Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative & Military Affairs- House

Senator Garner you're recognized thank you madam chair you know we get up here we get busy. Well I think in the way of us. Sometimes you just don't see that thank come around being. It doesn't come that way to us. I'm sorry I should read this bill earlier in the session. So I'd have to hang my head. And cry. Rob. Cry when you're up here you know you get busy you get you get to working with it. You get in that ring of fire. I just don't know what's going to happen House going to work. So I respectfully ask this committee don't make me hurt anymore. Please pass as Johnny Cash bill don't think twice it's all right thank you madam chair. Okay I don't think we can top that. Are there any questions for senator garner op representative berry. Madam chairman is my understanding that the representative McElroy and senator garner we're going to sing the ring of fire before we voted. I don't know if that's actually true if that's the senator are you are you willing to sing it send well I don't like to talk about politics here but get reelected so I'm not going to sing it thank you madam chairman. Hostile witness. McElroy you are recognized this may be dangerous. This may be represented Barker said this may be painful. I'll speak pope support this bill music is very important to all of Arkansas but my favorite song. Our field and you can join in if you want to fill in into a burning ring of fire I got in the legislature and the flame gold higher it It Barnes Barnes Barnes to be a public official. Do pass please. All right is pain she time in the legislature we have all represented Christiansen has a question. Madam chairman I have to say that that is one of the best performances we've seen in the legislature in the last three years. I wonder if they're going to Jackson because they're hotter peppers brownstone. All right we have a motion do pass what it all in favor say aye All opposed say no. And the resolution passes. I'm sorry the bill passes as establishing a Johnny Cash day in the state of Arkansas all right very good. All right members we had a bit of confusion with the next Senate bill it was on our agenda and then it was removed for about thirty minutes and then it was put back on so without objection we will go ahead and hear Senate bill five eight nine the confusion was because as you know we have to have items on the agenda for eighteen hours before they come to us but it was only off for about thirty minutes so without objection we will proceed to hear Senate bill five eight nine Senator Ballinger you're recognized. And representative under way. Senator Ballinger you still have an amendment on that was adopted for seven twenty one if you wish to keep that amendment on or were you expunging it no because we actually we've grows that amendment in the bill okay improbably if somebody would make a motion to expunge amendment to be great or expunge the vote I wish that amendment was adopted so you wish for us to expunge the vote by which this amendment was adopted yes manager all right do we have a motion to that effect we have a motion any discussion on this motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no and that amendment is expunged so we will proceed now to hear the bill. The manager thank you committee so I know we've came here before we amended this bill since last time this is the bill that is designed to help custodial parents obtain their child support and so as I thought we talked about before if you are behind in child support this bill would prohibit you from being a foundation to modify custody or visitation I want to be clear that it does not take away anybody's right to visitation with their child but we amended it since the last time I spoke in this bill now if you have an accrued under an educator is a twenty five thousand dollars or more which is a Class B. felony in Arkansas that would be a level you have to reach before the you have This prohibition or if you have a judgment against you for twenty five thousand or more and is not or to be paid back in monthly installments which I think is some concern that the committee expressed last time that we were here as well or if your attorney's fees and costs for twenty five thousand dollars or more to another party I would also fall under this category one other thing I do want to mention we had this bill reviewed by the AG's office and I don't know if they're here today to speak on this bill or not but they did confirm to me that they did review it they did feel that it was constitutional on Senator Ballinger has an ad. I don't have anything better that but I'm happy to answer any questions. Representative had sent thank you madam chair has the office of child support enforcement weighed in on this. Not to my knowledge. Follow up madam chair yes. Would you agree that it would be important to get that input if we're talking about making a major change to how child support is collected and the type of enforcement around late child support. Actually so this bill doesn't really tie into that the it doesn't mess in their waters okay so what this do I mean I I might buy some so would be is that be pretty happy to get a nother tore mechanism to collect the child support but but frankly this doesn't doesn't modify any of their their current systems this would just basically be a hurdle that need to be overcome before you come back you request modification of the of a visitation or or of custody and so you know I think that they would probably be supportive of it but it doesn't modify anything that they're currently doing. Representive are. Thank you madam chair. My heartburn is art with this bill are we still taken out. The human factor of the judge being able to look at the case and say yes I see this parent owes child support I see they owe money but knowing all the factors I still feel it's in the best interest of the child to let them file a motion or counter motion to modify. Custody or visitation. In an answer that is not really because as long as that judge feels that way if the person is making good faith effort to pay back their rear **** then the judges tested in or modified order to allow them to make the monthly