Judiciary Committee - Senate

Yes Sir thank you senator are donated identify Sir please yes representative John have Arkansas District fifty four. You are recognized to present your bill yes Sir basically I call this state capital protection bill it is to protect our capital and our governor's mansion in case there's. Any. Thing that would go on that would cause disturbance it would carry a fine of misdemeanor ana five hundred down anything five hundred twenty five hundred it's got a of a felony and if you say anything up above twenty five hundred dollars is a Class C. felony but basically what it is here is just a It's just a bill to protect our capital and governor's mansion. You're ready to take questions yes Sir. Any questions from the committee. Syndros. All right for I'm fine with that but it just. Class C. is for for up to twenty five hundred and then I saw the. Class B.. Is defacing or damaging is the new language public building or object those are going to a Class B. yes Sir okay. Thank you. Mr. Any other questions from the committee. C. nine is there anyone here to testify for against the bill. I will. C. none of Richmond road like clothes for your bill yes Sir call center and creation. A good vote. Do pass from center us. Thank you Sir second president Senator in the of any discussion here no no for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations represent raw you pastor bill yesterday freesheet Committee thank you Sir. US Senator Irvin is running late if you are here for senate bill four fifty five that by the Clark that will not be running if you're here for Senate bill five twenty nine by Senator Clark that will not be running. Save you some time. Senator Rice I understand that you're gonna be running house bill seventeen twenty seven. Are you ready to run the. Sponsor. No there was there was a major. Thank you Tom. House bill seventeen twenty seven committee. Thank you Terry Rice state center Seventeen twenty seven is a. Partminer corrections bill and It is a. about a serious issue. I have seen. Movie and television actors get pigeon holed. Into certain bills that I. This section this is this is one ACT gotta come to me but again it's a serious Offense in the we need to do something about it. What is simply does is clarifies the definition of contact. As you see in the title concerning the offense of aggravated a greater salt upon law officer or employee of a correctional facility. In twenty nineteen DO see referred fifty five bodily fluid. cases of attack on. Officers that were referred to the state police two were declined but. Hosking turning twenty twenty the referred fifty. The cases thirteen were declined by a. Prosecuting attorney there were no convictions for twenty nineteen or twenty twenty year. What we have had been working in a coal would. world to but the this would again give definition. To contact and brings the seriousness of it as far as the officers that are attacked so if there's a question I'll bring up for Secretary graves and be glad to take any questions. Senator Hendren reconciliation on the yes I just want just for use over us but I know I just I appreciate the work on this bill I think this is a piece of legislation I worked on a few years ago to create the. crime of aggravated assault basically enhancing penalties for crimes committed against law enforcement officers or correction officers and this is just clarifying. That it's can it's continues to be okay to have enhanced penalties and in this aggravated assault category for those people in that career field correct. More a more well secretary great okay. Senator Clark a Mr mat thank secretary of this would you like to identify yourself good morning miss or Mister members of the committee senator senator hands or what the this bill clarifies what you're doing for yourself Sullivan Grove city tour correction what we're trying to do here understanding that are staff work in a very difficult environment it is commonly X. accepted I would stay in the majority of the state that a officer's uniform or the PP that we issue them whether it be gobbled or face shield are an extension of that officer unfortunately there was there was some our state is this agreement on that point and that is what this bill seeks to clarify that all that the uniform we issued officer the P. B. issue the officer are an extension of the officer in if that feces if the year and if that seminal fluid strikes that officers PP or uniform then they that in may can be charged under this code section for aggravated assault yes Sir yeah thank you. Other questions from the committee. Seeing none is there anyone here to testify for or against the bill. Say notSenator Ross would you like to close for real I am a close I would move do pass. The motion to pass second from center Hendren any discussion saying none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations and have your past your bill thank you Mister Committee. Senator Ballinger are you ready to run Senate bill five eighty six. Senate bill five eighty six. Thank you Mr thank you committee this is actually piece legislation we ran in two thousand nineteen made at their house I've added it got a lot more attention probably the wanted to serve on the house floor and in the end up dying on the House floor but essentially it is digital provides a tool mechanism for parents to provide for temporary guardian of children in the event of their death so as it is now in order for the guardian to be appointed you have to go before court before the person has the authority of the guardian to be able to make medical decisions school decisions whatever they're not officially guardian to go for court that that process won't change but what this does is in that gap between what the death of the parent and actually when you get to court to have a permit guardianship appointed it provides for an opportunity for them to appointed take temporary garden guardians so what they can you know appoint somebody has a durable power of attorney before they die they have somebody who is a trustee of the trust they can continue on make decisions after the death this would provide that same kind of mechanism for parents so you look at the structure and it requires them to sign in front of a notary to witnesses what like a lot of other state planning documents are required to do. I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Senator so what was the debate or was the. Argument they used to vote oppose it in the house last year what they said is that they felt like it yeah that the judge needed to be there in case the people who are appointed as guardians were not fit to be guardians right so so that that would be where the judge would intervene if somebody comes in and says Hey you know I'm I'm going to be guardian in the what I'm set up as being the guardian of the wealth and yet they're terrible horrible people my argument against that is that nobody knows what is best for the kids better than the parents themselves and we're not talking about a permanent permanent guardianship or talk about setting it up temporary until they can get to court okay thanks. Other questions from the committee. See non is there anyone here to. A. Speak for or against the bill. Not yet seen nuns Senator Ballinger would you like to close for your bill I am closer to move do pass motion to pass. Circumcenter Johnson any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye aye aye All opposed motion carried resolutions and build your your pastor bill are you ready to present Senate bill five eighty nine yes I am but I believe this amendment Senate bill five eighty nine. If it's here that house co sponsors so. Yes please if you can. So it does just that house co sponsors I make a motion if you guys are okay with it to adopt the amendment we have a motion to adopt the amendment which is has which has House co sponsored. Second from central to any discussion here none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed congratulations and Ballinger you have amended your bill thank you. What this is this bill designed to to help With the collection of of child support ridges and alimony. Or fees if if there is a situation where somebody is abusing the process or or continually requesting Ford change or modification of child support that's going forward that's not not new orders but going forward that that before they can actually make the request for the modification of the of the custody because the modification that to make sure the fees are paid. