labor delivery bill any complications I might I had with either my children so under that scenario you've got this period of time that these bills are real they occurred but they are not going to be considered as part of extraordinary medical expenses which is more than two hundred and fifty dollars per year for a particular child. they're not gonna be considered under this bill and whatever the will of the body is in that regard it's not for me to say that I just it explaining how this works I'm that's what I'm here I appreciate the amendment I think the service issue just needs to be this technically correct it's just say. But the parent so as to be or the party so as to be otherwise timely serve the ninety days is just at a stop gap measure so that other parent that changes may be coming to him or her or to both parents K. as someone could someone a guardian could see both parents K. for initial support order so parent a parent be that they need to know how you know what things are change in a court order could go back to this state all right so of the three years limitation though totally fine and I think welcomed by the majority of lawyers in this field. So the thirty as part of this is the petition that they purpose purposely delay the petition and order benefits among their own sales financially. Because senator because in paternity cases in an action for divorce and all an initial actions relating to child custody there is a presumption of joint custody that can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and then by certain other or additional you know your to miss a pattern of domestic violence et cetera so as Mister Lancaster suggested the advice that he given to a client that said I want child support but I don't want parent be to be in the kid's life he said you need to call your hero hills and wait if that person is despite their own face because they're unwilling to share that child that does happen folks there bad actors all over did makes a determination I'm going to kick back and wait to the child seventeen before I signed CSE she will have he or she will have successfully avoided joint custody. While it without a change in the limitation or look back period. Be able to get child support whether under an income share model or under old model without ever having to share the child and that is fundamentally unfair and I would agree that that would be necessary if the game. Under the Senator Tucker you to talk you're recognized. Just sort okay. So. But is it fair to the child. In that instance when that custodian the mother or the father whoever. That comes up with this nefarious plan. To avoid sharing the tile. Is it fair to the child and should that preclude that saw. From seeking support I I totally agree and in the past with a case out of Berryville I think it's been some years and the circuit judge felt exactly as you do because I believe in that case the mom said go away leave us alone and I'll never ask for a data support but the statute on the books allowed the eighteen year old to seek unpaid support right and there was no disputed fact that dad was told by mom go away you never pay a dime mom said that's exactly what I did and the kids still there for whatever reason seeking the unpaid support the circuit judge said you know what. You had a child support obligation Sir and I'm gonna send that to you but it's going to be enforced against the mother who did this to this child. Shame on all of you but she did this to this child and that was reversed because we can't no parent can contract away the right to support a child. And in that case on the ballot for items I'm assuming was a Supreme Court opinion said well I don't have it already as mom here the contract away my children's right to receive support or contribution from their father. Because that would not be in the best interest of the child. And so I hear exactly what you're saying but a parent can't contract away do I think it's in a child's best interest that they don't have access to both parents no DO I think sometimes a child should have access to both parents yes and we're required to prove that clear and convincing link and guess what all those cases I can meet that burden is pretty obvious right so it's not fair to the child but. The child doesn't get to make this decision until eighteen and I see your point the three year statute of limitations senator and all of our areas of law where we have a right to sue somebody if there's not a specific limitations period address in the statute by the assembly the default is three and using that as the marker as the General Assembly said if we don't say something otherwise it's three three seems like the right number some folks want to be five simple twenty ten some folks said It should be zero three was considered a compromise figure. Senator Tucker you're recognized. Thank you Mr Clark my only question for you is is really where you just roll wrapped and that is why I just in here is for your personal opinion on whether you think three is a fair number I'm not mad about it I think there is fair I I worry about in the instance of a child that had a disabilities or had tastes as serious medical issue at the time of birth. and I know like we're. Not everybody's on our kids okay not everybody's on Medicaid there are folks that foreign exchange there on a private policies I have clients that they're right in that gap like they're just enough they make it just enough money that they have to for their own. but it's unaffordable and I got a five year old child in one case they're still paying on a six thousand dollar delivery bill. Because they can't that's that's very difficult to pay on we're addressing another delivery a bill for another child of that marriage so is it perfect no but at the result in Frasier OCSD versus FOR age or the White County case and I know there's been others. I would rather live with a three year limitation. Then what happened to that particular father K. I don't know how often this actually occurs like I said I know that there's at least one other reported opinion other than the Fraser case. But I do think a lot of the joint custody statute there are parents or guardians that might be out there thinking. I can take care of the kid I also don't know how many eighteen year olds really do do this that really I guess that I I can only I only know this everyone of that case out of Berryville naked turned eighteen during the proceedings in White County like as its star as it had continued on and it's it's still going. So I can live with that it would five that set me no would want it set me absolutely so with that logic three. It's not perfect but it's better than eighteen years and it's better than zero years. I agree it's better than eighteen and better than zero and you said that is not perfect and purpose not always possible and I I understand that but I mean we're in the where the business of writing this low right now so we have it attention opportunity get as good as we possibly can so my question for you really as well what's the perfect number and if you if you can't say what the perfect