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

Thank you madam chair thank you Committee this is a very important topic in fact while it might seem like a traditional resolution what we talk about here I absolutely feel is essential I look at the world around us like many of you do as well and I see one thing that I do think that we can all agree on there is too much contention. There is too much strife in our political discourse and this has a chilling effect on our Republic it has a chilling effect on our ability to discuss the issues of the day. And so what I see happening is more and more people are pulling away from political discussions because they can become so heated. And we need more interaction not less we need more people to be willing to participate and contribute their gifts and skills and we are missing that because of the a continual coarsening of our civil discourse and I think when we go back to the founding of our nation that was built on the principle that we can indeed come and reason together that we can disagree without being disagreeable and we've built a fabulous nation on that concept that we can get together and usually combined what we have make a decision and move forward. And so this resolution merely puts a statement on our ability and our really our need to be able to discuss topics of importance with each other I see the house of representatives as a one hundred member team we need everybody to come and contribute and no one should feel like they cannot do so and so I I will not read the resolution but I did want to read two lines out of it toward the end it says if we cannot talk civilly about the pressing problems facing our society then we can never expect to solve them and from this day forward we the members of the house of representatives pledge to demonstrate the statesmanship our citizens deserve and the statesmanship our nation desperately needs I ask for your support on this resolution we do have actually we do have an amendment that the do we need to do that first. That was going around right now. No it is and I don't believe we have your Amendment this would be the same amendment from last week it just adds to co sponsors. We have not received that representative wing okay. Would you like to proceed without that Yeah I think we can go ahead and do that okay. All right I don't know what happened there but we have not received it okay it will it will okay willow no worries no worries there With that I am happy to take any questions are there any questions for president of wing. I'm not seeing any questions representative went is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the resolution. For the resolution. Seeing none representative when would you like to close for your resolution I'm close for the resolution what is the will of the committee. I'll I'm sorry I did have a question I did not see you back there representive Crawford. I was going to make a motion for do pass okay we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye. Opposed say no. And the resolution has passed thank you very much manager thank you Committee. Next we have senate bill eighteen Senator Clark you are recognized as senator Clark you have an amendment that has been passed out to members. Would you like to explain the amendment first I think that might be beneficial for I not only for our members that for and some in the audience. Yes I'm going to ask with your permission but I'm sure to have represented Gazaway come help yes represent god what yes we come by and if I could get a copy of my bill. We'll bring that out to you thank you. Okay you may proceed with the amendment. Representative would you like to. Explained the Amendment. I'm sure has the amendment and passed out of the committee yes it has okay thank you what I would like to do it as we begin the amendment is. Pretty extensive and essentially is now the bill and so I would just ask that we adopt the amendment and once the amendments adopted instead of discussing the amendment let's just adopt the amendment and then we can talk about the bill itself. I'm not I'm not on the committee so I'm I don't guess I can make a motion. We have a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion. All in favor of adopting the amendment say aye. Opposed say no the amendment is adopted thank you madam chair. You will. I'll start what representive guys would being the lawyer do more of the explaining. But. The. Of when I was approached about this bill of I have had over the past few years and especially the last two. numerous. Folks get hold of me. Of. And. It's the. Fathers. Of who. Often are beyond reproach policemen bedrooms formal former law enforcement. who are struggling to have some. Active role in their child's life. and have fun in that to be. Of a great difficulty. The. You know if I have. What's the system over the last few years. What they have told me. Mirrored what I have seen. In that the system and I think we have won the best system in the world of but has failed to value. Fathers. And. The. Of. Forty fifty years ago maybe thirty years ago. I would have favored a system. Of that. Said that the. Because they want to the mother and less. Certain other things happen but things have changed a great deal though the way that people split up has changed a great deal. And. Bill one of the things that I talk about. When I discuss the subject. Is after the Jonesborough school shooting and I don't know how many years ago that's been they'll. A young contractor and friend was in our store and we were standing there and he said Alan he said you know I hope my son never does anything like this. And I said Aaron your son will never do anything like this in is that how can you be so confident how can you be so sure. And I said if you checked the records and there's been lots of school shooting since then and it's still the same almost all not all but almost in all cases there is no active father. In this situation. And. It even what you know I'm talking to people on a regular basis to talk but will so but someone's better about doctors appointments or so on and. You know this is not about either parent not being valued. But what I was running for office of I had a very tough decision to make an appointment with my mom and dad. But for that question it was my mall. Who I wanted to give me an answer. And so it's not about billion one of the other but the system has valued one