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the committee. This is the the records exception here in case of emergency so that's not it is based on the bill to petition the court if there is even if they're behind they can't make the payments but there some specific reason why it still needs to happen. The reason behind this bill Senator Ballinger at I think is kind of like to explain that there is a there are situations where people are are have the ability the flood to the kind of abuse the process to to get access to the court to request modifications on a regular basis who are also behind on court payments child support what this would do is in in in two ways that those individuals and make it hard for them to be is a process and also make it easier for child support and ridges and alimony and court fees to get paid before person can can do that and lest there is as specific merges the circumstance. Any other questions from the committee. The trainer. Thank you Mr so I I mean I see the reasoning in this but I guess what about you so so. If there's a situation where there is what a very one sided visitation agreement. Basically the one that feels like that's out of balance can't do anything unless they get the attorney fees paid court costs paid the child support all those things caught up. Did you yeah so if they fall behind on on their on their payments they would have to get the payments caught up before they could petition to modify the the. Well I'm a member of the station I think it's just the custody arrangement. Now it says child custody order that right sorry. I mean is is this a is this a problem like Senator the chairman asked is this something that is it we have a lot of people abusing the system yes we do we're not only to have a lot of people abusing the system we we also have a lot of people who are behind on child support and and and records on alimony and what this will do is they have an incentive for people to keep that up thank. Senator Ballenger I'm sympathetic to what the bills trying to do but you know I'm thinking of a specific case and as far as I know this person's not behind in child support okay of but I know that The head of. The other parent remarried they both have good jobs of the parent who is paying child support had to take a lower paying job in order to have the vin to have the children. Of. And on a limited basis. And then was ordered you know had to have a bigger place to stay when they came except for a and is under great financial stress and is actually the one being taken the court most of the time. And it doesn't do anything to stop the other party. The. Yet it sounds like you you may have a situation where where they're caught in the process and the process that they're finding you know that I think it's not working right but I don't think this legislation really is designed to fix that I mean if he takes a low paying job you can petition a court to have the child support reduced this is not really designed to address that so I I don't mean it there's definitely times of people get caught in either either. Wrong way in the system or get caught in a judge that I think is not being fair but I I don't think that that's really what this is is to try to make the system a little bit better to the extent that if somebody is not paying their or court costs their their child support they're alimony they don't still have access to abuse the other party by petition have changed visitation or or guardianship brought in for custody. Then I take child support very seriously if you have a child. Did your duty to support on that but it it also seems to me that you know. That an unintended consequence could be elect this pandemic we're just out of the the. That somebody who. DO has good intentions normally does a good job they get behind. There are of regardless of what they see going on because you know in less you're going to use the court by saints emergency when it doesn't quite measure up to an emergency but yet it serious. It at in that case your your recourse is to petition in court if you could can of cat pay your child support because nature changed your income you petition for about your child support and that's it you get a chance and I do that a regular basis almost but just try still bath but but you're still behind I mean they don't go back in. Then back dated to the. yes yet to the date when you when you lose your job that would okay. Four if you he went on for years I probably would not but it's what you're talking about is you lose your job you petition court it takes couple months they're going to do it from when you options out. Other questions from the committee. Senator still feel. Interrupt. Ballinger of. German Senator Ballinger. With this include accumulation of of payments that have been made over a period of years yes thrown on this individual at once no no it's it would be a minute that's not on the if they don't think their child support over a period of years and they have their own I'm sorry I mean through no fault of their own either in a extenuating circumstances where they had some kind of medical issue or or lost her job and try to get a job and I cumulated a large amount of unpaid child support. Okay so they can petition the court to get that to to get that modified they do that any time but that's what they would have to do in order to be able to have to go to file for modification of custody they have to go get the child support order modified first round and agreed to ask you that I know into the some individuals like that and also know some individuals who just won't pay the child support so it and there are people who who I know who fell behind chats were because they were being dopes and they were you know in their addiction and they weren't and they. Hey they they get right later and and they want to have the opportunity to have a better visitation with their kids what they have to do is go back and fix what they've done in the past get the child support all caught up and then they can file for for a modification. Thank you Mr. Other questions of the committee. See non with anyone here to speak for against the bill. You saying none Senator Ballinger would you like close your bill yet hi I'm closed and I appreciate a good vote I move do pass. The past second from first of April. Any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye aye aye All opposed motion Kerry can resolution center boundary of pastor bill. Senator Irvin are you ready to present this before fifteen. We're doing a lot more time. Okay. Of. Well. If. A number of. Senator Rapert you're recognized president as before fifteen thank you Mr chairman of the committee Senate bill four fifty creates a legal cause of action for a violation of this act and allows and gets permission to our Attorney General to bring a civil cause of action for injunctive relief and any other relief available under the law and against entities that would violate the requirements of the participation requirements that are found on page three this is another level of protection to allow for a that Arkansas Attorney General to step in when and into and a violation has occurred in order to protect the integrity of girls sports and the state of Arkansas. And I have with me Mister Corey **** that can answer any questions. Are you ready for questions yes. Identifier questions from the committee. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman and I guess this is a for Mr **** I'm sorry the amendment needs to be adopted yes I apologize sorry Senator Hendren and The Amendment. Second we have a motion and a second any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion sick focusing on. All post graduation center your pastor Amendment Senator Hendren. So I ask services with Mr **** before the meeting about this I guess my question is we've already made this illegal. So why do we need this. it simply server course I'm sorry Mr call could you identify yourself yes Sir I'm sorry Mister chairman Corey custom chief of staff for the Attorney General it's simply gives us a cause of action senator we're we're if there is a violation where our office can take action to help stop This from happening and I honestly of it give some cover to the schools that that now they have correction so they know where to go and when they are presented with this question this this body has made the policy determination of what needs to be done and they don't have to they don't have to guess. So a school violating Arkansas law is not a cause of action for the Attorney General no Sir not not just by itself now there there are lots of instances where individuals with there's no recourse or way for us to to actually go in and have a cause of action if it's not set forth we we we can look at different avenues obviously you you have different mechanisms here that you can hold them accountable in there or there are certain mechanisms that we can do it within the realm of public corruption if if there's something that happens but not just District Court injunction knows or that has to be set forth so why are we creating a separate cause of action for violation of this criminal code we just passed the we're not for others. Well that says I can't answer I can answer that this is one that we're involved in something that my boss having played played sports in high school feel very strongly about and so that's what we're here. Okay and then the final question is on the last page lines twenty three to the end there. I I I assume that what we're saying there is that an institution or school or college that. violates this and does not comply fully with the law. Under this could be subject to losing all public funding state federal for a two year yes Sir. So what is a college student is told the the following unseasonably guidelines to be able to participate in the NC double a sports that may conflict with this and put them in a position to. Decide between complying with the NC double a guidance or state law well ultimately Senator of. A school is there to be an institution of learning in its one the thank you as the legislature setting out what is expected of them and how they're they're supposed to act if they want to receive state funding so I don't know that I don't know that there's really any questions about what they they're supposed to do obviously we're the attorney general's office we care about how state institutions the. Operate and and and whether or not they receive their funding I don't think there's ever going to be in the Attorney General in the state but from here on out that will ever chest moved to to take funds away from a school without it being flagrant and just specifically saying we don't care what the legislature says we will work with them and I think any Attorney General will. Other questions from the committee. C. nine as anyone here to testify for against the bill. See non center would you like to close for your bill thank you and just to note on the