number is I'm what what's your opinion of what the best numbers. I think it's three I think it's three there is a provision in the paternity Code about lying in expenses that's not addressed in here. And so for C. ability though I haven't thought about it because I saw the amendment perceive believe that would be found in a. I want to say H. it might be a nine ten one eleven that's being amended at least that section one. Perhaps a crafty lawyer like myself might turn lying in expenses as defined currently to encompass those expenses not child support but those medical expenses that were incurred on behalf of the child. That's the only way that I have is that if a court is hand pass properly so in some instances but is faced with an equitable position of the extreme example that I'm talking about your one in your two of this child's life that under the current laws written that that court would not be allowed to consider that if those expenses were actually being paid by a parent and not otherwise covered by insurance. You know so that's I think three is the perfect number I mean as perfect as we can get But all of our cases are there is no one size fits all for any family law case anywhere in the state. Part. One more question this is if it's with your permission Mister chair this is really from Senator Clark and and Mr Lancaster I don't know if you're considering adding the language that was who was talking about in terms of affecting service or not but if you are I'm curious if you might also consider adding language to say. The the one factor that a court could consider is child birth expenses that are actually paid out of pocket by parents if you if you would consider including that as well. The Senator Tucker so the the I agree with a lot of what miss Hoover said in fact a quite a bit of witness to percent the line in expenses are allowed but I do believe though should be limited to a three year statute of limitations just like everything else that we're proposing here as far as the changing the time of service I I I would have to speak with senator Clark about that he's the director. More questions. Senator Tucker. Senator Clark immediate response. I think there's some other people to testify on the bill of. The senator I have busy with everybody who has come to me. And that the amendment reflects that when I'm ready to do is proper right here of as worn out as everybody else here is and Just leave it and let him continue to do what they're doing. Senator flowers you're you're recognized. And this might be from is who are to respond to two. I'm just wondering are we changing the rules of civil procedure here. What it looks like your honor Force habit but also your honor it is what it looks like to me and again I don't think that's the intent of the language Senator Clark and I have not spoken about this I'm here individually Senator Clark and I work together two years ago. So you know had I seen amendment yesterday I could easily just said Hey just FYI but it without to me I might argue and successfully argue that it's either a change of the rules of civil procedure which is violative of separation of powers came or her that we don't really know what it means if it's not that we're not changing the rules of civil procedure what are we saying with that ninety days which could just be cured again with but you have to otherwise properly service person but ninety days that's going to be our our clock that we're going to start we'll look back if you serve them in day one hundred. I just wonder what what the Supreme Court who writes the the Guidelines in the orders have to say about it is anybody here from that. Additional branch that the admin your honor I don't believe judicial council as president and The Amendment as it happens all the time it is it's not seen until. The Committee meeting starts are until it's filed and it hasn't even been filed so it's not seen. At the time of this committee if it if it's adopted. Then it. It's called marked sometime soon as the desk you work it runs across the desk. Are presented to the secretary of the Senate so the if you look online you're not going to see this amendment yes senator I'm aware I did this morning. So. I'm just pretty A concerned about this I. You know I. I practice family law that I have been involved since twenty eighteen pretty much in. I'm just a little uncomfortable with this. Of. This is not clear. That's all I have. Thank you senator flowers we have of. A Brian. Bannered bad driver. Speak. For the bill. Your name you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. My name is Brian Vandiver and I appreciate the opportunity to speak I'm here on behalf of myself an attorney practicing over twenty years in the state and an organization called Arkansas advocates for per only quality many of you may and may be familiar with that organization from two years ago when we helped Senator Clark and others pass the good bill which became act six of for creating joint custody presumption in our state we're here today again on what we view as a an issue of equality and fairness and due process and my friend Mister Lancaster talked about that due process the so we'll miss Hoover I respect her points as well and I agree with a lot of them she mentioned a case out of White County and let me just let me talk for a moment about that case because that's one of the reasons that brought this bill to our attention it's called the freezer case and Mister Jeff Frazier was of underwear for seventeen and a half years that he had a child. And he was told by the mother when the child was born it's not your baby it's not her daughter in someone else's daughter we're going to give um you know and and I'm going to give that that person that man her last name so for seventeen and a half years that was Mr Frazier's assumption that he did not have a daughter. Then the mother assigned her rights to office of child support enforcement and lo and behold Mr Frazier was the father. In office of child support enforcement came after Mr Frazier sued him and the trial court awarded to a judgment of nearly one hundred and eighty thousand dollars in back child support for a child that he never had the opportunity to have a relationship with. And he raised these defenses unclean hands equitable estoppel waiver all equitable defenses of the trial court initially said you're not entitled to those defenses and so he had to appeal that ruling and the court of appeals said yes you are entitled to those of defenses but here's the point he's having to litigate this for nearly six years now. For six years he's had to litigate this judgment against him for a hundred and eighty thousand dollars for a child he had no relationship with no opportunity to have a relationship with so what this does and this brings Arkansas in line with the majority of states Arkansas is in a handful of states that has no Richard what we call retroactivity provision that that's basically a statute of limitations for child support Arkansas is one the few states that allows child support orders to go back to burst what we did we survey the other states and three