payments and then then they could still move forward with everything else so I don't think it really does does constrain the judges to that extent. Thank. Representive had sent. Thank you madam chair so why do we need this particular weapon in our arsenal when judges already have the option to hold aid a parent and content. Because sometimes or not. So what we're doing is just it's modifying policy to make you aware it's clear they haven't I have an obligation to deal with the the previous child support to do whatever I mean and and if the person not willing to make good faith efforts can imagine a judge allowing them to have that order so it's just assembly there are situations out there where where people are way behind and they're still using the court system as as the a tool to abuse the other party and frankly drag kids through it and that's that's the point of the legislation follow up madam chair yes. Do you have examples of specific instances in which the judges are not holding the party who's behind in child support in contempt and if so how many statewide over what period of time. And I I don't know how many or or any of that I do know of a specific case however the very nature of the case makes it really hard for them to to come forward and make a public without feeling like they have a have a you know another reason to get abused. Thank you enter. Representative what. Thank you madam chair senator I'm just curious about the number of occurrences of that supposedly this bill could take care of I guess you guys up I guess that would require about his frequency can you shed just a little bit light on that please. So I only have personal knowledge of one instance I'm trying to think I don't do a whole lot of family law so I don't I don't have a lot of experience there probably other another time I can think of that this would came into play the it's one person who is I think the kind of been being caught in an is a victim of the system and so what I'm trying to do is make a modification to the system to not allow for that if there's one person who is there's probably tens maybe hundreds that are also caught in the same situation I want to tie judges hands I want them to be able to do what what what justice requires and I think that this special at the moment we put in we kind of believe that part of this amendment was already what they have that flexibility but we put it in here to make make clear that if a person is making I I've worked with addicts before and and what typically that X. didn't come to my ministry until their life was completely spun out of control in many times are behind on child support when they do that but will work with them to try to get their life back together in an immediately when they do most of times I want to have the station with the kids in there behind of the child support I would want to create a situation where these people who are trying to get better can't in math and so they would have the ability go petition the court to get an order in order make payments in order to get caught up based on the current income and this bill would provide that mechanism but at the same time it also provides that tool to to get that person who is way behind and is using the system in order to abuse the other party to stop that in till they get the them caught up on the child support. Representative Crawford. Thank you madam chair. Senator Ballenger how do you think this works with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that safeguards everybody in parents fundamental rights. It in I'm happy to answer that I think represent under would kind of touch that when working meeting with AG it It so the the question what is it what are they what is the due process right so what what it not sure about the Fourteenth Amendment do they have to process yes yeah and so that so the answer is yes so even if they're behind on child support there's a mechanism for them to go and say and get a modification of that child support in order to still get a hearing on this and so what we're saying policy standpoint is that if you're not willing to do that if you're not willing to work on getting caught up with your ridges then you shouldn't have access to the courts to make those modifications and less you willing to do something to get caught up and so I I actually that's it that is part of the due process I don't see any real real constitutional limitations in this at all. Follow at madam chair yes. so would you say that we're looking at the difference between. How can I word it Would you agree that we're looking more toward money then we are what's best for the child. No I would agree with that so thank you the money is important obviously at the it is the money in it up some of this money is designated directly to take care of the of the kids but at I have been around long enough to see kids get abused by parents who fight with each other through the courts continue as a what the idea of this is is to make that slow down the put a put a speed bump not a roadblock with a speed bump because people to slow down and how to get things back in order to get right before they continue that process. I'm I'm seeing no more questions so if you want to leave the table and we will have people come forward to speak for against the bill I have. Lahren excuse me Rachel Wilson. She had signed up online is issued in the building. And then speak against Lahren Hoover. Also signed up on. The server if you would introduce yourself to the committee please. Good morning my name is Lauren Hoover I'm back my family law attorney here in Little Rock representative Crawford I want to answer your question about the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States constitution the Fourteenth Amendment protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions such that liberty nor justice would exist if their sacrifice what SB five eighty nine **** Committee to do as amended is to sacrifice this these fundamental rights at a threshold of twenty five thousand dollars the interest of parents in the care custody and control of their children is the oldest fundamental liberty interest recognized by the US Supreme Court if it's not the oldest it's one of them representative underlying