amendments there was a request with a issue systems on for intramural sports to in that language into the the Bill about Page three line twenty three an entity that has knowingly violated when it comes to intramural sports they made the point that they're they don't have such close eyes on intramural sports and so we accommodated that request on behalf of a issue as well so with that I would just appreciate a good vote and I appreciate your time and attention today. Action from the Committee. The motion to pass from centrist opal second from Senator Ballenger any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed. Motion carried congratulations of the center when you have passed your bill thank you so much thank you members. A representative Gazaway are you here for house bill thirteen twenty one. We're. We're ready. Representative guess what you're recognized present your bill thank you Mr chairman. House bill thirteen twenty one does sensually two things number one it defines critical infrastructure for purposes of the criminal code. And then secondly it takes that definition once we define critical infrastructure and as you'll see from the bill includes many of the things that are essential to. daily living and think that these things like food processing manufacturing facilities natural gas companies electric utilities communications facilities. and many other Items that we would classify as critical infrastructure than it takes that definition and puts in the criminal code in two places won the criminal mischief statute which is basically the destruction of property and then the criminal trespass statute which is course people trespassing or being a place in a place where they shouldn't be and it enhances the penalties for people who would destroy or cause damage to items that we have defined as critical infrastructure for people who are trespassing in areas that we define as critical infrastructure of this bill is supported by a lot of industries everyone from eighty anti American petroleum institute state chamber of commerce realtors association prosecuting attorneys association number of groups and industry support this bill and it will go a long way we've seen some instances recently you think back to just the ice storm and while that was an active destruction or trespass you see how one critical infrastructures impacted that it has the ability to affect millions of people and is there been some instances where we you know the bombing that happened on Christmas day in Nashville for instance which took out the telecommunications facility in Nashville that affected nine one one service over a number of states for several days if not weeks and then believe it or not during the Superbowl apparently there were a couple of individuals who thought it would be a good idea to try to poison the water supply in Tampa Bay so there are people out there who are doing these sorts of things and we to make sure if there is an attack on our critical infrastructure that is going to be punished appropriately that's what this bill does I think it's a good bill and would appreciate a good vote. Happy answer any questions questions from the committee. Syndros. Your committee legislatures are taking this up now you know how many states of at this and put before this year. I didn't know if you did background on it I don't know that it's just it's a changing world I'm sure a lot of this is coming on now we've had little bills but. I appreciate you bringing this thank you thank you. Other questions from the committee. I will note that. A I had filed a. The G. spot so sponsoring this bill of I had filed a similar bill had a. Constituent who called who of their whole area was with which was a pretty good size area and slang county was without electricity for most of the day somebody has told comparable substation. And they are also moved very involved in a volunteer fire department and concerned about how that affected their ability to serve of from the volunteer fire department and how that progresses and had asked me to introduce a similar bill so think there's very good reason for it. Is there anyone here to testify for or against. See non represented as we would like to close for your bill I'm close for the bill would appreciate a good vote. The past of soap field second presenter rights. Any discussion hearing none all promotions and public saying aye. All opposed most carried resolutions representative Gazaway of pastor bill thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. Okay Senator Hendren. All represented wooden didn't see use the comments are will take you now house bill ten ninety eight. Thank you Mr chairman try the promises model life this will go of today is gone and I apologize for last week when I had to miss the meeting my name is jim Wooten I represent District forty five. House bill ten ninety eight. Is very simple. It does two things. It protects. Parents and their children. It requires the if. Khloe owner provider. The. Take care facility has a family member that is a sex offender. They have to notify the parents. What happened in my district. There was a Daycare center. The one in Austin. Another one in baby building a third one. The husband. Is a. Sex offender level to. with public notice. And. The. State insurance or L. raised about it. So attentive to craft a bill. In a manner that would be able to here again do two things protect the parents take to children thank you sure enough holes that will agree. The parents should be notified they should be aware of also the bill requires that they cannot be there during the time the children are present. We will work with the. The providers daycare providers in the state in there or of an agreement with the bill and I understand the flow of it. I understand that there were some questions and Senator Hammer when he's testified. About this bill regarding what employees. Let me share why. We have a responsibility. To protect the children they cannot protect themselves. The second thing is what happens in this situation he or. Is that the owner. Leased the facility and became an employee. So. That is one of the reasons for including employees. Again I cannot emphasize to you enough this situation is designed for the protection of the children. Not only in my district within each year of districts throughout the study DHS did not have a rule. A planning to. this the the presence of the the rule is they couldn't be present. But they did not have a rule is that the parents should be notified. And feel hope you will concur that the parents should be aware of the fact. This law of or if it has it has there been a rule the only provided about the owners of this particular situation would been skirted a rail leasing the facility and then Becoming an employee but not only that it's my understanding that the initial permit. Of granite or the French or the. The permit to operate was taken down in her maiden name and not the night and not her merry nine. So that was another effort. Therefore knowledge to notify. The parents this was the area that DHS is not covered. And so that's what this rule does again two things provides the parents notification and also protects the children because it states that they cannot be on the premises while the daycare center is in operation. Mr would only happen to answer the questions. Okay a representative warden of my memory is that the committee was in support of the idea but had some questions about the wording Senator Ballinger you're recognized thank you. Thank you Mr chairman it's so on on page two the the part that bore the robe was last time and I think you know to some extent is that is that they need to be notified if basically if there's a the what it says that there's immediate famine family member who is a registered sex offender how do you define immediate family like how brawl is is is fake is a programme nailed this it's of or other amenazas one why have child. Hello I'm so sorry it is I can't believe I missed that because I'd look for his part so so right here all right so this is this is where the where the rub is we we beat up on on registered sex offenders all the time and and it's in order to to typically protect children but protect other people from them and they're living with the consequences of their actions right they they chose to go down that path and it's it is honestly it's it's terrible the somebody ever has to live with that kind of bad forever but they are on that right well now we're moving it from there two we're moving it to the. The the spouse parent child brother sister mother in law father Lawson law daughter in law brother in law. Or sister in law of an owner operator service writer director character employee of a facility now all these people who are not guilty who are who are innocent now become unemployable because if I owned a daycare facility I would not hire any of these people because of the fact that I would then have to notify the parents that they are immediate family member of the in all I would see if I was impaired and I was looking at the notification all I would see is registered sex offender I would make the connection that. No this is somebody who happens to be a brother in law of a level two sex offender right I would make that connection I take no I'll pass there's of a daycare facilities out there that don't have a brother in law who's got a somebody has a registered sex offender right so I just I think the taking that that punishment off from the rest for a sex offender and putting it on anybody who is almost remotely related to him is a it has that burden now so I mean I think there's a way to do it clearly they shouldn't be at the place you know your your part to the with no debate at all on number two