Judiciary Committee - Senate

Two or. Which. Sixty three. Thirty six okay has to he's going to be. Okay. You get your yes. Okay we have a long agenda we're gonna see what we can get to so of Senator Rapert. Your to concur on a house amendment SP three forty six. Yes Sir Mr chairman. Would you allow more quick more sit with me here to table. We will. What more if you would identify yourself for the record. Morning Mr chairman members committee mark Whitmore Association Arkansas counties. You may proceed all right thank you Mr chairman I think this would be relatively simple will make sure we have but if you have questions this bill went down to the House course pass of the committee in this is to concur in the amendment and I think it's a good amendment there was a bit of consternation about some of the time that was going to be charged for related to some of these requests and House Committee agreed to amendment by all stakeholders it really came to the table some may still not like it but it was agreed to to simply look at I guess page four is the main issue there and it actually put some parameters on that for protection of people to know exactly what they would be paying so if if the request is over three hours and I think ninety plus percent of the request your under three hours but if you did have one that was over that they simply state their charge twenty dollars. Per hour of the recorded time rather than the potential for the huge labor charges that could come so this is allowing people say if it's an hour than they pay twenty Bucks for that hour in rather than if it took three hours to get that hour which would have been higher charge into the bill then this would allow that to just be for the time that's produced and rich with more for you have a additional that be helpful well and and the press association does not oppose and doctor professor Steinberg help work on this and he does not oppose actually I believe it indoors yes this change so that we're not the to speeding or arguing over the how much personal time was over three hours this way your charging if it's personal equipment for the running time of the video if the personal time took over three hours of home page for the last page is very clear what the the manner in which charges you are made. Mister chairman I'm very happy with the results I think it's a good reasonable position forced to be in and it was able to get the support and the House Committee through the House appreciate a good vote. Questions from the committee. See note questions so I have a motion to adopt from senator Johnson. Secretary. Second anywhere second from Senator Hendren a discussion you're not offer the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion Kerry can congratulations thank you for your The Amendment is concurrent. blue Senator Hammer is here with the short bill. Or is he. seventy house bill seventeen thirty six. Represent. Per share may have Christian with DHS join me at the table please. Yes. Good identify yourself for the record please good morning Christian Harper with the Division of Children and Family Services Kim Hammer state senator district thirty three you're recognized to present your bill senator Hammer thank you Mr this is a really good bill for what it does you have young adults it turned eighteen Page out of the foster program they opt out they may realize after the opt out and get out of the real world that they wish they hadn't and they would like to access going back under foster care but the pathway to do that is a little bit more difficult than some of them are willing to subject themselves to and so what this bill does is open up that door way for them to be able to come back in under foster care and be able to receive receive the support and and get back into a into a safe zone if it's right Mr up missed Christian kind of taking a little deeper than that but that's essence of the bill. Thank you good morning and senator Hammer summarized it very well and you can currently reenter posture Care but what this will do is streamline the process so that it's no longer required for their previous attorney I'd like them to file the petition in order for them to come back under the jurisdiction of the court and they will still have that option if desired but and you will also have the option simply to present The request to DHS either in person or in writing and for DHS to re open the case and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Senate garage you're recognized. The card read is this this is if the op back in. England process within what how many days and there's no time frame on it our extended foster care program serves youth ages eighteen to twenty one so at any time during that period of eighteen to twenty one if the use terms they need that support may have this option okay so any time within three years yes Sir okay thank you. Other questions from the committee. C. none is there anyone here to testify for or against the bill. Seeing none Senator Hammer would you like to close for your bill. Thank you Mr chair of thank up one of the great things we can do is help those that are reaching out for help and streamline the process where doesn't to lessen the quality of what they're going to get so I think this be a good bill to streamline and getting back in the into the channel where they get the help center and hopefully stay out trouble get out trouble and I appreciate a good vote of the committee. Is there a motion to pass across. Second from Senator Ballenger any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried resolution Senator Hammer you have passed your bill thank you Mr chamber Mr chairman members of the committee. Okay of do we have any other two minute bills. So Tucker I know you have one but you have another bill that may not be a two minute bill so we're going to. Of it is. Senator Eads. What is it what bill house bill fifteen eighteen House Bill fifteen eighteen. Surjeet you're recognized French president house bill fifteen eighteen thank you Mr chair a member's this bill updates the Arkansas uniform power of attorney acts to add in when you're talking about power of attorney in dealing with trust the word create they already have the ability to amend revoke or terminate a trust it as one word in there to create so that they have the that at that's a new express power within this power of attorney it also updates the actual form that's in code add the word creed in there as well and the third thing it does is it adds two lines of code to make sure there's no inconsistency between the two acts that are relative to power of attorney in trusts this is and I'll read those two lines that says Power of attorney expressly grants the agent the thirty to perform this action in the seller has the capacity to take the action at the time the power of attorney was executed so put safeguard and makes consistency in both areas of statute for that this basically was brought to me to add some flexibility for families that are looking at reasons to add develop trust in the use of power of attorney and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Senator Johnson you're recognized. So this is I mean everything after you know what's in statute now they can amend this is a action who is taken from somebody who can no longer take care of their own business in this power of attorney to create a trust which is long term. Document which may confound their family is that right correct correct. They have to be able to actually turn over the power of attorney there to be able to. the terminology is the capacity to take that action at the time the power of attorney was established. It's not changing any of that. Right thank you. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to testify for or against the bill. C. none Senator Eads would you like to close for your bill. I want to give too much time committee but I just appreciate the opportunity consider that certain vetted to the house Judiciary and receive ninety six votes to advances to the Senate in I think this gives families if there if they got a family member and near death and you need to execute a trust for the power of attorney to make sure if you've got a family member that you wanna make sure gets their fair share and give them the ability to have that option for them so that those people have the state are on equal ground with other family members. Motion do pass from center Johnson. Circumcenter garner any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations entry Jr pastor bill thank you Mr chairman committee secretary run to say that you had a two minute bill. What what bill number Centerville. Center Senate bill three fifty three Committee. Yes. This. Senator Irvin you're recognized president Senate bill three fifty three thank you Mr chair Senator Missy Irvin district eighteen. Sullivan grew so secretary corrections. Thank you Mr chairman of the committee I started out I started with this bill and particularly because and correspondence with some of our judges and and others there is a difficulty when and you have folks that are accumulating fines and what this bill does is try to address an easier way to help those individuals pay off their fines and not get stuck in a bad situation of a huge amount of debt when they come out of incarceration and so there's some there's some issues and some problems with our current systems and what this bill does is aims to allow for some flexibility with our court systems to work with those individuals and to help them manage those fines and manage their debts basically and then also a lot of this information exists out there in different pieces but we don't have a uniform system where if somebody accumulates a fine in one area of the state in another area of the state we don't have a system that talks to each other and so that's the second part of this and working with Benny Magness and the board of corrections and Solomon graves in the department of corrections they recognize that this is a real problem and they want to spend the time and effort to really drill down to solve this problem and so that's what my bill is aimed to do is to really try to make sure that we have good infrastructure in place so that the judges and the people in the department of corrections that are dealing with this population and that those people that are find have the ability to have the information and work with them to get those fines paid off and so that we're not sending them back to jail that's my aim of my goal how can I turn it over to Mr graves. Yes within a double identify yourself for the record of the graves Sullivan grace said Terry corrections miss Mister members of the committee the only thing I would add over the course of this section of it conversations with many of you and members on the other side of the capitol about the need to have a system that balances punishment would rehabilitation. And that's would Senate bill three fifty three does it understands that we need to have a system that ensures that financial obligations are paid so we have a system that is operate operational and that we are able to make victims whole but it also puts us on a path through the establishment of this task force which the department will provide the administrative support for in the in a room to really have this intentional conversation of what does a financial obligation system look like within this state that ensures that if you have offenders in multiple counties multiple judicial districts they're able to know what they owe and when they when and where they it but also that we have a system that works that we are able to make victims hole in the most prompt and efficient way possible. Questions from the committee. Centreville. Thank you Mr chairman of Sullivan you know how much money is currently on the total amount of funds no Sir so you don't have any idea how much money and and to the question well with the chairs and all but that's one of the challenges that this bill seeks to address there's no one single place right now that an individual could and can go and find out how much money is outstanding for a particular offender or in a system or system why and how would how would one of these individuals handle that debt that's been accumulated. I don't have it. Exactly and and that's all we want to. And and that's what we want to fix you know one of the areas of responsibility that a I supporters are division of community correction in. The effective supervision is based on the fact that if we have been offender that has a case out of Crawford County that has a case out of Greene County that has a case out of Miller county that that offender knows how much they owe when all three of those counties and all three of those counties have a ability to know the status of that offender so most of this this is written off and. If if it's someplace in some cases yes if an individual is there are unable to collect for for whatever reason it just sits there it never really goes away it remains on the books is just. Is being collected. All right thank you Mister senator garner you're recognized thank you can you say that the judge advising to be good with this for you know yeah we worked with the association of counties worked with the administrative office of the courts and everybody lined lined lined out in the task force was involved in conversations and saw this language I just wanna point out that you know some a legislator who is kind of changes in court rules with this amendment AT and we're also doing some audio visual stuff which I have a bill related measure that might be a talking point just want to point that out yeah for this very very good bill thank you. Any other questions from the committee. I'll take that as a motion to pass senator garner. C. nine is there anyone here to testify for or against the bill. See non center road like close your bill thank you members of the committee this is a big problem and I think. On both sides of it we definitely want to make sure victims are made whole we also want to make sure that people that have these stats know what they are and where they are and also those supervising them in Department of Community corrections they need access to that information and they don't have it so this is a big problem we have to address and solve. The motion to passengers so feel. Yes second from Senator Garner any discussion. Hearing none over the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried resolution center renew a pastor bill thank you Mr chairman of the committee Senator Hill what bill do you have. The house bill seventeen eighteen. Senator Hill you