in this bill is the hope that this body will think a parent who's in arrears of twenty five thousand dollars does not deserve this fundamental right another question was asked what do we think that money is sacrificing the issue of best interest the answer to that is yes up to twenty five thousand dollars we will care about best interest of the minor child so long as another parent owes less than twenty five thousand dollars. The comments of the testimony previously about if someone's on a payment plan if they're making a good faith effort that is not within this bill I believe it's based on line twenty seven twenty eight and twenty nine on page one that child support that has accrued on the judicata readers in the amount that I don't see anything in here that says that if a parent is paying that with typically done paying twenty percent of the arrears I see nothing in here that would allow the parent who is making a twenty percent payment towards that or remarriage would allow them to petition to modify custody or visitation unless the circumstances exist as at identified and five eighty nine. In our adoption statutes and our termination of parental rights statutory scheme a basis to remove a parent's consent from that process is the willful non payment of support for a period of one year but in those cases what we are required to prove even if that consent is not required because of non payment of child support it still has to be proven by best interests by clear and convincing evidence that termination is appropriate this statute affords no such heightened statutory or standard of evidence and would only be more likely than not preponderance of evidence this committee as I know is greatly aware of with the standard of clear and convincing evidence is as you all saw an SB eighteen now ACT eight oh four we now have a presumption rebuttable presumption of joint custody so in terms of worrying about kids in the court system this session has already done quite a bit to try to remove some of those child custody fights by having a rebuttable presumption of joint custody only rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. This standard would would be appropriate but as of right now and you heard Senator Ballinger he knows of one one instance I believe what he said is the very nature of the case that makes it hard to come forward I think we all know who this one instance this makes it difficult for me to prove to this committee who it is because that person's case is sealed but I can tell you as a family law practitioner I do not see this instant repeat itself over and over we are coming to the end of a pandemic we had a stork layoffs with oil gas those parents whose child support were set pre administrative order number ten that went into effect of July first twenty twenty it's very possible but that in the rear to twenty five thousand dollars can accrue in a three month period under old guidelines this is the wrong time for this bill this bill is absolutely unconstitutional I'll be the first one to sign up and fight it wherever it is in this state and the state of Arkansas will be ordered to pay my attorney's fees for doing so and that's because of the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution thank you madam chair. Any questions for this witness. C. nine thank you for your testimony thank you very much. To speak for the bill we have judge Chris Carnahan. Good morning madam chair members of the committee I'm Chris Carnahan I'm not here in my judicial capacity but I'm here someone who is familiar with what I know of this three different instances in the state of Arkansas or similar circumstances have a reserve razor head both forms of the child support arrears age and only attorneys. some I gotta tell you. When you hear lawyers race things like due process and they don't cite case law. Need to ask what the case law is. You need to sit down said okay tell me how this isn't been interpreted in a similar situation. And you need to say. Is is that something that just lawyers do whatever they don't like something and I think that's kind of where we're at with. What we've got. Is a bill that tells a parent who is not doing the right thing. Who is refused to do the right thing is refused to follow in order of the court. Hasn't come back and try to seek a modification of the child support has come back and try to do all these other kind of things but has said we're going all out twenty five thousand dollars. In child support to accrue. And I'm going to file a modification. I'm not sure where we're at on the charter how many kids you have to have for one year you to rack up twenty five thousand dollars in a rear edges on child support we're talking about you get more kids in the duggars guide. Or. You have sufficient funds based on the chart it would indicate that you could pay that. IBM the senator I think raise the the issue about the felony level I prosecuted a non support payment when I was deputy prosecutor. for for greater amounts in this. If there was one thing they said well you know the the the level of money that this is that's the equal protection burden it bars you because of a money issue. If you re open the case you go to your circuit Clerk. You want to modify child support. She can make you fall of pay a fee to do that. It's not just free now if possible if you're in an ongoing litigation case and all that you probably have a that but the idea that you don't pay what's due you don't provide for your kids. In the amount of twenty five thousand dollars we're gonna let you continually come back make your others the other side have to rack up attorney's fees and this is not a one way deal with a man or woman it happens it happens on both sides of me with two cases women one case with a man and I was the attorney for the man okay. Is justice's been denied. It's justice's been denied because he's continued to have to pay out at his per his his pocket. For someone who won't provide for their. You want that just injustice to continue or can you say Hey we just want you to come here and do it and I guess what to do. Make sure your children are provided for. I know the judicial council takes a different view than this. I just disagree with. but anyway