on the backside where where the they're not allowed to be on the premises when the when the kids are present that's not I mean none of us disagree with that but then to extend it to all those other people who are not britches sex offender who you know maybe Sunday school teachers and sweet wonderful people who've never committed a crime in the life now they are unemployable at a daycare facility because the fact that they're related to somebody who's a level two sex offender. Thank you you see where we're coming for a yeah I understand. your concern but I still come back to the point I thank the parents have a right to know if an employee or provider as a sex offender in their family it's a public record we're not asking them to disclose anything that's not public record we're not asking them to issue the name or use the name of the individual we're just simply saying that the parents should be notified in a you know I understand the Senator were you're coming from but I don't know of any other way to address it because of the circumstances here there's nothing to keep it from happening somewhere else so what what if we just prohibit them from being at the on the premises why would that not be my those people are not going to hurt the kids if they're not on the premises. I could. First of all I can agree with that statement. This will hurt kids I mean the how would they hurt the kids that they're not well president. I thought you were talking in general law shall know that look like I said you know I wouldn't want my kid around Richard sex offender not me some of them they to reform but it's hard right a lot of them don't so so I that's why they end up getting beat up on continually and I'm and so that's what typically I vote for those bills because when when we're talking about the rights of the person who is registered offender and the kids that are their victims I'm always going to side with the kids but that's not what we're talking about here talk about a whole new group of people out there and and if the registered offenders are not around the kids they they won't have the ability to or the kids what I'm saying so second part of your like if we took one out all together then you would have universal I believe universal support of the committee because now we're talking about. The people who committed the the act the offense are living with the consequences of their action rather than somebody who happens to be. A brother in law of that person. Well either way you go. If you if you just have a in their world due to the premises the parents are not being notified. Parents need to know I'm sorry that it may be you know interfere with someone's employment but here again like you said in the point you made when it comes down to the sex offender or the child or the family of a sex offender I mean it's to of the realize that and and and the but at the same time I understand that the parents need to roll up to No and my parents my constituents or of said wholeheartedly about this I mean the you know this just we took. Several provisions of it in the House realty to some concerns that the provider said and that the other sent to the bill and they're it it's simply down to the scope that it is right now. And because of trying to deal with the employee situation. The we get involved in all this other. But again you know is designed to protect the parents. The children. Senator Garner you're recognized thank you below are some there so you're not going to health care about children with me on this kind of stuff I literally passed the bill last week we can kill a child offender the death penalty because if they her children what you did is wrong to terrible law to address a problem that you will fix if you want to come out to the sex offenders just make it so they can't be nowhere near it at all and that solves the problem put if they reside there if they sure what they're if they're anywhere near it stop that sex offender from doing it and put points penalties on them if they show up but what you're doing is making a innocent party who had nothing to do with the offense sit there and suffer and lose employment you got a hundred day daycare right now centers a day care my son goes right it's a great day care I enjoy it but they have somebody there who's completely innocent has never heard a child who has a B. Smith brother in law who stays with them who is a sex offender zero chance my child be exposed that you're going to send you email to say that is now there's a sex offender affiliated with my church our this church daycare you can destroy you that reputation of that based on everyone situation where the employee is not the guilty party you're going to hurt people in day cares across the state by doing that. Roger low so that you just stop a sex offender from getting anywhere near this place they already can't reside within two thousand feet of it make it they can't within two thousand feet of it I don't care but don't go after the imposed to parents anybody else it does I. loophole fix a loophole dealing with the offender not this email system so I will I will not support this bill as currently written. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman so these registered sex offenders not low percent would if you can answer this or maybe somebody's more familiar with it is that for life I mean that somebody. Get registered sex offender when they're twenty two they register the restaurant. Register unless the. Turn the bill to the. I understand their own there to fill up. There is either Judicata the Intel there you. From the governor's clemency or something like that perhaps so most of the remaining on there yes Sir Senator Hendren I don't know if there's any experts here to answer that but we had sold this question came up so many times two years ago I believe that they can apply over five years fifteen fifteen fifteen years fifteen years ago by the bill the will but after the fifteen years they can apply for five thank you might not correct. Now that you're saying that I think that's right like you you can apply at every five years after fifteen years you can apply to be taken off the list and then ever five years if I remember right that's to be taken off the list but that is pretty much a lifetime one okay And my other question again I don't know is it has to do with the current law is. The Senator garner's point isn't already illegal for them to be in these facilities childcare facilities for any a registered sex offender. You're standing but there's nothing that says that parents should be notified. I mean you know understand what senator garner saying. And I appreciate that. But it you know I I've tried to amend the bill or the bill that opened so that you will a the names are not involved the employees names are not involved it just isn't with the provider is made aware. They have to notify the parents. To protect the children. Okay thank you I mean it is already the. You know they are already designed not to be there and so far as a church is concerned it would not apply to and does not apply does not mention anything to do with them not being able to attend Sunday school be in church. the. There is no restriction and and that was in the bill but even the bill at that point senator garner is. The study stated that they could be present for church services but not when the daycare was there also. Polluted that they could be present if the child. In a program that they were connected to because the parents more than likely would be there so made or effort I can to to address the concerns of. This committee center under attempted to call you to visit with you but. This center Johnson. The representative would miss these a sex offenders are registered and that's a matter of public record correct. This was to Okinawa now this. They're registered and it is a matter of public record right now are at. Level two is some there are some level twos and we address that it has to be a man or public information before they are required to disclose anything but but but that record is devolved now on the public record. It's there's no information in public to our registered sex offenders notification to the public of these individuals now and where they reside correct. It's already up there I mean you know most people rollover the brother and sister or father in law when they get in the confines of a daycare or childcare facility that is totally different I mean. Those those individuals can't be employed. In these locations they can't be near these locations right now correct that's true all right. President will now thank you bills coming out of your. We appreciate it do what now I don't think you bills coming out here representative will I applaud what you're again trying to do and on got one bill the. Present here twice that we can't seem to get the wording right on but the way it I read your bill is. God for bid. But I want to use me if if I were a sex offender and my sister who is wonderful with kids was running a day care who I hadn't seen in twenty years. Or I might be living in California and never see but she would have to report to all of her. Of customers that her brother was a sex offender what you would have to identify him by name she just got to tell the parents. That her brother. She the. Is down to the employee or to the owner but what do you see the stigma state agency would have that she would have no reason to have so. As is the opinion of the committee then the if we strike L. the provision of the two. We're going to to the employees that this would pass let's go to Senator Ballinger he may be able to help with the at. Thank you Mr yes from at least from my standpoint and I think from from reading the committee if you took out