are recognized to present. House Bill seventeen eighteen and representative Lundstrum you're recognized also. Thank you senator this is a pretty pretty simple bill just as to the trusted and the limited power of appointment the only word is added on there and is to find their limit power bill appointment the means power point that is not general power of appointment and so it covers covers and we're just adding that that one little sensor that don't have the tourney's out and everything's for creating the trusting get everything going. With that I'd be entertaining questions. Agents from committee. Sir Clark you're recognized thank you give me example of this I'm just kind of ignorant or I mean it seems like this is not a general power requirement that is everything else can consider limited power point meant give me example like a real world was come up yep did you have one. No Sir I don't have one it's this is just a cleanup bill that was brought to us by attorneys that just ask if we could get this done thank you know reason why this would be beneficial in the real world I mean I'm I'm not opposed to I just want to know where it's going work similar to to what power of attorney twenty powerful than what it defines what you can do so I'm guessing that a limited power attorney at our appointment is they can limit the scope of the appointment as for the conditions could be put on is that what you think it is yes okay that's that everybody as far thank you. Other questions from the committee Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman so. If it's like a limited power of attorney which we used it all the time when we would deploy it is we would have to specify exactly what we were giving and authority to our spouse is that the same as this and does this mean that they have to specified this authority that were about creditors against a trust yes it does it is like just like that so so has to but it has to be specified in the limited power of appointment already yes the what we're and everything okay thanks. Other questions from committee. Say none is there anyone here to testify for against the bill. See non center here would you like to close for your bill I'm closer created vote. The motion to pass from center still feel. Second from center Johnson a discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations center hill representative once from your past your bill thank you Sir thank you colleagues. These. You the representative was repairs three other real quick bills are just about like this okay we have another matter to take up here but thank you Sir thank you. You. For. Okay we of. Earlier on. Three twenty six almost the concurrence of on the house amendment on Senate bill three forty six of although the it is not required that we take public input on a concurrence on amendment we just inadvertently missed someone of and with all the we will already voted on it someone came to testify and without objection from the Committee on one last of that person Sir more to come testify at this point this more. Miss more our apologies. You will identify yourself for the record. Hi thank you for and giving me the opportunity to speak my name is Sarah Moore I'm the co founder of the Arkansas Justice Reform coalition which is just a grassroots group of committee members that are just concerned about justice issues on the northwest Arkansas area and how that actually came about was that and about that two years ago we started getting more involved in attending our local and government meetings and started to understand how important it is for transparency and for involvement in the public and the works of their government and so I really appreciate that there's been conversation and amendments to that Senate bill three forty six however and most of those conversations have revolved around the media arounds that press association of broadcasters association and I really think there's been an oversight of really thinking about the individual people of Arkansas half of about half of the population of Arkansas is struggling and barely making ends meet where you know one thing that happens in their family is disastrous and and sends them into devastating consequences for their family and so are the amendments while I'm very appreciative and know that we need a fully has been around for fifty four years and never in that time have we been paying for our records I understand that all seven fifty four years ago we didn't know about the audio visual records that would come into play today like with a body cameras and jail video and so I know it needs to be addressed however again I think that in some of the conversations we were not necessarily thinking about every day our cans and twenty dollars an hour was come up with as a reasonable fee after three hours to you and charge the individual occurred reasonable state about different legislators by the sensation of counties and for many working families twenty dollars an hour is way above what they make per hour so for them it doesn't feel very reasonable and I get to see any information provided by the association of counties who is behind. This bill to report to tell me that that's what's needed to cover doing the labor and the work to provide those records additionally does thirty days that's been agreed to wasn't and ended at the end this amendment I think it was it was an oversight and I'm asking for going back and looking at the fact that if it's not a part of the criminal record audio visual only cat be kept on file for thirty days and many people that are incarcerated will not get an attorney within the first like thirty to sixty days so if there is anything that potentially is brought up to their council after that time in regard to the possibility that there was some allegations of mistreatment there won't be records available additionally whenever as this bill was being drafted they were putting together the carry forward restrictions found in one of five eighty one and the of the current FOIA law this bill uniquely allows today this audio visual and allows felons in jail to make for your request of the police replace video I don't think that was an intention I think it was an oversight today with current fully a law felons and those incarcerated or actually I'm sorry those incarcerated or not able to request for your records the way this audio visual bill was put together and they pulled out portions of one oh five a one B. this is the only section of the foyer and that will be open to felons and will inundate law enforcement with with requests for videos all people that are incarcerated you know with time on their hands will have to do is you know thousands of individuals could possibly be asking once a month that could inundate different counties for audio visual information from the different counties and that was something that wasn't addressed additionally there was an incident that happened and it made the news and I'm gonna quickly recount XII I respect your time but I think it's important I talk about that. Read our cans and and there was a gentleman that was moving his belongings any off from fable to little rock and he was detained has U. haul truck for hours on end he was held on the side of the road a drug dog was brought and his interaction involved many law enforcement and was detained for several hours at the end of that he was not he was let go because honestly he did not he didn't commit a crime and so the language of this bill the way it is today I'm asking for amendments that every day our cans and should be able to request their law enforcement interaction whether or not there's criminal involvement or not and in many small towns you know certain individuals potentially you know have interactions where they would have concern but it may not have criminal and interaction may just feel like and there's a potential harassment situation that individual should be able to request that information with the way the language of the bill is today I can only get that record up to three hours every thirty days it's possible that someone again with multiple law enforcement that would interact with them it could easily go over three hours the gentleman that was moving he was detained for many hours we all you know respect and Labor Days and I feel like everyone is in agreement that we will want to protect our liberties on this gentleman should have the rights and any or cans and has an interaction should have the right at no charge to have they're already paid for taxpayer records to be able to I request them and so that individual would have been given a bill out fronts that many are Kansans wouldn't be able to pay to be able to get his record so that's a concern as well so for those reasons I'm asking too I know we already voted I don't know if the procedure as I apologize however my concern is that there are some unintended things happening with this bill at every every day our Kansans will get impact it's not be able to get there I own record my asking me to be able to do a call out forever you know our Kansans because many of the instances that were brought up on these extensive request were in response to the sensation council said it was about. Out extreme circumstances where it's you know for profit tourney's that are looking for business you know they're asking for twenty four days a video well the average our Kansans calling asking for twenty four days they probably just want their one interaction so if there's a way to to call out language appropriate for our cans and to get their information without some burden some cost to them as well as looking at that oversight of the language for someone incarcerated is not able to to file to be able to get the audio visual as well so I just ask if we can pull it down to try to look at amending that and again I don't know precisely what that is thank you for listening to me Senator Hendren you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman and I appreciate the chair let's go back in here this because clearly there are some things that I think I wouldn't wear it at least for since you're telling me right now under current law felons and Carceri it cannot for you which would make sense because they could forty anything right crack with lots of time that can very easily become a blog in the system yes but under this bill. They can send a waiver request every day not every day every thirty days they can ask for three hours and if they all wanted to time it at the right time they could easily shut down a county with all of their request this by law that within three days they would be needing that information to be provided to them and the first three hours there's no charge no charge for the first three hours and then you're also saying that because of the way it's written that the I think the incident you're talking to that were most of us are familiar with their on the interstate of the guy was detained for a couple hours what's the problem with that he would not be able to access it so easily and most instances you probably seen us when you've got you've seen someone pulled over maybe yourself of them pulled over more the it's very rare that one officer is the only one to respond often times especially if you think about serious mental illness you have multiple officers that will come so if someone wants it even if it's an hour long occurrence or thirty minutes if you have a handful of officers one interaction will cost taxpayers that's my concern is that one or action can easily cause the bill and the way that the languages of this and what I've been explained by association of counties the county is going to do a calculation which they've not been doing they don't have expertise and to try to tell the taxpayer up front this is your bill I'm not going to get this information for you until you you pay this well especially in the case of the thirty days I'm concerned because again I just told you people are paycheck to paycheck you told me now it's going to cost me forty sixty hundred dollars I have to go work the next month to be able to come back to you and pay you for that now my records regulation. So this bills meant through the Senate the house and back if you talk to the sponsors about these concerns and what what's the response been this particular with regard to the felons have an access bring me back the data in two years and we can make amendments. Okay. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized. Thank you Mr. During this whole period of time you mentioned that of they were not able to get access to public defender. Is that part of the problem. If we get regulation about the justice system will be here all day unfortunately but I would agree I mean the public defender's offices berry burdens and honestly unfortunately much of our procedure in Arkansas does not appoint counsel from the duration eight point one forward which means their first appearance forward and for that reason usually counsel is appointed out their second parents arraignment so it's easily thirty to sixty days or longer that we see and Benton and Washington counties but it is still difficult to get a public defender even before. Especially for cope with the. Absolutely shortage of public meeting you let if you look at what the Bar Association says is a proper case load most of our counties are covered caring way over and above if we gave the funds to the public defender at purity to the prosecutors. We what we would and bog our justice system across the state of Arkansas and there would be more equity and justice for individuals Arkansas and Washington County ninety five percent of individuals get the public defender on their circuit felony cases. Well that's one of the shortest public defenders because they're not on the same page scale as prosecutor thank you thank you Mr. Senator Garner you're recognized average this three times and if I miss it I don't see where you talked about the change to allow this inundation five prisoners can you point to specific line but well I apologize I was scaring around trying to get in so what happened with some of the of so some of that statute from one of five a one B. some of the sentences were pulled out but not the and so like it would be a simple two is potentially saying you know like many bills do referring back to as per this statute and and referencing the entire statute instead whenever you just take out sentences from that particular statute and insert them into your new bill you're basically in effect saying I only want these portions of that existing statute for this new bill and so that allows folks that are incarcerated