other than that I'll take any questions if that would be appropriate manager. Yes thank you do we have any questions for this witness representative Crawford. Thank you madam chair would you agree that this is not the best time for this law due to the pandemic that we are trying to get out of at this time. A maybe the judicial council is aware of thousands of people who are having problems meeting their obligations that this bill would apply to I'm just not aware of that at all and again it's in a rear edges you're not trying to no showing no effort to try to make up from that I think that's the that is the linchpin of this no I don't think it's of I don't think it's a bad time ever to do justice no ma'am. Representive Hudson thank you madam chair and thank you for being here your honor eight you know I've him hearing that we have somewhere between one in three cases that the supplies to and and representive Crawford was asking about the concern about the pandemic can you settle you know maybe they know something about thousands of cases that this might apply to but in balance I mean is it worthwhile to pass a law that benefits one to three people in the whole state when there could be hundreds or thousands of people who will apply to when they start coming back into court and they become behind on their child support because of issues with the pandemic and are unable to even access the courts to talk about custody or visitation changes not only if their overdue on child support but attorney's fees and costs so it you know in balance or what are we looking at passing a law that benefits one to three people who are having a bad time versus potential harm and due process concerns two hundreds of others. remotely I guess very remotely extremely remotely would be my answer to that I just I just don't see that as being a major reason based on my legal career and in the time I've I've said on on on the bench The one to three cases. Are what I'm familiar with. Thank you as a representative firms. Just due to the nature of these things we don't know where these I guess you could call every circuit judge in the state who has a domestic relations docket and you might get an answer to that that would be a little bit better but but I I think I think it's a good bill and I don't I don't see any problem with it once I would be here testifying if they had raised this to the twenty five thousand dollar threshold. That's a lot of back child support. Anyway. Sullivan editor yes recognized in in your your honor your point is well taken on on you know you suppose that the sponsors could have could have pulled some of the domestic cases domestic courts throughout the state would you agree with me that if we're going to make this type of major change to child support enforcement that perhaps pulling those those courts may have been a useful exercise. The justice the collectors of. Representative McKenzie. Thank you madam chair or any other states that you know of putting this type of barrier FOR parents before they the court will entertain a motion representative I do not know the answer the question. Thank you. Seeing no additional questions thank you for your testimony thank you manager. And speaking against the bill judge Mackie Pierce. Judge peers if you just introduce yourself to the committee please yes ma'am thank you thank you madam chair my name is Maggie Pierce I am a circuit judge here in the sixth judicial district which is Pulaski and Perry County I have served since January one of nineteen ninety nine with a docket primarily of domestic relations I was elected as chancellor and then two years later with Amendment eighty became a circuit judge and still maintain a domestic caseload I practiced law for nineteen years before I became a circuit judge with a heavy domestic case load I am exceedingly aware of child support issues I service for your chair of the Arkansas Supreme Court committee on child support with represent chairman bikes as the liaison on that committee during my time so I am familiar with child support issues. When I first saw this bill I thought it was an exceedingly bad bill now it is a bad bill number one hello. It is a bill for one and and in my opinion when we start dealing with child support issues and we start dealing with one person the law of unintended consequences will kick in and we will have lots of problems with other child support issues and child support cases now. I have a couple of basic principles when I'm dealing with child support custody visitation those issues number one I expect individuals who are obligated to pay child support to pay their child support to support their child or children that's a given I also expect that they have the right to exercise their visitation and I will enforcement my orders very strenuously to respect both of those rights and privileges that individuals have. Now I understand you all heard from judge Hamilton singleton who is the chair of the judicial council judge singleton I have the utmost respect for but I agree with his opinion on this case I've also been told that you have heard from an attorney that they don't find that if you have a motion for increase of child support a motion for support you just automatically almost got and counter motion for change of custody well as I said I spent nineteen years in private practice and I've spent twenty three years on the bench dealing with these issues do I. see counter motions sometimes do I see motions are filed prepared you know frivolously or with no basis sometimes or they're penalties or their cost for doing that that try to do church and to keep people from doing that wrongfully certainly there are you know you can assess attorney's fees and costs you can cite individuals for a rule eleven sanctions for the attorney for filing something like that which goes to potentially the Supreme Court committee on professional conduct or I can hold someone in contempt and punish them and you can talk to just about any attorney that practices in my court and they can advise you that I send people to jail for non payment of child support Dr certain protections there of due process protections representative Crawford and I respectfully disagree with the AG or the assistant AG that