on page two you know paragraph one. I I think that if you took that out then you're not gonna have any trouble at all passing this. Page two which for a paragraph one. Could you give us the lines that yes so lines six through through eight so the owner operator service writer rector employee as immediate family member has a level two sex offender so essentially what you're what you'd be doing is he'd be taking it out saying that that that that a. It basically taking it out that they have to provide notice just because the fact that they have that family member. You know they still they can be on the premises when kids are around that's great. Would you have to be worried that owns well which was. I mean there be other places that you probably need to to a amended. But essentially if you take that out it the there is another alternative and I and I still think it could be a little hard to the ramifications of it could be could be difficult because already there so many limited places for for sex offenders to to reside. This goes a little bit to the chairman's question two eight in this case since if the immediate family members a person part of the definition is that they reside in the home. Well if instead of putting the burden on the daycare facility and on that family member. You could you could move the burden back to the Richard sex offender and prohibit them from writing residing in the home of somebody is an employee of a daycare facility. Down there may be it may still make the hearts like I I'm not saying I like that but that would at least make it where maybe I can hold my nose and vote for right and the reason why I'll just tell you the reason why I don't like it is if we more more are pushing these folks into more compact areas or more rural areas thank you there the coming out to Ark where I live or they're in very small neighborhoods where there's not churches are not schools there's not so we're limiting their ability to have a place to live when they get out and so in particular you know we're we're now taking them out of the home of the family member who is who has a may work for a date for care facility but at least that would be a burden that we put on the sex offender and not on the family and on the that daycare facility and it probably still accomplished accommodate your your purpose and. The so I'm did not did not mean to interrupt you Senator Ballenger or you are you don't have to. Of the representative wouldn't this would also put a burden of. On the owner operator of the impossible apartment but I think there's a couple of the things you could do of one would possibly I am speaking just for me of would be a requirement that an owner operator service provider to notify any. Employees. Of present and future of of the law. regarding sex offenders and they have any relatives of that fit this description that I mean they can't come pick him up except because of the law so that that they know what that there's never any doubt what the law is and I do and and if the agency which licenses of them if we have if the law requires that the owner operator be notified of what the law is I don't I don't if that's not already done I don't see a problem with that because I think once notified We already have the law that says those people can't be there and if the operator and the employees are are officially notified of that would be never ever that would mean was operating a day care if if if somebody offered that and it was passed. That is somebody who was up written daycare ever pull employee they hire they would have to give in and a notice if you have a relative except for a here's the law on Billman they care they can't they can't be this close ever for any reason but again appreciate what you're trying to accomplish but I don't think we can of the effect on oceans of people. To do it I missed Mr chairman I understand where you're coming from and if it's agreeable is no or present me I'll try again or one that and I think some members may be may be willing to help I know we're all busy at this point but but you might could put Senator Ballinger to help you a little bit with that. I appreciate it I'll withdraw the bill thank you very much thank you committee I appreciate your time. Thank you to get it worked out thank you for the thought involved represent the board. Thank. He's. Senator Hendren I am going to go ahead and. Perks on the amendment for senate bill eighteen. If you will take the chair from moment. I had in there. Eleven. All. Okay Mr. Bill all right Senator Clark you can amendment to concur with on the senate bill eighteen you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Members of the committee of. The Amendment of course which is engrossed in the bill. It was a major amendment. Of and. we worked. Of many many hours with the judges of the bar association and we did not come to a conclusion with them we work with some other family law attorneys around the state. And we handled but the three main objections that I was given by the bar and by the judges we handled the first one the biggest was modifications or modifications is talking about not when you initially go to court for custody but if you go back to court as we're talking about another bill earlier for a custody change and they were afraid that that would cause. Masses of people to go back to court of upsetting families and causing the court to be overloaded and although. Allen's of Arbil a lot of them very much would like to see the modifications of we took that out as a major concession. The other two things that they brought up in this committee you heard here and they continually brought up was that they were afraid that with the clear and convincing evidence requirement that a someone who was physically abusing their spouses and kids or sexually abusing could be awarded joint custody and so we lowered the bar. Of four of physical abuse and sexual abuse to a preponderance of the evidence where it is now it does require evidence of and so we satisfy the three things that they said were the the biggest problems we have of the a lot of support from the other family law attorneys I thank with this we have an extremely good bill and of ask you to up I make a motion that you can current The Amendment. Got a motion to concur is our second. Is there anybody any discussion from the committee members. All in favor the motion say aye opposed graduations Senator Clark thank you Mr thank you members of when. We're. Of. Senator Ross. Of a bill to run for a person to fight. And then I put Senator Garner you have bill run for representative Collins. This house bill fifteen twenty one centrust. Yes fifteen seventy four. Right you're recognized to present your bill thank you the representative five is. No longer work. Concerning used in the process and not. Guardianships foster care and and those that builders are chairman has what she brought forth on this one allows that the ad line item to reported by the court in the state is paying for that the And line items The funding be paid for by those who can afford it need to pay. And as we know a committee who go for the system cannot pay. And but there are some who can and this gives the judge who has the information before AM that will give them An opportunity to to see who can To know who can pay and have that set up for those who are able to pay. And. If you've got any questions I'll try to. Answer with some more information that. Questions from the committee. Senator us I have one in a pole does that I have not got to your representative fought with the question. Of. If I remember right in reading this. It allows the judge to order a. Of those someone appearing before him to pay more. To add lot on than what the state pays. That that I do not know that sure a I do is no with the language is permissive. not compulsory. I thank the judge would have to. Substantiate. That. I will say also that the. Thank you will see the was in favor of this judicial council. They did not have any opposition from the Bar Association. I am not saying that section or not but I know I'm looking right over any other questions from the committee. So just approved. Thank you Mr chairman of Russia's of one question when you when you talk about the financial information. How do they acquired and what kind of financial information. Do they acquire whenever they're looking to see who's capable of playing it is not. that the all the information I had Senator Stubblefield was that the judge has access to that from the parties and you know in these type cases both sides have to submit certain things whether it's all truthful or not you know that could be questionable but they have to under penalty of law have to present income or or W. twos or some type of financial information so the judges already have that they would be using the information they currently get to rule on some things that to. Would allow them to determine the he has sufficient income today to play or what I would do if the chair is concerned about the other I would have some concern that to the judges did not have some. It isn't for restraint and they're not you know to not try to punish somebody over the top be happy to get that information wouldn't bring this back. No good with that I'll I'll saying that they use on top of our answer if the two forms of yeah a it's got to be substantiated again they they're they have that now yeah is is there anyone here from the courts centros I do not have anybody the the level items office the person that that help to. The representative fight. Was Brooks dean of AOC to drafting V. like will because I don't see experts here but here's what's written in here on page two or one the places written line seven says a certified to terminate our rate