today to be able to get the audio visual it's not referencing back fully to. So you can't point to specifics because I'm I'm I'm not read anything that would preclude existing law for for for that problem being changed and a new underline section of this I've read it three four times I cannot see where requires anybody to requested or anything else in a new language even with the amendment that if it's there I'll be open to be adjusted but I have not seen that change now that you brought that up and I've I've said I've read it before it three times I never heard this concern for anybody else so it's to the point that out well and and it was a write up in the conversations that are had following it getting pulled and how state agencies there is a conversation and this was brought for actually by professor Stein but as an add it to be made and unfortunately when they did go back and amend it they did not make that change okay I still see it until I see that I can't. I just can't say that's in the bill and if I'm show differently already would you but I do not see it. I got a bunch attorneys looking over sorry I apologize yes. Miss Moore did you testify in the House Committee. Yes Sir and there was some conversation on with representative Gonzalez representative Meeks and representatives lives that they were concerned about that time parameter especially and there was some concerns that an individual can get their records potentially of one incident for free but they said you know they air those concerns and said you know that something that we should think about what they said still have that affirmative vote I think that well for some of them I'm not sure all of them dead but it did pass you've obviously done a lot of study on this it's unusual a concurrent of amendment that we have that many questions of. The the question you've raised in my mind is I looked at this and I think it was testified to mainly to do with detention centers and you raise the of being stopped on the highway and this bill applies to that too. Of and the reason we were cutting that I believe to three hours was because. Somebody's time in jail could be. could be almost employment not of course I'm exaggerating but but quite long where somebody's time stopped on the highway were could be well over three hours. What would not be evident and having all of that. Footage. could be permanent Interesting. Of is anyone here from association of counties still. Texas. Is testability. Okay well. any other questions of for miss more. Hearing none was more we appreciate your testimony. Of Senator Clark and I do a follow up question. Yeah on this I'm procedurally apologized again just every every day our cans and not sure all this procedure and these concerns have been raised and how he had a good conversation I feel like there are some questions is there anything procedurally and shall deposits before it goes to the full Senate floor before we have additional conversation answer some of these questions. The answer for you and everyone else's yes and it would be highly unusual and I doubt to see that right now but somebody could make a motion but we're not likely after somebody's left here to of a but we are in contact we are trying to contact center Rapert of and now the members that are here are aware of the questions so if it does go for on the floor or the we choose to raise them or not raise them or whether he chooses to bring the bill back but yes there procedurally there's always something that can be done but Like to the list of I'm not seeing anybody making a motion so. I appreciate your time thank you thank you. I'll represent war. Thank you Mr chair. Committee a house bill fourteen sixty six this bill is cleaning up old language it had a provision for a second Garland County District Court to be held in Mountain Pine Mountain Pine is roughly eight miles from our courthouse it's been over ten years since a court proceeding was held there it's costly process never judges and related personnel leave the courthouse and set up court the different location it's simply for the judges and court coordinator that all people in garland county including Mountain Pine being served will through the one courthouse in two courts there's no opposition that I'm aware of. Question for the committee. Senator Johnson. This. This established under the constitution to courthouses build County seeker what. There was a in. In the statute it says that there will be a District Court in Mountain Pine but they have not utilized in over ten years and so the judges and court personnel of asked me to get it taken out and there's been no opposition I talked to the representative from Mountain Pine and he said that there's no objection they're either they're being served well. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to testify for against the bill. See none this represents war would like close your bill I am closed I would appreciate a good vote. Action from the Committee. Do pass from center Johnson. Secombe Senator Stubblefield a discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations represent warn your pastor bill thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. Senator Hester. Senate bill six twenty six. Sir thank you Mr chairman. Ready for me yes remembers this bill is just about government transparency there's no reforms in the bill it simply puts data transparency measure in the bail bonds in counties that utilize court connect the data requested as calmly collected it's tried to find the easiest way to implement or we try to find the easiest way to implement this and collect this data so we're just gonna leave it up to the courts that do the only one that that do core connect anytime the government gives anyone the authority to issue a bond to an individual we should at least have minimal transparency the bill bonds men are neutral to my knowledge and the most recent discussions. Questions from committee. C. none is there anyone here to testify for against. See non centrist would your clothes for your bill. Members I'm closed again there's no no real reform here this is it just the ability to collect data from systems that we've already paid millions of dollars for the state the software that just haven't give us reports we understand what's going on. Senator so we'll get rid. Do pass. Circumcenter garner any discussion hearing none all for the motion sick from saying aye All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator history of pastor bill. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr I'll start with the house bill sixteen fifty three. House Bill. Sixteen fifty three house bill sixteen fifty three. Thank you Mr members this is a very simple bill when someone gets on the sex offender registry after fifteen years they can apply to get off this bill doesn't change anything about that timeline it just is imposes a requirement that the application to get off the sex offender registry has to take place in the same. Court in which their conviction was that's where the prosecutor is who worked the case the judge work case where the victim is quite frankly a lot of times folks will come to Pulaski County a new jurisdiction to try to get off the sex offender registry list and this is this just makes me go back essentially the same court where they were convicted in when they were put on the sex offender registry in order to get off after that fifteen year time period has elapsed it's very simple bill but that's everything it does there's prosecutors are okay with it there's no opposition I'm aware of passed out of house ninety three one happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. C. none anyone here to testify for or against. See non Senator Tucker close your bill I'm close Mr appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from senator Johnson second from senator garner any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried resolution center Tucker your pastor bill you have a second bill yes thank you members on an Senate house bill seventeen twenty one is the second bill house bill seventeen twenty one. Mr members this bill is designed to help victims of domestic violence. What. Happens tragically in some cases that when someone a person is a victim of domestic violence that because they're still. Under the influence or control of their abuser that. Or because of the shame they feel about. What's happened to them they don't come forward and report the crime. In a time where the statue limitations still it still is on going and. There is a case in California but I that really brought about a piece of legislation there and similar pieces of legislation in states all around the country but we know this happens frequently of essentially where there was a victim of domestic violence you didn't did not come forward for the reasons that I'm describing and then later she learned that there were other women who were abused in the same way by the same person. She came for that time the statue limitations had already expired so what this bill does is. It gives an opportunity for a crime of domestic violence to still be prosecuted. After the statute of limitations has expired in certain circumstances. The first condition. That has to be present for all of these cases is that the crime cannot have been reported to law enforcement before or the prosecuting attorney if that's happened and and the statue limitations expires and that's the end but if it has never been reported and then one of four circumstances is present then the statue limitations can be revived those for circumstances are referred it to the state discovers DNA evidence. Sufficient to charge the defendant the second is there some evidence objective evidence like an audio or video recordings photographs text message something like that is sufficient to charges the defendant the third circumstances of the defendant confesses to the crime and the fourth is that if three or more victims come together come forward together to describe you know similar course of conduct that happened to each of them then the statue limitations can be revived four four felonies. the statue can be or provide for a period of up to five years after it it has expired for misdemeanors it's three years. Hi. Some concerns were brought to our attention about the ex post facto clause of the United States constitution which says that you can't create a crime or change the nature of a crime. After it's already been after the conduct has already taken place so we put in the legislation on the first page that this bill only applies to crimes that occur after the effective date of the act in my judgment that resolves the any concerns about the ex post facto clause. But with that Mister chair I be happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized thank you Mr chairman of. Center for the the three for the come forward. That means they've all been assaulted by the same. Yes center same individualism not separate. It's not separate individuals in the same manner testify okay yes Sir thank you. Senator. Thank you so we're creating a statue limitations to the statue limitations kind of thing here I mean that's one going back to law school and the reason you have statue limitations because after a certain time period is it's hard to collect the correct evidence to get witnesses always kind of factors go into it so in theory. Seven years down the road if you meet those conditions from the day I could bring up something that typically has what a five year statute three five year statute limitations you could bring that back up assuming you have one these factors now this pretty strong evidence of that but I mean I there's been some pretty horrific cases a statue limitations round out and member of back on other kind of criminal charges so we're kind of at that is kind of a concept we typically have with statue limitations but now we're gonna let this kind of back door way to do it no matter how long point bottom out of the evidence and things like that is Senate bad reading of it since let me answer your question to parts so first for class wire a felonies which can be of domestic violence crimes the current statute is six years per class B. C. or D. felony the current statues three years for misdemeanors the statute is one year so and then of course there's no statue for murder which contractually current domestic context. So that's just to clarify with the current statues are secondly you're absolutely right that the reason statutes exist is because of them witness memories evidence all that sort of thing. and that's why it's in the bill that the statue can only be revived if there's real concrete evidence like DNA evidence three more witnesses you know with fresh recollections and your what are the case may be those for circumstances but the one thing I want to clarify for you senator is it's not unlimited it's there's a time limit still any in here for a felony. The statute can only be revived up to five years after the original statute expired and a misdemeanor can only be revived up to three years after the original statute expired so it's not. in perpetuity for all times say question so I'm I'm not gonna say I'm oppose this I'm I'm I'm struggling with that because I see happening now is I'm just gonna start bringing bills to basically destroy statue limitations for everything else I'll bring it if you have the United evidence photograph I'll just kind of you can do it across the board because as discussing as domestic abuse is not for discussing say other terrible crimes happen people robbery other things like that so we should just continuously do that if there's is a woman eleven do it I'm not opposed to that concept it's just not a concept I would think about that you know you obviously you're entitled to that what I would say is what makes domestic violence crimes different in an armed robbery there's no reason to wait to come before with the message violence the victims are often too afraid to come forward at the time that they're victimized for a whole host of reasons shame fear of fear of retribution retaliation all all it so they have to essentially get free of their abuser before they can even come forward to report the crime and that's that's what makes us different thank you. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman so when we're talking about statue limitations are we just talking about with regard to the ability to bring civil action or criminal action or both this is criminal action only this is only criminal action yes Sir so it really is changing the statute of limitation to indefinite in these narrow circumstances for domestic violence when new evidence and so on again it's not indefinite it's for a felony the statue can only be revised for up to five years after the original statute expires in for a misdemeanor it can only be revived preppy three years after the original statute expires so what does that make it for totals what was in the so for example a misdemeanor the current statute is one year. S. that'll expire you know if the crime was committed today that statute expires one year from today the statute could be expired for up to three more years after that it could be excuse me can be revived for up to three more years after that to give the victim an opportunity come for so for if it is if it's a misdemeanor. It would be really up to for up to four years for a felony it depends on whether to a Class B. C. or D. felony which has a current statute of three years or if it's Class Y. or a felony which has a current statute of six years but in either case it would tack on additional potential five years on to the end of that okay thank you. Other questions from committee. Seeing none to have anyone here to testify for or against the bill. See non Senator Tucker would you like to close for your bill thank you Mr members for your time again that you know the point the purpose of this bill is to to help the victims of domestic violence or are uniquely. Troubled hi. And burned up about coming forward with the crimes have been committed against them again now and Senate say this previously but the prosecutors association is okay with the bill a past off the house for ninety seven enough and and I would very much appreciate a good vote. Action from the Committee. Motion to pass some centrist Oakfield second from Senator Hendren any discussion. Johnson. Less rich rose Wagner. Question please all right. Yes. If the if it is a Class wire and fell of the you know that's eleven years to six. How would you defend the client. Well it could be difficult you still got you've got there there's several different problems one is if you can if you can argue that the prosecutor nonetheless waited until your witness died or that type of thing you'd end up with a a due process argument I testified against this bill in the house of and the the amendment Senator Tucker referred to was in response to my to my testimony about making only go forward I think you still have a problem under a case called stock reverses California which holds that the you cannot provide a dead statute of limitations expired statute of limitations I think they still have a starter problem they could have bought a void the starter problem by just saying the statute of limitations and for these offenses will be this longer period of time as opposed to announcing that you're reviving one reviving one is expired this explicitly prohibited by stock numbers California. And so they I think they were pleading themselves into a problem now because it's only going for offenses going forward we're not going to know until about twenty twenty seven or something like that when a prosecutor tries to bring bring something like this. Senator Johnson. No. Thank you we have a motion on the floor any other discussion. Mister Mister chairman for a quick response. Sure thank you just very quickly I just have a different read respectfully will of the stunner issue that Mr Rosenzweig race why I think this is better than just having an eleven year Stachel imitations is the problem that he's describing with the prosecutor waiting for a witness that today I can not happen under house bill seventeen twenty one because the statute can't be revived if the prosecutor already knew about and so can you can only be referred you can't just the president if if we just made the statute eleven years then you can just wait evidence out but that's not the case with the bill you just have the original statute of limitations in place if law enforcement or prosecutor knows about the alleged crime in with this it can only be revived if if some of that new evidence comes for. If if I could respond to that. Tucker may misunderstood or I may not been clear even if you're starting to five years all over again there the prosecutor could still wait for years eleven months before filing and you still have you'd have that due process problem. In any event but. The offer the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried congratulations and recovery of pastor bill. A representative Lundstrum. Yes Sir he is. Six. What we start with representive lunch from. Seventeen thirty nine. House bill seventeen thirty nine. Colleagues all three of these bills deal with sex trafficking. As you all know this is become a very sophisticated lucrative crime and the bad guys are moving faster than the law can keep up with them and hopefully these three laws will help curb some of these issues the first bill seventeen thirty nine deals with no contact order in this adds to the no contact order laws that are already on the books and this adds terroristic threatening traffic of persons involved imprisonment to the no contact order. Smith that'll take any questions. Questions from the committee. Hearing no questions from the committee is there anyone here to testify for or against. I non representative once from what your clothes for your bill I'm close and I would ask for a good vote. Motion to pass the bill second from Senator Rice any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations representative once from your past your bill thank you colleagues house bill seventeen forty is the next one and this has to do with grooming this is become even more egregious over the years. Grooming starts as early as a ten year old and this little device right here is probably the biggest to use and grooming what this bill does some basic things and. There are some specific things first of all in order to be convicted of grooming a minor you would have to knowingly Graham the minor for the purpose and intent of sex trafficking strive again that minor in the future so we've got to set a very high bar for grooming statute and then also in the statute and this bill draft there is a specific. And Page three line for traveling for the purpose of unlawful sex with a minor. So grooming and then traveling with unlawful sex with a minor. With that I will take any questions. Senator Rapert you're recognized for. Thank you and I'm sorry I haven't. Again this. brought to me a couple sessions ago from local law enforcement was the fact like a twenty one twenty two. Your role could be twenty seven euro the long out of school but. Contacting thirteen fourteen zero. It in grooming the. Is this going to anything that is state show intent for sex trafficking we it shows intent for their Hey it would have to show intent they would have to show the intent to Graham and they would have to sets a pretty high bar they can't just. Be somebody out there showing one thirty picture you've got to be able to show the intent to Graham the intent to traffic and they have to be knowingly expose them. Two graphic material in so that is what I'm getting at is if that individual is doing the latter graphic material and things it can be proven but yet not found to be trafficking it in the sense I'm back and I made is not be. Thinking correctly this would still apply this would still apply thank you. I'm. This is been a long process in doing this is something that's not taken lightly I I do need to thank the prosecutor's office the FBI and our At law enforcement that specific that specifically deals with sex trafficking. Senator Garner you're recognized thank you I don't really have a problem with second part but we're put a definition agreement in here yes and the. But this could number one is there a requirement in order to groom can a sixteen year old do this to a fifteen year old secondly what's the penalty of rooms I don't see that in here finally wouldn't this apply to people in general who are doing sex trafficking but are in for lack of better word trying to have sexual intercourse with a minor whenever they of the same age now it was the first question are the last question first no it would not apply to two kids in the back to the car that's to do not we're not going there it does just defined grooming and then there was one more question. The penalty for and the penalty is. So I just do the crime that you're adding of grooming yes there is a penalty there is a penalty. And what you're looking at about just respectfully disagree because I think that there's no even though this isn't human trafficking act in Leicester's more I'm missing there's nothing tying it to the crime and human trafficking is just purely at a separate crime agree mean. And it talks about minors in sexual pictures so this what I would think is if if I'm a sixteen year old trying to hook up with fifty fifteen road and I Senator sexually explicit pictures you shouldn't do that but I don't know if that's the definition we grooming whenever that's just a bad behavior that a lot of teenagers do all the time I understand and I'm not seeing the tie to okay now I will try to grab you and take you out of the state for sex trafficking on or try to put you on the street like you would do for prostituting I don't see that element and that poor even though it is in the other parts and Page three line thirty one thirty two S. as a fireman defense to prosecution under this section there's a two years older than the victim so that Romeo Juliet closet prosecutors often referred to as in there that's just for traveling purposes it I'm not seeing that for the grooming element. Thank you for the five eighteen apparel seven crime not the new one or create and grooming rooms and go with that. I think we have to agree to disagree but I can see where you have that point if I'm reading it wrong I'll be corrected but I'm death my your creative new climber going that's correct okay thank you. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman I just have a couple of simple questions of robin I know this is this is a becoming a bigger bigger issue all over the country especially even in Arkansas the enemy of human trafficking cases. That have been. Charge to the state in the last twelve months you know I have asked that and I've gotten a lot of different answers it depends on who you talk to into the light has been wonderful to work with It depends on what. Who you talk to and when up to two hundred kids have been trafficked right now I think they're working with about forty five it just depends on in the state in the state. And we have a case in Northwest Arkansas right now that just blew up in the last month. And the this just once we know of that's just once we know if it's it's really hard to get a good finger on. Cramming and it's and it's grown sex trafficking has grown. Right of it there's a whole new class of sex cations now where people travel to states to have sex with minors in Arkansas is one of those states it's in the target so they would you agree with it with an open border policy that this problem is going to do nothing but grow and get worse yes Sir that is correct and our law enforcement needs tools in the toolbox I don't think these laws are going to put a nail in the coffin coffin of sex trafficking but I do think it will give them some tools to at least. I move the ball forward. Thank you thank you from thank you Mr. Other questions from the committee. Senator Garner yeah I think I got it got for my clarification is that the commission is defined as a definition so you not create a new crime or of rooms even though it's generally written like that looks like that's then you go to the second part which you have that the green plus for the purpose of future sex trafficking so it looks like we're not correctness of crime so I think I understand where a clarified thank you. Thank you senator garner. Other questions from the committee. Seeing none I think we will further that discussion of. One representative for were one represented when Mr Rosenzweig comes to testify against the bill. You're recognized. Thank you senator garner if you would identifier is that Rosenzweig Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers senator garner I hit upon of several of the drafting problems in this bill if you go to page three I'll point out some of the although if the title of it is future sex trafficking that's not in the actual elements that are found on page or on lines eighteen through twenty a look at the line twenty talking that a future sex act with a person now of and now then look at lines twenty seven or twenty eight and twenty nine it refers to unlawful sex acts on the traveling in other words what this is saying is there's no room under the grooming for future sex trafficking there is no requirement that the actual sex act be illegal. Okay that's problem one problem too is again this is a situation where is overbroad nothing will no sex act will have happened this is merely showing someone **** or something like that this would this would by the very nature by the very words of this bill criminalize a college freshman who send some **** to his kid brother and say Hey what what you can do when you when you get when you get to college the underlying act may not be illegal I know what she's trying to get as you trying to get up for the middle age creep is doing something with this this will help the eighteen year old who is showing. Dirty pictures to his kid brother and the of the underlying sex act that that the allegedly trying to create does not even need to be illegal can be totally legal sex act now give me another problem there on the traveling you're talking about traveling with thinking about doing an unlawful act how are you Sir Hey how are you supposed to prove that it is this someone traveled for that purpose but it also messes up the the the safe harbor provisions because in the rest of the sex code it's a three year and differential and here you're having a two year differential it least it needs to be consistent I've I think this put the bill up what representative Lundstrum is getting Act can be tightened up so it doesn't catch a whole lot of people that I I presumably she's not wanting to catch but I'm fairly certain that this committee isn't wanting to catch the the kids the Romeo and Juliet people and so I think the bill at the very least needs to be amended two of this to solve to solve these problems. Senator Garner you're recognized thank you and now I'm back on the other way because I think you're right on page drone line our page excuse me three line nineteen. So if a person knowingly grooms we have what rooms is defined is before and