pine that this bill will pass constitutional muster I do not believe that it will I disagree with judge Carnahan that when you don't site law you know you've got less than a good basis well Linder B. lender which is in Arkansas saw Supreme Court case of April twenty fifth two thousand to protect due process rights in recognizes parental due process rights in the state of. Arkansas Lindor cites the case of Troxel which is a two thousand case of the United States Supreme Court by thirty US fifty seven which. Spells out The way in which the US Supreme Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court protect in the end recognized due process rights of parents so to limit a parent based upon a judgment or eighteen under judicata rears of doing what's in their best interest to take steps to protect their health safety welfare wore their best interest smacks of a due process violation and what's going to happen when this but if this bill passes then the state of Arkansas the AG's office will have to spend time defending an indefensible bill and ultimately the state taxpayers all of us in this room will end up paying. This Hooper's or some other attorneys legal fiction and I agree with Mr per one hundred percent the state will pay her fees if she challenges this bill and it will be successfully challenged if passed so. You know. I've been doing this and and there's a hundred and twenty five other judges who do the work that I do as a circuit judge not all of them handle domestic relations cases we all handle them exactly the same way we do not and I don't know any way to get us to do that you all don't look at your job the same way everyone of you you all bring your own unique personalities views viewpoints biases Baltz it's so true and backgrounds into doing your job I do also but. Three cases in the state of Arkansas there are literally tens of thousands of child support cases so when I first office so this bill then this bill could apply to tens of thousands of litigants as amended. It might apply to a couple of thousand people in the state of Arkansas so out of those we reduce the pool from tens of thousands down to maybe two thousand Max that twenty five twenty five thousand put you in a special category as judge Carnahan said it's a Class D. felony you come into my court and you owe this amount of money you're not making any effort I'm referring you over the prosecutor it's a simple process you just send them over to prosecutors are prosecutor will prosecute you in Pulaski County for not paying your child support that's been my experience Larry gently does a good job of doing that and they get people to fight with the threat of penitentiary time you can also go to jail with me for not paying your child support that will generally get somebody to pay so there are various ways. You know it's not hard to spot a frivolous motion in a frivolous pleading for custody or visitation or for any other reason and I don't have time for that most judges do not and we don't generally put up with it but we have remedies available to us now without this bill that can urge someone to. Paid their support as they're obligated to pay but I can assure you that there are individuals who will be unintended consequences and I can think of two cases which I have dealt with in the last four months that will apply one is a high income earner and he pays a lot of child support if he's disabled or loses his job re period of four months he will twenty five thousand and he's got one shot I have another one where the he has three sons and he has cancer and he has received a cut in income and if he loses that job and he cannot get disability or you cannot get any modification or can't get in there then he will have a twenty five thousand dollar or remarriage within six months and he said well he earns a good salary but it will apply to a lot of people and we're going to have the law of unintended consequences kicking in we're going to adversely affect litigants who have every right to see their children to visit with their children or to even have custody and have had a loss of income or a diminution in income based upon no fault of their own and it will adversely affect those litigants so. Well as German I could speak of this you know at at length but I want to go to you know reiterate that I agree with judge singleton this bill will not pass constitutional muster and it will end up costing the cat taxpayers you're not and in others money for attorneys fees and costs that would be needlessly expended if this bill passes thank you madam chair I appreciate this committee's time and I'll be happy to answer any questions that anyone may have. Thank you representative Hudson. Hide your thank you for being here today I wanted to go back to something that you touched on and that has been brought out another testimony today and that is the question of whether or not you see that you are lacking any tool in your judicial toolbox to handle situations in which you're talking about these high dollar back child support moneys being owed so you know there's there was some testimony from judge Carnahan said perhaps they could have pulled some of the family courts in the state and since since we have one of them here do you think that you're lacking any any tool to hold parents accountable when they become behind do you think that this solves the problem that you have seen in your experience. I have. A huge amount of discretion in dealing with issues like this and one thing that I didn't site in and say I have on a couple three occasions prohibited litigants from filing motions were pleadings that I have found to be frivolous and prohibited future filings unless they come to me and first seek my permission before they even file a pleading and incur costs for attorneys fees or other litigation from the other side I have content Pallars I have powers to assist fees and costs I have the power to refer these individuals to the prosecuting attorney's office. I'm not I'm not sure what will on my options when I deal with this particular issue I have adequate ability to handle the situation and and I believe all circuit judges to I'm not it's not unique to me and seventeen division circuit Pulaski County every circuit judge