years was a common number that we came across in other states that they have this three year window look back you read that operates as a statue limitations so what this does we hope is that it incentivizes parents mothers or fathers who are the custodial parent and and let's be honest ninety percent of the child support orders and paternity cases are paid by the father. In so we're hopeful that this encourages those parents to come forward if you're going to see child support let the other parent have the opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with the child because that's not fair that's not fair to sit on your rights for nearly eighteen years. And then impose this judgment of a hundred and eighty thousand dollars against that. so that's what our organization is here for to ask for a good vote on this bill we think it is well written we've taken into the consideration of suggestions from the Bar Association judicial council in others and in and attended to incorporate those and It's day as far as the point about is this fair to the child again this brings the Arkansas in line with the majority of states if there's going to be a statute of limitations against the parent then that's going to transcend to the child to because again how can that father or their parents who never knew about the child how is it fair to them if when the child becomes age of a majority to impose that eighteen year judgment on them. Time with that I'll be happy to take any questions our. Senator flowers your question so Mr vendor. You know a father has a right to file a petition for paternity as well yeah sure I case that you the the scenario you you pointed out. If he had any suspicion that that was his child he could have gone to court filed a pleading and ask for paternity test. And that would have been a lot cheaper and simpler. Then having to litigate. For six years you say in that case so You know it to me it looks like. But I'm a person that. Has represented fathers to. It often counsel them. The petition for paternity if they have any suspension. That they should at least ask for a paternity test. And they can do that under Arkansas law now so I don't I don't buy all this and gotten all the child's right I just don't that's unfair to a child a child. May have suffered. May have ambitions. But if of of a father thinks that he is the father. I think it's his duty. And he has a right under the law the petition. The court for paternity. And at least go through the phase of asking for paternity tests to determine whether he should be excluded. As a father. That's all I have to. Or anyone else. Anyone have any questions for a. Brian. And driver Vandiver number sorry about that Mr. No anybody necessary Mister chairman. Mark committee. Thank you Mr. Anyone else having anything everyone's. No one signed up to speak for against the bill. Our Senator Clark. You're recognized close for your bill. Yeah. Thank you Mr. The case that they referred to. Where the father had no idea he had a child. Of. We should not leave the door open for the system to be abused or we know that it is being abused and the attorneys brought other situations where even to devise to be abused because it's. The law can be used if the law can be used to your advantage often you're going to use the law to your advantage. And the course the tragedy is that neither the. Father was able to parent for eighteen years nor that the child of new their father for eighteen years. But at going back beyond the. Without this bill. Of there was an award made that is financially crippling. If that not only is financially crippling. That went to the Supreme Court. And so you know this is the one case or there might be one other. We don't know. Because most of us can afford to get into appeals court to start with the number that I've been given us I had a judge just removed me the other day but the he had to say it's expense of this forty thousand dollars just to get in the door. so most of us. most of us are going there once we get a decision we're done. Of. And. This. I deal that of that they should be open ended up people should take care of their kids we all agree with that. Page three years is not a number I came up with Senator Tucker I was open. First we had zero and then the visit with not be a bar association but people with the Bar Association not authorized to call to come up with a compromise but no those working with a bunch of different attorneys and three years as what. They thought was a consensus I would've been open to two five I thought three years was better but I would've been open up to a different number one of is it would you district council said same thing they really didn't want any number but I said give me a number. And of so there needs to be done to be be zero or eighteen third there needs to be a number or you can say and three years. That allows a child because you know if folks were all state a state already gone there's already child support order there's nothing to do when you turn eighteen there could and so with a child turns eighteen to be able to go back from fifteen to eighteen is substantial of it especially if a child feels aggrieved enough that they want to do that and so we've we've left the door open what closing closing that window that where people can abuse the system because that's exactly what's happening and also saying of whether you're a father or a mother if if you're going to seek support. Do it if you can't go back forever you can go back three years and if you're gonna six support you need to go ahead and and do it and of and like all other things anything that I do in my business there's a statute of limitations there's a limit to how far I can go back and buy civil rights and that's one of the reasons that we agreed that children ought to be able once they turn eighteen is because they can't sit on the rides. Because a with until they turned eighteen they couldn't so so this is a situation we're trying to fix I've been I've said here aggravated not aggravated at any of you aggravated at myself because the biggest point of contention was the service will be part of which I agreed to change at eight thirty this morning. So I had a not agreed to change at eight thirty this morning we might have avoided a lot of this discussion into that need to be changed will be glad to change that on our way down to the house but we're getting with spring break coming up we need to get this moving on and with with that I'm close not appreciate a good vote. Many heard. I have a motion mode of a motion to pass. As amended do we have a second. I have a second all those in favor say aye All opposed. We'll call. Roll call. Okay. Senator Hester. Senator Hester. Senator Rice. Senator Rice yes. Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker yes. Senator Gilmore yes Senator Gary Moore yes. Senate committee. Senator Ricky. Senator Clark yes Senator Clark yes. Senator flowers Senator flowers no. Your vote yes sure vote yes Senator Stubblefield. Roger like Senator Clark you will pass. Part we're running late I think that was ended for the day thank you all for coming.