of pay for the tourney thanks the service call Paul expenses no less than say can be different. But the fact that they can establish it makes a difference because. For the state if the state supplies that lot on. I'm I'm pretty familiar with that I think same as with the parent council that it's a contract and this is how much is going to be of where we're open it up that the if it you. Then. Then we can have our favorite at a lot on. The bill up to this much in our and I'm not sure how the to balance because I think you should have to pay but I don't know you should have if the court should be able to for you to pay more than. Than what the state would be paying for somebody who didn't pay right. Right let me do this Richards I I would like everybody to be fully clear on this begins not by bill let me pull this down and let's let's get to know somebody from a see that it right this or or the representative five I don't know if she does that answer either but I'll I would like to have it fully disclosed and the the some of them are probably watching than the I'm sure the council or a lot on or both could could help answer those questions let's let's get them here so that I and again I had that question I apologize I have an answer before I just. Lebron ripple is down. In read back without a deduction from the Committee. Thank you. Of you get something else center us. Senator Garner. House fees house bill seventeen thirty to seventeen thirty two. House bill seventeen thirty two. There was a moment to fund it is. you're recognized president house bill seventeen thirty two thank you this is a little bit clean up and kind of just had a language written for for your resume and video voyeurism really on substantial change or make an is that so this will be automatically be a Class C. felony if the victim is under the age of fourteen years old so right now it's a Class D. felony for the first two offenses you do more and adds a Class C. we're making a Class C. automatically if you do for somebody under fourteen years old to protect the innocent because they're they're not in position to be able to do it themselves and president because it is a good bill as far as a Leupold EFA on word you know we have some I do this expects for a young child and use it for sexual gratification and becoming a larger issue so with that I'll take any questions. Questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to testify for against the bill. See non Senator Garner would you like to close your bill I am closer. Motion motion do pass was the passenger garner's second from center Johnson. Any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed. Motion carried congradulations of Gloria pastor bill. I see the but one sixty seven of mine. Asif's five forty four Senator Ross. Five forty fourth when I see her tomorrow of the page. Four five fifty four. You know it's four forty four. Five forty four is a recent fall with the. Announcmenet of federal relief and stainless the. Funding that has come about and was announced that it would go to Those incarcerated. And thought for that without standing fines and fees That should have consideration for payment. I am open to. input on this the bill or the help wrap this state is. stated in a year that unless there is Prohibition from federal law to do it that could be used as we all know. those who are incarcerated. I have. Room and board they have many education opportunities and skills. And other things and citizenry that is out here working every day and that pays for that and they do have court judgments it just I failed in others fail to this should be used I have not I've asked have not gotten I think I heard something once more they were thinking about restricting Bish being taken but a disdain and I've seen it. Partminer corrections contacted me and from this initial fault and I have a. Amendment today which is the bill that gives you a lot and we will need to adopt the amendment that talks about the way that they would not know how to. Extract this unless they were knowledgeable of it. It gives them some time ways to do that in the Amendment it simply is saying once they're notified that a process can start that's where I'm open to help if you look at the amendment You're probably going to have to have somebody who's familiar with the case but somebody is serving time for to say I you know I know they got. The money because again DOC's not going to know if it goes into their bank account listed the the body notified so while it may not be broadly known it will be some that I feel I would be able to pay some again fines and restitution so with that I would move adoption of the amendment and then open for discussion. We will motion to adoptive second from senator garner any discussion none all for the motion should focus on a whole posed motion carried. Congratulations on your. Roger bill is amended. He referred questions referred questions and if secretary graves could come up. he might be able to add more to this. Secretary Graysville identify yourself for the record the morning mist Mister chair again Sullivan great state terror of corrections Senator Rice said this is a real challenge not just being faced by your department of corrections but deal cities throughout the nation to give you some background. In the first round of stimulus I guess a year ago the iris issued guidance so appointed that stimulates saying incarcerated individuals are not eligible to receive a stimulus payment and if a payment is sent to a facility for an offender that facility is to remit that payment back to the IRS. Subsequent to that litigation was filed in the state of California and and they're federal circuit and that circuit said no those individuals are eligible subsequent to the that appellate decision direst change their guidance and it is now their position that individuals who are incarcerated bowls and our department of corrections and Nash nationally are eligible for these payments we have been working if there is some order on file to remit payment for financial obligations we have been doing our best to remit those payments but as it stands now if the jondo receives a stimulus check and we can verify that it is meant for John Doe then we are required to deposit that into his trust account for him to. Spend in the commissary or remit back to his family or if he just wants to let it sit there until is released. Senator thank you so I this is my understanding of to me if I'm wrong the first English package they. Didn't attend to that money to go to prisoners but they didn't specifically specified in the bill and so the ruling by the R. S. was ultimi struck down the court because there was no provision in law I believe the second round of stimulus packages if I'm understanding I haven't seen the law because my understanding from reading is they were specifically said it can go to prisoners so they're intending for that money to go there first is the first time where it was kind of. Even though the intent wasn't there and the court did that and so this we know is going to these people via the law written itself first the first time was more confusion is that correct any understanding. You're my understood hi I understand the first them stimulus package the way you do to be quite honest senator garner I've been paid that close enough attention to that portion of the rescue plan but I do know that it is a continuing issue of our inmates receiving the stimulus package for the different questions yes Sir hundred percent supportive and I think this amendment my address issued only problem I can see it maybe you can this is part time on going to their trust fund I don't understand that distinction is amended as a account they have just as yes Sir apart how do you prevent the the mom who's at home with her kids. Because the way it works for us is I received that money for me for my family so I receive the total amount and I've heard some horror stories where people who were separated the mom her ex husband or her ex boyfriend ran off now he received all the money they don't get any of it how we distinguish between that to make sure that families or put in a bad spot whenever they don't get the wrong age to receive that money does that does that become a problem or something your dress the only way this amendment addresses that but only if there is an order saying that Jane doe is eligible for a portion of John does money. If if we're in receipt of an order yes we would be able to enforce it under this statute but if we were not in a receipt of that order and of jondo in Jane doe's money plus the money for ten we know all went to John Doe then it it would be up to the angle you're required to put it all into account there's nothing you can do for it how may I wish we could okay thank you. Of the. The secretary grace of. The bill looks good to me but of. It appears that there could be a great deal of money. Assuming the of. The door prisoners to a lot of court cost except for. That is the as administration got any plans to actively aggressively go after that if we pass the bill. Actively no so we have mechanisms in place now within the department that if we are made aware of a outstanding financial obligation on the part of an offender in our custody we can intercept those funds place liens on their account and. Make those payments with the B. restitution or in the Senate or garner's example of some of form of court ordered support Our our hands are tied the for lack of a better term absent any order to the contrary if an inmate in our custody receives funds they're entitled to keep those. But it seems like somebody in the administration would not have their hands tied of. As someone in a retail operation. The part of what I have to do is