that deals with child support issues that same same of rights to proceed as they see fit as I do. Thank you ma'am. Seeing no additional questions thank you for your testimony thank you Medivir again thank you. That is all I see who have signed up online or signed up in person to speak have I overlooked anyone in the audience who is here to speak either for or against this bill. Wave your arms around if you if you are so that we can see through the plexiglass. All right seeing nine Senator Ballinger would you like to close for your bill. Thank you any other second will make a couple points of view points out let Senator Ballinger if he has anything to say I will when I think it's always in the child's best interest that they're being properly supported by both parents I think obviously twenty five thousand dollars in a agree just amount to be behind and not be supporting your your child you know there was some discussion about this being a pandemic in people being in a tough situation not being able to pay child support while he still needs for child and there's opportunities to petition the court and ask for modification of child support I also think you know during that same pandemic the custodial parent still has to support their child if they're not receiving child support they're more likely to be in poverty so I think that that's also something that that we should consider and then lastly last point I'll make is again you know as the AG's office did review this bill they did confirm to me that they see no constitutional issues with this build so center if you have anything. Thank you Committee you know I'm I've been around here long enough to to get a pretty good sense of what for the committee stance and you know on a bill like this a lot of times if you have a a force behind it lobbied against it it's really hard to get. You know I can just basically come here and and put forth to use the concept of somebody who's not paying their child support their arrears with the court should they be able to go to court without working out that arrears they can't make work out that a ridge should be able to go go to court and ask for a petition and changing in custody if they're not even paying their jobs. Yeah that's the question before us I get I mean the judicial council you got judges and all your districts you have all been called that's the way it works you have a good lobbyists in the lobby and really hard but also my other question is should they be able to do that the question I mean some of the arguments and attorneys make good arguments and I'll throw cases within the not they won't they won't talk about how the facts of of this bill would apply to that case those arguing that you don't have due process rights we're not saying you don't have due process rights within this bill doesn't violate your due process rights you go before the judge if the judges willing to the state no you know what I'm not even willing to consider making a a a you know a changing the modification of your child support so you can have this other matter then the maybe that judge could be violated due process the law doesn't do it because the mechanism in there for them to be able to do that this this honors due process rights. Get to the issue report if there's emergency right this doesn't even apply if there's emergency situation. I mean I I really feel like we've done everything we could to try to address we'll what we feel like in some situations as is an injustice because judge mac is a great judge and jury does a wonderful job it's not all the judges like that as a what's really important is that we set the policy to do the best for these kids for these families to try to limit litigation and try to get child support paid them so that I you know I appreciate your eyes take your time on a Monday morning and would appreciate a good vote. What is the will of the committee. I have a motion to pass up is there any discussion of the motion. Representative McClure. Thank you manager. On offer perspective for as a step Child born in two thousand and eight. It's not twenty twenty one. Dalby approximate thirteen years old. The parents of the child have experienced two major economic collapses. Or either parent or both parents have. May have gone through career changes. As a step parent I very much understand the pressures. Of when someone's not paying child support. In this session we've had several bills come before us. I think the intent of what we've seen. Is to keep parents involved in the Charles line. When the child is not in danger. I'm certainly an advocate of going after deadbeat parents who do not pay child support. I'm also an advocate. Attorneys being paid. But there is a word there that says for. That puts parents of double jeopardy whether it's the child support or the attorney fees. I guess I have a theme in this session it's been what about the kid. What about the kids. Yeah there's some parents out there that don't pay their child support but maybe they're not endangering their child. Maybe having both parents present helps that child even if they're not paying child support again I think we need to go after those who willingly don't pay child. However I think that the judges in this case have enough latitude to make correct decisions. And so I'm going to trust the judges and our current law and vote. Any other discussion. Seeing nine. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The nose have if the bill fails thank you manager thank you and if your time thank you members before we adjourn we have a few announcements please all of you see representative Gayla McKenzie sometime today she needs to see each of you individually are in a group if you want to. Also and I want to tell you that right now we don't have anything else on our agenda we may be having a couple of bills that are coming from the Senate that will be put on our agenda so just be watching your emails as of now we will not be meeting again but that could easily change so just be watching for that and if we don't meet again I want to take this opportunity to thank each of you for your diligent work and this committee it's been a pleasure working with each of you during this session and with that we are adjourned.