that's sending us a picture. Very kind of. Favor the juvenile's could do all the time you know it's wrong. To entice reducing your future sex act with the person so you're right that if somebody trying to hook up with somebody who's a year younger yeah on the sixteen fifteen they sent a picture that could get a Class B. felony as written that that that's correct and again the ACT or the the the sex act they're talking that doesn't even need to be illegal S. you can tell because the unlawful appears down in line twenty eight and they don't have to have committed the sexual act just to try to reduce the trying to a farm you know if the minor who's getting explicit image says no I don't want to do that the fact that you try to add that our that's that's what this bill says okay thank you. Other questions from the committee syndros. Mr Raghav thank you know of the. Gained a respect over the years for your knowledge whether we agree or disagree on many thanks I do appreciate your input you mentioned awhile ago traveling and not knowing the thought of somebody is where it says traveling for the purposes that we're talking about well yes we'll have yep yes so that's that I mean that's the section that we were somebody I mean I I guess I'm. Used to watch show where they. Talkies kind of people home video on or the committee didn't look stage of anyway they had. Positions with them. That. Was it easily to prove I realized thank the you know the bill to convict a motor thought. But if they have evidence with the they would be yes yes yes I mean that that's one thing or another point zero point out is either travels from another state or ninety miles within this state the other words it's not a crime if you travel seventy five miles that is if you travel ninety one and I think that's I think that's a I think that's a problem I I know who you're. You know who you're trying to get to but this catches a whole lot more people than that that's that's the that's the problem everyone wants us thanks to everyone wants to stop the the you know the. The middle age person from from getting you know to a a minor but this is going to catch the college in college students and you know if you're if you're eighteen or you could still even be in high school and and I don't think that's who you're trying to get again and and what we brought to me by local law enforcement got position to go. Was a happening frequently where it was again does it may not have been out of school that long but it's a twenty three to twenty seven or something but they were the big that's not what I call middle age yes but maybe I'm looking at a yes yes well I yeah I I understand what you want to catch the with those age to that there yes Sir well trying to you know and if and but as I say at the the the the safe harbor of the safe harbor provision needs to needs to be consistent with the other our state party on page you know age difference so far report needs to be consistent with the with the rest of the code again the you have another problem too is that You're making the you're defining the person who can't consent as an is a minor but within the rest of the sex code you're talking about a seventeen year old can consent under under some you know under certain circumstances and what it do you hear and so you will have essentially inconsistent you'll have a working number of inconsistent provisions of this is not made Congress with the rest of the of the sex offense laws okay thank you Mr will we be able to hear from prosecutors. What are I would. Mr. Senator Hendren you have a question for which rose one. Okay. Hi. All right. Who was going to enter. She turned she came in turn around. What makes this. May have. Los. Could agenda counsel the prosecutor coordinator's office okay Sir a specific question so trucks. Thank you for you able to hear testimony yes Sir okay can you give us some input into. service Rosenzweig head persons what you feel like this bill for the. Okay of those of several issues they brought up I think that on five eighteen one oh six the future sex activity he is correct that it would be better if it was changed to future baby sex trafficking as opposed to sex act or even unlawful sex act I think that's a fair point by. Senator garner. the traveling for the purpose of unlawful sex I mean I think that that is. That seems to okay I mean I know that Jeff brought up that ninety miles is. I guess a random but I I don't I don't really know how to address that I think the purpose was just to have you know of a standard there so that after you've traveled a certain distance than what we think that you know it's for that purpose this one's a lot tighter in that it definitely says unlawful sex act so when you're not going to be bringing in teenagers who can lawfully have sex. Okay see if anyone else has questions like researcher. Senator. Thank you so back to the example Due to the definition grooms if a sixteen year old boy sends X. sexually explicit picture to a fifteen year old girl. As a random I'm just gonna talk to try to entice her into having sexual intercourse. They would be guilty of a Class B. felony assuming those elements were met and the prosecutor brought to charge that correct. That is how I read it in that it just says future sex act rather than future sex trafficking because the very first sentence is not an element you know if it causes a person commits grooming a matter for the for future sex trafficking so you get the idea that this is about sex trafficking and has a need that language to be after the word knowingly yeah and then maybe a definition what you know sex trafficking is would be good either put for the purpose of illegal sex act and then put that affirm the defense and may be the person is over the age eighteen similar to trafficking I think that would clean up and do more for your intent and if it was like that I think I'd be fine with that service I can just isn't there's a lot of dumb kids out there who do this every single day that while maybe they should be punishable much lower scale that should be getting a Class B. felony thank you. Members if it would help I would be glad to add that definition and and with we committed to the next bill I'll bring that definition come back representive Lundstrum P. like to pull this bill down without objection. And I say no objection of and I would like to put down with the intent to bring it back as quickly as possible okay. Thank you colleagues your next bill. It's to change that. House bill seventeen forty one. Thank you colleagues and house bill seventeen forty one is this is conditions of bail. As you all know we cannot set bail in this state that's Iran and the United States that's the rich man poor man role but you can set conditions of bail especially when it comes to sex trafficking we can ask the court and the judge this is these are some tools in the toolbox if you will You can ask that the judge can and then we hope that the judge will with this bill impose some conditions of bail including a ankle monitor. No internet access. Cash bond secured. Requiring defendant if it least fifty percent of the principal bond amount down no contact prohibiting to the experts with the victim. With that I'll take any and curfew with that I'll take any questions. Questions from the committee. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr so so there and I'm and I apologize I didn't run like check with my head cut off what the bill but so the bill itself requires that the defendant actually put up fifty percent so typically the ten percent to get the bond but what's yours your requirement hands all the way up to fifty percent to be bonded out if the judge feels that that's in need to do okay so it is it gives discretion for the judge yes this is tied up to that amount okay. Other questions from the committee. Seeing none is there anyone here to testify for against house bill seventy forty one Mr Rosenzweig. Jeff Rosenzweig Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers I don't think the bill is necessary because the judges maintain the maintain the power to set conditions anyway this sort of changes the changes. The. Balance on on who has to prove what but there is a problem with online to of like sex the of page two lines twelve through fourteen the fifty percent requirement is in conflict with the Arkansas Supreme Court rules regarding ten percent and also the bail bond statutes regarding ten percent and I think this is this would be regarded as of singling out and unfairly punitive to pull out certain people who none of whom have been convicted of anything this is pre trial this was a pre trial charging and to say that you have to post fifty percent when only anyone else only has to post ten percent runs into a significant a serious problem with violate Contact clashing with the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure as well as the other bail bond sections. This road is what I don't know if you know the answer to this question and I don't know how tightly of bail bondsmen or regulated of. Are they are they held to the ten percent without a statute or can they charge more. This is that the statute requires caps of the bond premium it now Bond someone is required to collateralized securitize the remainder of the bond and in some circumstances in in most circumstances there's a a certain amount they can have on secured or of their whole portfolio on secured but for instance the rules of criminal procedure if you're posting the bond posting a bond with the court let's say the call of the court sets the a bond at ten thousand ten thousand dollars you're posting it with the court that the rules caps that is a thousand dollars and you get nine hundred back when the person comes comes to court there's no provision for requiring fifty percent or something like that in there nice I recognize it says at the discretion of of of of the court whether to required or not but I think it's a I think I don't think the court is is going to should be should be I don't think under the our current jurors first jurisprudence would be given that discretion to set a higher percentage than ten percent. Senator enter. So are the rules now that they can't do more than ten percent the rules are the bond premiums Ron creams if you're doing a commercial bail bonds ten percent yes the where the word with regard to the rules of criminal procedure if if you're posting a bond if you're posting a bond with the court normally of the rules referred to a ten percent of the of the of the face amount and of course the you're you're obligated on the whole thing if you don't show up but you but to put up ten percent you get if we show up for court you get ninety percent of that ten percent back. Right I guess what I'm saying is does the court have the discretion now of the view a person is a flight risk or whatever to do more than ten or or denied altogether no make they can see what the what the court does is set a bond so that ten percent set the bond so the ten percent get you to the amount that they're looking for and so they can basically accomplish the same goal by setting a higher total yes in the manner that that I mean from a mathematical standpoint yes if the although the it's going to be probably more expensive and difficult to achieve that bond also yes yes and I I think you're I think you're making I think you're making a you're causing a problem that you don't need by by even authorizing and some fifty percent some in any type of body thank. The questions from the committee. C. nine is there anyone else here to testify for against the bill. See non representative was from would you like to close for your bill yes colleagues I want to call your attention specifically to the bottom of the first page of the bill this is not your person that's come to the court for the first time this is something about sex trafficking this has to do specifically with organized sex trafficking. False imprisonment of the first degree. Kidnapping. This isn't something that just garden variety showed up this is serious offense involves taking of a minor holding a minor without consent. Shall not be granted bail before the person agrees the following conditions by the reigning Court. This is a serious offense. Yes they're innocent until proven guilty. This. It's time to get serious these people don't just happen these offenses don't just happen. This allows them to still defend themselves but it also sends a strong message. Stop the sex sex trafficking and it gives the judge some serious tools that they need to call upon with that I would appreciate a good vote. Do pass Ross circumcenter Stubblefield any discussion. All for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations representative once from your past your bill thank you colleagues and thank you for your time. Senator Wallace. Yes. Senate bill six seventy six. He. Thank you Mr chair and I'm joined by my witness will. Stephens. Mr Stevens would you identify yourself for the record. My name is William Eric Stephens. You're recognized for such bill so yes Sir state senator Dave Wallace district twenty two Mister chair members this bill is written with the intent to make Arkansas a safer place for children for disabled individuals and to give victims of sexual abuse more time. For justice. Senate bill sixty six will extend the current SO well the current statute of limitations for child sex abuse. From age twenty one to age fifty five and and there's a good reason good reason for that it will also open a two year window for expired claims. We don't realize this but one out of every five. Yes females. One of every thirteen young males were sexually assaulted before they're eighteen. Only ten point six percent this is done by strangers. Sadly thirty seven point eight percent. In the family. Thirteen point five percent by friends twenty eight point two percent a neighbor's. What we found was studies is that more than thirty three percent of those who have their victims. Hi this they they don't want to talk about it. And then for years and decades ago through this and finally. When they hit middle age the average age is fifty two they start opening up. Now poses bill say it's uncommon extraordinary. Yes since two thousand to thirty seven other states and Washington DC have extended their statute of limitations. Opponents will say that. Where to activity isn't fair what about due process. All the Phoenician have a right to due process. It more importantly our state. As a compelling interest to protect our children to protect our which. Remember the plaintiff still has to prove its case. I want to. Paul's right here and