click debt and I have to tell you if there's any place that it's important to strike while the iron is hot. It's there is that if if you're gonna if you're going to collect money from somebody a better collected when they have it and so if there's if the administration doesn't it is not planning and putting somebody in charge of going through that's what I'd be doing it is going through the records and saying are there are there fees owed or other call stowed except truck and going to attach those a it fund account's attach on they were probably waste our time here we're where there could be a great deal of funds coming to the state and the that they should those people should be paying for the rest of us sent of Senator Clark Is Senator Senate have alluded to this you know we've been working with him on issues specific to our implement a description of his proposal within the department of corrections but I would I would have no problem at all reaching out to the administration shin and the other departments that may have some interest in in this concept to see of there are other ways these funds once received can can make the system all that money will sit there very long I can tell you that section of the bill. Thank you Mr chairman. Sullivan. The first time in the first email us planet paid money to the prisoners when was that. That what that was about last March or April I'm going to turn on my cheats legal counsel we didn't start getting checks go until the fall so that was under a different presidential administrations yes Sir that all changed when we had a new president and his administration. Is that correct we're still continue to get the checks what what what I'm saying though the fact that the checks are to be kept by the prisoners changed those are the guidance from the R. is dead so the first so going to the federal ruling in California came out under the previous administration thank you wanted that what was the date that got it came out of school for October somewhere around only fault was still under different yes Sir. How many how many preserved we haven't. So right now hard day since this is around fifteen hundred fifteen thousand. Fifteen thousand yes times fourteen hundred dollars yes I I asked this question before we got here today if we have a approximate number we're it would be very accurate to say that we have received in the high hundreds or low thousands of stimulus tricks just within our DLC since the iris guidance changed. What I'm saying here is the perception to the to the general public. Who were out working every day and paying taxes to support the correctional facilities yes Sir in the state of Arkansas and then and the people who are out working every day trying to provide for their families and they're saying checks go to individuals have committed a crime. Who who are. How much it costs to keep an average prisoner of over a year's time about twenty two thousand dollars twenty two thousand about the okay. We've got individuals that are going to work every day and don't like that I agree completely is Senate just a few understand the perception that will I mean the public general public has when they look at someone who's being incarcerated that is costing them twenty two thousand to go to work every day and pay for that twenty two thousand I wanted you today receiving stimulus chair also furnished by the taxpayers just above it the civil rights will tell you we when he filed this bill out with. Klay reached out to him and he knows. Of my feelings on this issue I will say that I thank you Mr great appreciation. Senator Johnson. This is a. I mean they're hopefully there's not enough turns in room to answer this question why can't the attorney general's request the injunctive relief for that the. Disposition of money to go to the to that rather than. To the individuals once the automated to to offset those. Senate Johnson if the chair will allow one a as much as legal counsel to help and answer the question if you can. You'll identify yourself for the record. Yes Sir thank you I'm Christine crier I'm chief legal counsel for the Arkansas department of corrections and I actually I can move my chair before the department of corrections actually work for the attorney general's office but short answer I'm not sure how they could do that my understanding is that the the department is open to any ideas of figuring out how we can help this bill go forward I don't know if the attorney to I'm not sure what the to Attorney General's office could issue I think it would take a court order directing us to to be able to to take the money as soon as it comes in an absent having something like that to be able to do that that the money has to go into the inmates let's. The only thing I can think of it would have to be a federal the injunction or are court ordered to to allow that to happen most likely since we're talking about federal funds yes so. Everybody is looking for a mechanism that was there my common sense. Legalese so thank you. Other questions from the committee. Seeing none is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. See non Senator us with your clothes for your bill. Members this year of course is brought late because it's it's just a timely thing wish we had more triggers and and information make it nailed down but I think we've got the a frame work here and the. you know which moves through we may be able to find out more ways but at this time uh even if it's not as broad as we'd like it thank you will a partial bring. Some restitution in that otherwise might not get paid. And with that with the. All for the bill and more let somebody else make a motion if you would like to move forward. I have a motion to pass from Centerville is amended. Circumcenter Johnson any discussion none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations and have you affect your bill thank you Mr Committee leaves one thing on the agenda and that would be my Senate bill one sixty seven so Senator Hendren. Senator Clark you're recognized explaining Senate bill one sixty seven. Thank you. Of the Senate bill one sixty seven provides for post adoption contact agreements a post adoption contact agreement I think probably best just to go to. Of Page two. Of. Two one four The following persons may voluntarily enter into a post adoption contact agreement adoptive parent and a birth relative of an adopted child and adopting parent and a burst world of a child who is being adopted the difference there being child is being adopted child already adopted. One nine a child who's been adopted and adopting parent and a birth parent of the child has been adopted or an adopted child an adoptive parent numbers relative of the adopted child. A post adoption contract agreement may provide for privileges regarding an adopted child or child who's been adopted including without limitation the following visitation between a birth relative in the child contact between birth role to the child exchanging information concerning the the child with the birth world to or exchanging information concerning a birth world to with the child. The And then it tells what the agreement shall include. The genesis of this bill is we had two of. I'll just use my terminal the total for judges from Georgia of the common testify in October about of open courts. While they were here they wanted to tell us about post adoption agreements they said was the most exciting thing that they had going on in Georgia. And it can be as little. According to the agreement it can be as little as a letter once a year. From the adoptive family to the of relative. Of about the child they can be as much as regular visits of between the of child and it's this is Burch realtor so between their their birth family. The it is all voluntary it doesn't require anyone to do anything it's voluntary by both sides of. It says in the of law and in the agreement that if for some reason it's violated it will not violate the adoption of somebody does not have a claim to set aside an adoption because the adoptive parent does not fall through us so that there's no The there can be if you're somebody that there's that the. Of. The agreement is not going to be followed but there can be no fear that the that the of the adoption will be of. Challenged. An online Page three line. Twenty one the court shall enter an order to enforce a post adoption contact agreement if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the enforcement or termination of the post adoption contact agreement is in the best interest of the child. That means that it. this is permissive means a judge doesn't have to allow a post adoption agreement. Of. The so having said that I always try to be fully transparent of looks at the Georgia judges said this the best thing that happened there of day of for those who wish to have contact expose his loot cases where the state has no choice but to terminate of. Of a parent's rights what we call a TPR in the case like this is going to be both the father and the mother but you may have a you can imagine having a grandmother an aunt an uncle of. That has close contact with this child is had close contact with the child and the why there would be a good reason of there could already be. Post contact this law. Legalizes that and says it's going to be this way so it's a total weight due to not just have some haphazard agreement but two of the. To set the standards for how it works. The of seven so that the judges are adamantly against it. Of Human was permissive of their of I had actually held this bill up to three times so that they could be here to testify against it of but the The game we have discussed it for weeks of but. there I don't know what they're afraid of exactly but because again