I will allow my with this. To speak and courage takes many. Forms. It takes a great deal of courage to come in here and talk about a past experience. My my with this. Will is a former. Airforce. A parent. The rescue about lost word pararescue that's a tough is the toughest. He's been in combat is this combo **** say he's seen the elephant. It takes courage to come here he told me this is what the toughest things he's had to do. I felt other victims reach out to me we I have victims. That I walk by everyday in this capital more than this state employees I know. Reached out to me about this bill said thank you for doing it they walk among us and we don't know what. Then we need to give them a voice and with that I want to be quiet and let we'll talk. Thank you senator centers thank you for the opportunity that could is your mark on. Is it on now yes Senators thank you for the opportunity come and speak with you today. And. I'm a native of Arkansas. I'm a veteran of the Arkansas Army National Guard in a combat veteran of the United States Air Force special operations command. I am a father a husband and a certified human resource professional here in central Arkansas. I am also a childhood victim and survivor of sexual abuse. I grew up in hot springs Arkansas has a child always wanted to join the scouts scouting offered me a chance with the insurer and the opportunity to be everything that I ever wanted to be growing up. Starting in nineteen seventy eight until nineteen eighty. Myself and said they were over the young man in the hot springs area hot springs Arkansas area were molested by scout master. When the abuse finally came to light. The abuse was covered up and we were sworn to secrecy by saying the scout of. Since that day we were silenced. I have repeatedly heard the voice of a ten year old version of myself asking the question. When did I ever matter. The people in the organization to cover up the abuse in Arkansas the answer is that I and countless people who suffer the same abuse that I did never did matter. In two thousand sixteen I discovered that the man who had molested me and my friends had only come to Arkansas after it was discovered that he had sexually abused other children and scallops in Georgia. Rather than reporting. In making him accountable for his actions they allowed him to come to Arkansas where the abuse continued for years. In June of two thousand eighteen I finally had the courage to come forward and publicly speak about the abuse and cover up in December of that year I another scouting event victims attended the whole discounts accountable for their actions their lawyer who freely and wholeheartedly admitted that we were abused. Claim that the statute of limitations had expired. And that what happened to us didn't matter. And based upon the law the judge had to agree. For me that was the hardest day of my life Senators. Because I felt like I'd been raped all over again thanks to the laws of Arkansas at the time. I come to you today as a fifty two year old man. To speak up for ten year old version of myself that no one else had the courage to do. I ask each of you. To have the courage to finally do what is right. For the forgotten children of this state. Who have been abused and to let the predators and the organizations that protect them. To know that the youth of Arkansas will no longer. The unworthy of justice and they're unwilling Prairie. Finally I'd like to ask each of you. What if my story. What's the story of your children. And grand children. Because senators. I am a child. A grand child of Arkansas. I ask you to finally let us know. That we mattered. Thank you. I've seen a lot of things courageous. I've just sent her the most courageous things in my lifetime. With that I will stand by for questions and then I'll close. Senator Garner. Thank you thank you for testimony I understand recover from but once again this is similar to the other case we just heard from Senator Clark that. I mean in your case it sounds like. It was a thirty to forty year gap between you were able to come out explain it so these crimes for civil matter. Contentiously be. Forty fifty years down the road Sir any concern about bringing events kind of the reason why statue limitations exist in general I'm not saying I'm against get rid of it but we're effectively in it for. These type of crimes moving on out I mean the only limitation is fifty five years or or younger right come on the cinnamon. Senator Garner that's a great question I'm glad you asked. That's that's questions at the point of this ask in when they were about due process but what we found this example to states New York City or New York state has a state of a media. And they have passed a similar bill. It is only five thousand claims have come up list less than a half a percent. State of California do the Senate bill in two thousand three. The population of forty million people only. Eleven hundred victims. Came about. And and what we found over and over and then our friends and our victims walk among us. but you live when you're sixteen seventeen and eighteen years old. When you're still trying to establish who you are. Even in your twenty one twenty four twenty five. It's really hard to say I'm a man. I was molested it's hard to say. I'm young Mormon I was molested as a child. It. It takes the maturity of someone loosely in their middle age to realize I need to speak out about this so that others know. And that would be my answer that Senator Garner. Thank you for all of I can't so what crimes it seems like we have for enumerated crimes and then there's basically a catch all that any crime related to this so could you catch the centre all talked earlier were. Seventeen Eurotas section fourteen euro commits sexual are statutory rape or something like that and brought up his or how experience would this be as far as what laws would be I'm confident of that because under president sexual abuse on I understand that just this case but it hello because there is a catch all that basing thing related to the kind of these could be concluded in a civil action I'm trying to see what's the scope of potential behavior that can be accomplished in this and and that's another good question Mister chair I have another witness affected introduce him of it allowed him to say question. Mr I have another witness that can answer that question if I may be allowed to introduce him. Of. Yes thank you Sir. Good afternoon committee my name is Bob Edwards I'm an attorney here in Little Rock I've been working with senator Wallace and Mister Stevens on this bill Senator garner I wanted to go back just a second talk about your question with regard to the statute of limitations I think it's important. The question to address statutes of limitations do serve a purpose you know we need to have some defendant definitive time limit on on on cases that we bring but you know the the law hasn't Arkansas carved out exceptions the to statutes of limitations for things like when a defendant leaves state when the plaintiff is incapacitated are are minor in other situations you know the discovery rule as far as you know and and medical cases for example if If a foreign object is left inside you that you may not discover it's in there for ten years twenty years and then it causes you to have a severe of health issues you know we have what's known as the discovery rule that allows you to relate back in time so there have been exceptions The public policy exception with regard to this bill is we just think it's a good public policy that when children are rate and are molested and and and have been silence of the we give them this opportunity to be heard and as far as these cases you know attorneys the burden is still upon the plane of the burden is still on the Attorney to prove the case and so I think that's why when a senator Wallace was pointing out the fact that only roughly fifteen hundred cases were brought in California state of forty million. And they had their look back period in California I think the reason of that is is because it is a harder burden to meet when you're looking back that far in time so I don't think it's gonna open up a huge. Door to a bunch of lawsuits been filed I mean we're a much smarter smaller and smarter much smaller state in California and so they've only had fifteen hundred cases filed in California and roughly I think it was it was it five thousand in New York or eight thousand in New York of my point is I don't see that as a big issue with regard to extending the the statute in opening up the window I think the bigger picture is. You know with regard to statutes like this the that are being passed around the country as we speak one of the benefits of laws like this is because witnesses like Mr Stevens here who was not able to talk about it as a young man and I don't know senator Wallace said this when we start we have other witnesses here in the capital today that came here to be here in support of this bill they just weren't able to sitting here you know personally there up until seven. my point about that is. The more we give these people the opportunity to tell their story. The the more opportunity we have to find sexual predators that are still out there operating because of these kids don't tell the story. We will have the opportunity to find who these predators are so this bill actually makes a safer makes our children safer because it gives these victims the time they need that's what senator Wallace was saying earlier the average age. Of a person who's been a victim of childhood sexual assault. Is in the fifties. You know it's a long long thing to carry on your shoulders basis. And I just think Here's an opportunity for Arkansas to catch up with the trend on what other states are doing and have done to give people like Mr Steven's voice and make sure these kind of things don't happen in the future. The I don't know that answer your question or not but if you have other questions I'll be glad to try and yes Sir you can answer the question so what crimes would would. Currently the statue refers to I'm try looking up in the mostly definition only I don't understand kind of how this written because as a catch all that as well so make sure you're talking about what happened to him I could be much more do it I just wanna make sure we don't have a similar incident we're catching to beg of rockets you have literally catch all that any crimes equivalent to these can be included in that. I sued your term of the definitions of what sexual abuse is yes three of the if you look at the criminal code section five subsection twenty seven. The three one eight six four one eight six six on except those are those deal with defenses against children aren't competent people and so they're already definitions in the code on what the. Categorizes sexual abuse so what what bill are due when they drafted this bill they're not creating a new definition of what sexual abuse is all that does is there adopting what the definition of sexual abuse RT is in the criminal code the with regard to children and minors. So I'm I'm just looking at stature announced this would include public public indecent exposure. Sexual assault in the fourth degree. A bunch of other. Encompassing things as well correct. Yes Sir whatever three one four one six one however and the fourteen one on one cover as far as what's defined the sexual abuse I don't have a copy of the code with me or I'd pull it up for you but a that is that any you know that's what it's talking about you know. And I'm not attorney but it really would would not change anything and code except. We're saying the victim instead of having to come forth by the time he's twenty one or she's twenty one they have a longer period of time that's correct I mean these things are already in the code for for criminal the statues for crimes basically what we're saying is if you're. In what Senator says is exactly right these things already apply in civil cases the only difference is The statute your your time part of the age of twenty one right now. The the and I mean you're time barred. In a civil case and and people like Mister Stevens and some other folks here in the capital of the that are here today You know they can have their day. and I may never have their day but going forward at least we'll be able to have the opportunity to let folks have a day and like I said this will help you know discover who some of these sexual predators are if I may add we already have some exceptions to this an example is if the individual defendant is out of state. Or if the but the plaintiff in the capacity so we have already made some adjustments for that age of twenty one. And in. What we're saying is these exceptions or asking for or based on common sense reason and public opinion okay I I'm just going to say that. What you're doing by defining sexual abuse so overly broad and then changes statue limitations it's you're going to encompass civil cases for things I think it wouldn't actually be considered sexual abuse such as indecent exposure like you you know that's a bad thing we're not going to say that but I don't think most people call that sexual abuse because you're encompassing a large amount of the criminal code and also encompassing a catch all to anything related to it so you as a smart attorney if somebody brings a case that is not necessarily sexual abuse under this definition could be considered sexual abuse that's my only issue with that if it was more narrow on the crimes could do it I could be more much more open to it but such an overly broad definition six for freebies basically means if there's anything even remotely related to it. From whatever time period it can be brought in a civil case and I read it incorrectly. I'll be honest with you senator bill are you know with regard to defining sexual abuse they were the ones who crafted the definition is a sexual abuse for this bill so what they were doing was just tracking what the definition of sexual abuse is in the criminal code in senator garner I I go back in and I'm I'm repeating myself but. Again the power I'm not changing existing law that already exist the only thing that we've done is we're saying. That the victim now instead of having to come forward by the time of age twenty one. Very difficult they have a longer period of time to come forward in it and the defendant as always is innocent until proven guilty. Thank you. And if I could add one more thing. The other young man with him when this happened over time that will also be used in effect to allow my with this to speak just briefly again to describe how their lives ended up. With your permission Mister. Let's go on with the questions of senator Wallace and Laura trusted by Senator Sturch will. Thank you Mr chairman central's. Just to simplify this all this bill is doing is is basically enhancing the statute of limitations for these particular sexual offenses. That you've listed here what it does is hand saying the period of time. The same way we would have a penalty of time for someone who commits a crime this just enhances the statue of limitations period of time yes Sir okay thank. Secretary Johnson hoping. So. There's no statute of limitation on the criminal side so they they have their day in court. To be able to put prosecute and put these people in prison or do that criminally or at. I thank the. I answer that question I think the leader in twenty fifteen. R. twenty seventeen the Senator Hickey sponsored the legislation that removes the Statue limitations on criminal cases. so yes that has been changed The other. Well I think. Mr Stevens here the. The is a. Is it is never brought to justice criminal and that's that's that's part of the point about this bill is some of these sexual predators are never discovered until years later. The his abuser would be ninety years old he was still alive we've we've actually looked to see where this gentleman is the last. Known address of this gentleman was in park Oklahoma use working for. A nonprofit in park Oklahoma but that. You know what happened you know how to I don't know the answer that but he was never brought criminally. The suggested cedar but but he can't he can be brought to justice under Arkansas law the criminal case right now right yes that is true in any of these no not this is the they can and criminal so this is a civil request the same is a criminal so this is a monetary damage that that you can get awarded to the court which. Right that is correct yes okay. So. This is just having the ability to the have the same in a civil as a criminal and this would give them ability to. Sue for monetary damages as the sexual cases. So the. Thank you. The senator they can do that now. If the design is a do it by the time the twenty one. That's the problem most of them come to terms with it still years later Senator Garner. Thank you I mean I understand you forget so case right now what you are creating a new section of the. Code that currently doesn't exist so this is all new existing this is an existing modification laws adding a whole new section to the civil cases in the co correct. I think sixteen eighteen C. R. one eighteen point seventeen does not exist for adding that as a definition under the civil cases correct. I would. I can't disagree with you on that okay let me with this stand so to answer kind of this portion of the criminal side think that's an interesting point I looked it up and like I said indecent exposure is one of the crimes that can be considered sexual abuse now that is the first offense a class A. misdemeanor which we know the statue limitations Class C. misdemeanor what's a year mentioned earlier now the statute of limitation for civil action for that is basically fifty five years or younger so four years down the road you can bring a civil case for a criminal case as a misdemeanor would only be a year I'm not saying it's right or wrong I just wanna make sure we all understand how encompassing this definition is as far as what sexual abuse will be considered moving for for a civil case not what happened to this gentleman obviously I think he should be brought up for that encompasses so much that it's just. The kind of sexual a crime at all or at all the people in this category and might differ in my reading of unless I'm misreading. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman you mention New York in California I don't I don't Senator Wallace Sir no one's answer this but do any of the states that surround us have this broad of a civil statue limitations. Two hundred there's there's thirty seven states and and frankly I don't know if our neighbor states or in that number not. Do you know of the of the fifteen hundred suits in California and the four five thousand in New York how many of those have been. A judgment against on verses a settlement I do not. and I think again I I'm getting really confused on the statue limitations discussion because I hear one handed over there is no statute imitations and I thought we just passed legislation to change the statue limitations so each of these crimes is Senator Garner said does have a current criminal statute limitations correct. In center I'm not a criminal lawyer it's my understanding that the legislation that Senator Hickey passed either in twenty fifteen to twenty seventeen removed the statute of limitations for criminal cases. So we're talking about civil cases I guess we need some clarification because again I'm on the tourney behind I did understand the discussion that we just had on the legislation we just had and with the respect the fact that it length and the current statute of limitations for these crimes that we're talking about here so. I thank you and the reason I ask that again is because I I third certainly think that it is reasonable to say that this happened to someone when they're sixteen or seventeen telling them they have to have it reported before they're eighteen is a pretty short stature limitations particularly serious crime but taking it to fifty five is is is also a significant change in and a huge leap in exposure to people for claims and that brings me to my last question on on the last page in this I see where you have the. Put this section and On line twenty one where you can and I think rightfully so keep the plaintiff anonymous if they make these claims so that they don't have to be exposed in subject to to the initial embarrassment Millie ation. But I the reason I ask questions at the beginning is I'm certain that out of the fifteen hundred in California or the four five thousand in New York. The potentially some of those were false falsely broad. And you have not given the same protection to the defendant with regard to their protection until this thing is at least adjudicated as is guilty so I guess what I'm asking is why is there protection for the plaintiff but none for potentially a falsely accused his assent Wallace said you're innocent till proven guilty but you're not given that same protection for someone to get such a horrific charge. What what I would propose is that the let me to pull this bill down today and I will working I'll get those questions and work with senator Gardner and we'll get those answers and we'll come back to you if with your permission. yes of. Centrals would like pole building without objection. Saying notSenator she Maple building thank you Sir. The representative Penzo. Thanks. House bill thirteen eighty eight. I have a. John Travolta join me the table. Yes thank you. Of. If you with the identify yourself for the record. Mr cripple. Good morning my name is John trouble I'm an attorney here in Little Rock you as focuses on adoptions. Representative Penzo you're recognized president house bill thirteen eighty eight thank you Mr house bill thirteen eighty eight the makes a story we. Set up for post adoption contact agreements And if have a good Ole JP kind of explain the Bill. So thank you Mr chair first of all I would like to point out that this bill is a different build and Senate bill one sixty seven which you've already heard this bill is concerning only private adoptions. Arkansas by law is a closed adoption state. Arkansas code annotated nine nine five oh two mandates that the identities of persons not be disclosed to anyone in adoptions with advances in technology and with a shift in the views on adoptions that we've experienced in the last decades it is becoming increasingly difficult from a technological perspective to keep adoptions confidential it's very easy for an adopted to go out and get a DNA test and understand who their birth parents are simply by doing a DNA test The it is high time for Arkansas to open up adoptions to those people who have a desire to have open adoptions what this bill does is it provides an opportunity by law for birth parents and adoptive parents to share it's identifying information if they choose and to agree upon and. Whatever range of contact they would wish to have posted option that could be as little as sharing pictures let's say once a year or all the way up to. A video conference or possibly physically meeting at a park maybe a couple of times a year depending on what the agreement as among the parties. It is absolutely voluntary which means if anyone person. He wants to not have any contact after the final decree that will not happen it only will happen if the birth parents in the adoptive parents. I agree to have that contact That is a very important point and also nothing can be agreed upon after the adoption is finalized this must take place during that time after the biological parents have consented in prior to the final entry of the decree. And one last thing I would like to say on a technical standpoint is there was some opposition at one time from the judicial council about court enforceability and we've essentially removed court enforceability from from the bill but it it would by law allow adoptions to be open one of two states in the region that does not allow open adoptions at all and this would allow us to do so. So I'm certainly welcome to answer any questions you may have. Questions from the committee. Senator Johnson. So at this time. Even if the adoptive parents. And the biological parents. Want to have that interaction they couldn't or they couldn't by a court paper as a practical matter of course the two but the law says nine nine two five says that no person. Agency entity it cetera. it. Shall disclose any confidential information relating to any adoption except as provided by statute currently this is the only area of the law that addresses disclosure of information there is nine nine to seventeen if I'm not mistaken there's one law that does require confidentiality in which court hearings are meant to be closed there's a minor exception with the test cases certain members of the government can participate for monitoring purposes but otherwise the law mandates that the identities not be disclosed because those are confidential. But if the child is fifteen right now finds out who is the biological Perrin is. And has a conversation with his adoptive parents. There's nothing under law but there's nothing that would keep them from having contact if if they wish Dr. This is putting putting it in code. Thank you technically owns it technically there's nothing that would that could prevent them from doing it. there's nothing that would permit them by law from exchanging this information either see I would essentially be putting into code. It would better reflect the reality of what is happening today thank you. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr chairman that I'd it years ago worked with the crisis pregnancy center that also helped do the options and they were there actually all opened after this was in Oklahoma and one of the things that that I see that is a is a by product of this that we saw is a lot of times long standing relationship between birth moms and adoptive parents even to the point where where they became like mentors for birth moms and in developer LaserJet they they were able to have healthy relationships with with their biological children you know from early age all the way up and that was I understood they were mom and dad but they were at least somebody that was in their life which I can see you know the value of that long term having the genetic connection and communication so that I mean I I mean I think don't you see this as even a feature that that it it can actually produce some long term relationships it could be very healthy relationships thank you senator Ballinger I think that is a crucial feature of the bill statistics have shown in studies have shown that these kinds of relationships are increasingly frequent and they're increasingly accepted to be healthy for all parties the adoptive parents the birth parents and the children as a two thousand and seven the United States department of health and Human Services dead an in depth study which of course at this point is many years ago in two thirds of all private adoptions nationwide included a post adoption contact agreement so clearly there is a preference out there for having and fostering that contact I would also like to add that the contact with the biological family can be very important as far as the child having questions about the health history of their family. Of course the adoptive parents can't answer those questions current law requires under Act six fifty of two thousand and three requires the birth parents to submit a health genetic and social history filed with the court prior to the entry of it adoption decree however. As detailed as those are they're never comprehensive and not I mean if you imagine having let's say fifteen or twenty pages of questions answered about your family history and that's all you get your entire life. You can't go and ask anybody well did somebody have history of heart disease or diabetes you know I was diagnosed with diabetes whatever you if you don't have the open line of communication. When it is wanted those situations can be incredibly difficult so it fosters a lot of positive it it creates a lot of positive effects among all the parties to the adoption. Centrist will. One of this still gives the adoptive parents the right to terminate this contacted any time during this period if they see is not the best interest of the child if it's not in the best interest of the child yes they you can terminate the contract they can terminate the contactus that's correct it so it's permit okay. The stills a bill it is a permissive bill in in that regard they cannot technically terminate the agreement but they may terminate the contact as soon as the feel that it is not in the best interest of the child okay. Mr krugell of. Not suggesting that you as a lawyer or involved in them. but. With or without a law there post adoption agreements now or they're not to my knowledge I have never heard of it posted option agreement being made in Arkansas you've never heard of of people who are adopting. I have an agreement. With the while parents snow Mr chairman wait what I have heard of is an oral gentlemanly agreement where they may agree to have some sort of contact but it I can tell you that in the. Consent forms that I've seen there's a statement that says we as a biological parent