they never after all they can always rules on the best interest of the child and go right on so that they don't have to do anything of the CFS of is. Meshes not here but I will say Molly against it US. She would testify against that of. She has a for your. Of that it could lead to. More terminations or I should say more terminations that relief should we would like to see less terminations and that this might make terminations easier of which in fact they have said in Georgia it does because a relative is more likely if they know they're gonna have contact with that child grandmother may not be able to take care of the child because that's what that's what you're often faced with mom and dad are terrible or their own drugs or whatever and so that's not an option there's good you're gonna have to terminate parental rights nothing wrong with the grandparents except. It may they're just in a place that they can't take care of a child anymore but you've got to you've got a relationship of and of this so you can see how it could be in the best interest there's other times where may not be in the best interest of but certainly where it would cause less but sure ground on the termination side. Having washes process I think we're going to terminate when we're going to terminate and it's not going to change anything the only thing which chains is that if it allows one grandmother it allows one granddad it allows one uncle aunt and one child. that that want to stay connected to stay connected and to do it in a legal way I think it is a wonderful thing upload Georgia and the and I think it's something that we ought to do having discussed it with you I haven't lobby do on it I've tried to present both sides fairly I'll be happy to take any questions. You for an expression bill Senator Ballinger you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr apart region questions what would be the court's opposition you can answer that is that you know they're not really basically stated a position but but in in bringing up of a they are adamantly against yeah they couldn't emphasize that enough. But but you have no idea what the opposition is to because I'm struggling with that too because it doesn't well we talk four PM with me asking that question and it will work with some some of the judges I believe that you should never have any post contact okay which a court and we had the discussion what happens in these cases when the short term eighteen huge percentage huge percentage more than the judges like to admit it but DCFS knows parent council knows and I know go back home it felt privilege to they go they go back to the roles because keep in mind these are not all babies were allowed we're we're we're gone but teenagers of and so the idea that we can just separate. so that was one of the things sometimes you know some of it you know that because I'm more than glad for them to testify against it but of some of it could just be you know. I don't want to change things re record the known housing operate But. So so my follow up question is is I kinda get DCF. What what I'm what what would give me pause on this just a little bit is that is that we're making it easier for people not to do the hard thing right so if you have somebody who's not raised hasn't had these kids and raise these kids it'll take quite a commitment for them to to bring them into their home in it and that's it the easier option would be I still get to be yeah I have a contact be a grandmother B. if the relative if they go moving this other home then it it almost seems like it would be easier for them to make that choice and in which would then mean more terminations more less family members taking on the kids and taking over responsibility. And so I could see a. But I want to an ending consequences because I think we're going into with our eyes wide open that where we have less kids live in residing with family member and more or with somebody outside because that family members still can maintain a relationship with them but as someone who advocates everyday because I think those are excellent points and and and on point as someone who advocates every day for the relatives and four grand mother and for an uncle that sometimes get left out it when I think they shouldn't. But on the other hand sometimes I watch and I question. As much as they want that child as much as I support the fact they are family. That are I'm thinking I don't know because of their health conditions except for but because they sewed desperately don't want loses child. I think that sometimes it is the better. Option that is that if there can be posted option contact that this is still the grandparent and the other thing that happens is some of this happens anyway. Is instead of having a haphazard agreement. Then you cannot expect as a lawyer you specially understand so having some type of agreement well this is kind of what we're gonna do this requires that it be set down. Here's what's going to happen good fences make good neighbors It yeah and so the of the the the well you said you were going to do so and so and then it has to be set down in writing I think that's I think that's something we don't have no that that we're not recognizing that post adoption agreements do happen of whether they're whether they're formal and legal or not and this is a way to formalize them to legalize them of and I think it's a very good thing. Phoenician Ballinger. Okay senator Johnson's senator. I do have people to support to that's not here with. Senator Clark. Could this possibly help. The grandparent that. Is older and sick. Or don't have the financial means to to take that child in and and take us you know do this. Rather than being adoption process. The you know the kids just say Aitor eight or ten years old and they know that that child can be cared for manner. But they still want that relationship and don't don't have the means to go to court and and and do that process and where they can still have that relationship is that is that what the essence of this is absolutely and and you brought that up very well Senator doesn't do would just help that it with me as an uncle. Okay I don't have any grandkids yet but me as an uncle I would probably make the decision. At my age. Although I really don't want to raise anybody else's kids. To raise my nephews or nieces but it would give me the option. The device see the sponsor Dr family. Of saying okay that's not what the way we would have gone but if we can you know if we still have contact and still be family and then. Then this may be better than us at at sixty. Of the trying to raise of my nieces and nephews so I think there's a lot of positives that that can come from this I'm really shocked by the. Of the. By the adamant Stand that the judges and taken. Thank you senator Clark Ceragon you're recognized. Thank you I'm I'm fairly would be supported business complete devil's advocate to sinners like I see coming up one this puts the adoption family. In a weaker position because now you have a leverage tool they could use for the post adoption so if you have a somebody who. Wants to write that post adoption contract in such a way that gives more access or you can have the original adoption especially for voluntary situations it seems like that could be an issue comes up to only as the secondary issue I see coming up is. If it's voluntary that I have. My child is adopted in a relationship with family members of that ever goes toxic or ever goes wrong I can just terminated and say no we're not going to this I know there's mechanism for the court all that but that's a different kind of animal this would require me now to go to the courts to do that if that turned toxic I think you're right the courts a prior rule in favor of the adoptive parents if there really is a tough situation for the passenger child but now I have to go back to court to modify contract rather than me as a parent I can involuntary decisions that's that's why I'm just playing devil's advocate here even though I don't really have a problem with the bill can you dress those two issues that I think that those are very valid points and probably probably one of those the judges have probably raised of the. Yes one in Georgia they haven't had that problem. The number one and they've had several years of experience and they're not the only ones doing it NO one has been able to find the problem. Of a major problem the second I'm not going to tell you there won't be problems. I'm not going to say that this is perfect anymore than anything else I present what I will tell you is is more perfect than not doing it. there are there is bound to be one Senator Garner there's bound to be two or three. That the and I think that a lot of cases a closed adoption will be better this is not for everybody. but and keep in mind this is for this is in cases where Roger will be terminated. Okay so of. The and so does it give something someone would yes it can things go south yes but the good that can be done verses the Borsa possible problems of I think that's where the judges and probably differ the most. Are you finishing Garner yes. Any other questions members to committee. Chamber here speak for against the bill. Senator Clark you are close for your bill. I think a sum that up as well as a can of of I make a motion if passed will create a good vote. Got a motion second by Senator Ballenger any other discussion all in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed motion carried graduation Senator Clark thank you bill. Thank you Mr thank you members amending. Is there anything is there anything that the chair has missed. All. Don't know of anything the chair's messed we will be back here at nine thirty next Wednesday for a phone call of