we acknowledge that are in Arkansas posted option contacted Cremins are not enforceable by law and any contact that may occur with the child would be based on an oral agreement with the parents okay I I've never seen it posted option contact agreement under in Arkansas will but I think you differentiating between a legal agreement an agreement. The only agreement I would have heard of is an oral agreement I've never seen anything in writing an oral contract though is a contract I'm not talking but whether it's legal or not we understand it's not legal because we do have the bill here that would make it legal what I'm saying is that there are now people who help oral agreements. Of already this would make this would give us a way of making yes that is correct. That is correct it's or have taught me would be low because now renting cars and saying we're not having laws for renting cars with the active liability insurance right except for my my apologies I thought you were asking if five is if there were written agreements even though they're not enforceable no I just that the fact that they exist and the fact that we're not putting a mental framework or wall doesn't is not preventing them from happening this is a way of making them standard. And of the and legal correct yes when the party when the party's desire to have that and this is for profit adoptions all one correct of does not cover the CFS adoptions it does not it specifically excludes any any adoption under DHS yes yeah I would think that that would be needed even more in the CFS adoptions can you think of any reason why. DCFS adoption should be excluded. I believe that the nature of adoptions in DCFS and private adoptions are very different for different animals so to speak I strongly believe that posted option contact agreements are necessary across the board but I also believe that the requirements for a private adoption logically could be very different than in the a DCFS adoption but in for example Mister chair the Senate bill that was introduced I think well addresses DHS cases it has some issues that I could see arising in private adoptions which is why we wanted this to apply only to private adoptions there two different bills but yes but same issue. Yes it's the same general issue there is a necessity to have posted option contact agreement available to adoptive parents in private adoptions and absolutely and DCFS adoptions thank you other questions from the committee. Seeing none of we we have some folks here to testify. Four Cerro Weber shared beginning this. She here or. Yes. Mr. Miss Webber if you could identify yourself for the record. Hi I am Serra Miller Weber I am an adoptee and adoptive mother and an expectant mother and birth mother advocate here in central Arkansas. And I really appreciate your time today. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Posted option contact the agreements really need to be formalized in the state of Arkansas so right now when I meet with an expectant mom who is considering adoption. She I have to be honest with her and say. You have to be prepared and willing to know that you may not ever get to speak to your child again we are a close state and just being able to have something in writing and to formalize that agreement would go so far in offering mom the ability to have some comfort in. Having a conversation on the front end that is formalized all parties agree and then having not be a part of record it's completely voluntary it's not a custody agreement it's just a real. A real comfort to everyone involved and we just really appreciate your time. Questions from the committee. Seeing none thank you Miss were thank you of Montana Jones. Well good morning thank you for your time moneys Montana Jones I am one of the pastors of the summit church in sterling county and I'm here today in support of this bill as an adoptive parent I've experienced the health and the love in the flourishing that openness can bring to the adoption process for all involved first and foremost to the about the but as well to the birth family and the adoptive family I believe it's in the best interest of my son and his development that he doesn't have to grow up with the shuttle of mystery over where he came from or that he never has to doubt that if he was a love from the very beginning by his birth family and it's been one of my family knows greatest honors and privileges to be able to give and to receive the type of love that an open adoption can foster and we would trade the relationship we have with my son's birth family for anything I believe this bill will help produce and maintain the type of openness that brings the security and environment adopt the needs for healthy development across their life and by laying out clear expectations between all the parties involved pockets can help birth and adoptive families come together intentionally to bring about the best long term development of for the child I believe this bill will also help adoptive parents navigate openness and as they try and provide the best like they can for their adopted child the hopeful adoptive parents my wife and I get to talk with on a regular basis large the desire one thing they just want clarity for their adoption journey ahead and what hawkers will allow is it can bring that clarity for adoptive families and birth families as everyone comes to the table to set expectations for what does the journey look like I had I read a study that was done in two thousand eight by the got maker Institute was looking at reasons why women choose to terminate a pregnancy versus parenting or making adoption plan and they found that adoption was largely not considered as an option because and I quote. Respondents said that the thought of one's child being out in the world without knowing if it was B. keep being taking care of or who was taking care of it was more guilt inducing than having an abortion by giving this option for an open adoption on paper in black and white Hakkas can help give expectant mothers in crisis the a life giving decision and the confidence they need to make that decision. To put together an adoption plan I'm proud of the decisions Arkansas legislators like yourself have made in the pursuit of protecting the dignity of human life and by passing this bill I believe you will continue to help Arkansas to be consistently pro life and pro family and also the pro adoption thank you for your time. Questions from the committee. I have a couple of. the Mr Jones did you of adopt the infant or young child we went to domestic intended option of and the you're very positive about this experience yes Sir can you imagine of that if you had adopted instead an eight year old a twelve year old of. with the relationship with a grandparent or an uncle of the weather them continue and that the that relationship would be a positive or a negative thing. well every I mean obviously every situation's different and the health of the open you know openness is different from situation but I think for a grandparent he's helped raise the child for for their entire life lease up to that point would would definitely desired that would be a healthy connection first and foremost for the adoptee to not lose the Census just kind of who they are in their past but as well as for the future for a grandparent to be able to to to enter into a and I had adoption green it like this I think we very beneficial for everybody involved. Any other questions. Mr Jones I'd like for you to consider testifying for SB one sixty seven this afternoon and the House children youth it's the companion bill to this for DCFS adoptions of post adoption agreements with okay thank you thank you. Megan Bonner we think. Yes Busher we're we're not sure how it's builder. You can correct this is you then apply yourself or. Making docket. Barker to. Good afternoon thank you very much for allowing me to speak with you today and share my story. My name's Meghan Barker and I am a birth mother I decided to pursue an open adoption plan ten years ago while I was a teenager in college living in New York since then I've moved to central Arkansas around seven years ago and I'm still maintain a very positive open adoption with my son and his adoptive parents. Making an open adoption plan gave me control stability and strength in the most uncertain time in my life. I was able to make choices along the way that made me feel like I have to say in my child's future. I knew I could not take care of him or raise them the way that he deserved but I was able to have a hand in making sure he had the best place that I could find. As he's grown up we have taught him about his adoption Jr adoptive journey as his questions arise naturally he's always known who his birth parents are. One day when he was seven years old he was asking questions and he reiterated in his own words that I agree him in my belly and I gave him to his adopted parents because they could not have babies on their own. His mom confirm that that was right and he said in that makes my can really really special than. He is never not known where he's come from he knows or has blonde hair blue eyes and how it come from any love sharing that with me and his birth father. He also loves sharing his love of running biking playing soccer and so much more with his adoptive parents and I have the absolute pleasure of knowing and seeing that all of that on a regular basis. He recognizes how this decision was made in an abundance of love and he knows that he was never on one side or given away and we don't even really use that language. He said on so many occasions that he's lucky to have double the family to love him. He has not and will not have an identity crisis triggered by not knowing where he's come from or what why he was placed for adoption. I'll never have to feel negatively towards adoption journey because it's been nothing but positive and it's all he's known. Choosing adoption and having an open adoption feels like the path that I've always been destined for I've never not once regretted my decision and I attribute the majority of this because my adoption plan was open at an insured me the ability to know how my son was doing. Being able to choose the family would raise My Baby and get to know them was something that even back then I knew is incredibly important to me. Building a bond with the family to the point where I felt comfortable releasing my son to them was the only reason that I was confidently able to choose that option. We have a relationship unique to anyone I know one that's hard to explain I feel as though I've known in my entire life and I felt that way since the moment I met them. And if they were here today they say the exact same thing. I actually spoke them to spoke with them before I came here today and they wish me the best of luck I'm internally grateful to them for doing what I could not and they're forever grateful to me for doing what they were unable. Another reason why I love our open relationship is being able to update that I'm them on important information. When my father died got diagnosed with cancer I was able to update them on this information that may impact their son in the future. My son's adoptive mother stood next to me at my father's weight last year and it was one of the most profound moments of my life. She was there supporting me not necessarily for our son but because what we have is an incredible relationship one we would not have without an open adoption plan. Having the reassurance and being able to see and hear how my son is doing and watch him grow up paired with the overwhelming evidence that open adoption is the healthiest outcome of adoptions are the reasons I decided to choose that option if I wasn't able to have insurance the insurance like I did I would not have chosen adoption I would have either they made a decision I would have regretted for the rest of my life or I would have struggled to parent my son I would not be here to get today with the successful life that I've made for myself which includes graduating with a master's degree working my dream job and career and my son would not be driving like he is and I'm confident in that. Give birth families the confidence that they're doing the best for their child and show adoptive families that Arkansas once the healthiest lives for their children and ensure it would they know where they came from show the Arkansas once adoptions to be healthy and ethical and in my experience open adoption is the healthiest for everyone involved thank you very much for your time today. Questions from the committee. Senator Johnson. Ma'am. You're probably the bravest person I'm seeing dent in that they will since I've been here I want to tell you I appreciate you and what you've done for your child thank you that means a lot to me. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Any other questions from the committee. Hearing none of. Your name again. Richard making docket Barker thank you miss Parker of the representative Penzo would you like to close for your bill I would yeah and and I appreciate the I just wanna say thanks to shared beginnings Arkansas coalition of Marshallese in the quote it option attorneys for open kind of craft this and just wanna clarify it's only for families that want to participate in these types of adoption so the you know the the adoptive parents can choose to either have an open or closed adoption and it just it's I think it's good to give the alternative for families that want to have open adoptions and I just like to ask the committee for good vote. The passenger trust second from center Johnson any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. Motion. Of. The Bill pass. Congratulations representative Penzo thank you Committee. The of the we are a. The server was or forty minutes late for a meeting of. The we have done our best for your knowledge those of us on the Committee tend to wait until everybody from other committees have run bills before we run ours we will meet this afternoon of. Appointed German of the Senate of their. We're going to recess when till this afternoon upon adjournment of the Senate there is a complication I'm going to be run in a bill and house children and youth and representative of. Of Fite two chairs that committee is also go one or two Bills important bills over here of so we've got several bills you can run over here without me of but The there's one I definitely want to be back for and of and she'll probably need to be a back over for that one also so we will we will have to juggle that schedule but upon adjournment of the Senate we will be recess till then thank you.