over the other and the perform two different roles. And so we've moved to a system where the majority of people support joint custody of the children who have grown up in homes of we're they were split. They were joint custody by overwhelming numbers. Of records have not and we passed a bill represent Lowery passed a bill in two thousand thirteen that said we favor joint would favor joint custody in Arkansas. And. The Turns out. Of that. One of. This to the Senate Judiciary Committee you should have a handout. This at the top is hand written says Arkansas circuit court's judicial bench book domestic relations division updated June two thousand eighteen. If you look down at the Asterix. This is an action for divorce awarded joint because the first what is a judicial bench book and I'm gonna give you my description layman's description shorthand version four judges were too easy to look up of laws without going to the extent of law library here's the here's the basics. In an action for divorce awarded custody is favored in Arkansas however case law both before and after adoption of code provision above indicates that joint custody is not normally favor unless circumstances clearly warrant such action. Now let me go back up to where we. To that first Astrid. In an action for divorce and awarded joint custody is favored in Arkansas per nine thirteen dash one one a that's what the legislature passed. However case law before after adoption cooperation above indicates that joint custody is not normally favor. That's not what the legislature said. So some will come later and say this bill is not needed let me tell you I got a email that we can from a city of work a lot with AOC whose terror Center Disher appreciate them a great deal they said senator we apologize. I keep mine this bill this law was passed in two thousand thirteen we apologize we've updated the judicial benchmark. So I went on the floor and I read what it said then and it still says in an action for divorce in order don't caused is favored however case law both before and after adoption code provisions indicates a joint custody is not only favor. So I said that'll Senate floor so I got another email. The we've changed it again so I'm glad they have. But the people's branch represents the people and what the people want and the people want us to start at joint custody and go from there that's what we wanted that's what we've had in law since two thousand thirteen. I was contacted by judges and by the bar association who said bill is not needed and it goes too far. The. And so. we begin to talk when we talk for several weeks and I ask for amendments and asked for changes. And we now have. It in the law a. You have to help me representative Gazaway always forget the words. Of the preponderance of evidence. Of which means just slightly more which means basically the judge can just decide this is what they want to do. And we're changing that in the law to clear and convincing evidence which they say will that you'll have to have experts and so that will help lawyers testify on the other side that says that's not true and it's not that hard I'll tell you if you ever of. The if you ever thank your taxes are too high the law says that the changes you have to have clear and convincing evidence. So. We worked and worked with the judges and work with the Bar Association. And other than getting the bill we're not running it we couldn't come up with anything. But we talked to a lot of other lawyers who saw this going on a family law attorneys across the state. outside Pulaski County. And they told something different they said you apps we absolutely need the bill judges are not following this law that says that joint custody is preferred. we actually looked we need it we do think there are some things that need to be changed and cleaned maybe that wording is a little strong. SO we work with them we can work with the Bar Association we work with them. And but we really satisfied everything that we were told. Of in the amendment that we offer you today that we own that we put put in the bill today. The biggest this agreement that we had was the modification of current custody. And we were told that. The problem with that is that we the courts would beef over full with people coming trying to redo their custody cases. except from. There was some disagreement on that and some of the people who very much support this bill really that was important to them because they would like to go back to court. Of but this is so important to them that they were agreeable to take it out. Also modifications is no longer in the bill it's only a it's only a nationally when you go to court. Of the other biggest problem that we were presented was that clear and convincing evidence was to too much. And we work specially presented with cases will what physical abuse and sexual abuse and and those parents will end up with joint custody because it'll be too hard to. I have clear and convincing evidence. So we change that although they never offers anything to change it we change that that in those cases and it's line out here and written guys we can explain where and how is lined out here that in those type cases. Of that it will be a preponderance of evidence but it with everything else will be clear and convincing evidence so we we covered everything we were told that was a problem I am sure their quick on their feet and I'm sure that they will have new problems today of but. Of because it became evident that they didn't want the law changed what the law needs to be changed. And we need to we need to start with joint custody we need to recognize both parents as a couple of and we need to enforce that and then we need to start from there because not joint custody is not the right thing for everybody we're not saying that we don't believe that it's just the right place to start of and the. You'll hear arguments like so from attorneys from both sides here from of people who have been affected by what we're doing now. And when we're done I hope you'll be convinced of that this is a one the most important bills of the session and something that we see that we strongly need to do. Replica Gazaway. Thank you senator Clark and I think he did an excellent job kind of summarizing where he came from on this bill. To begin I think some historical context is important and so I'll try to give you some historical context about what the state of custody laws have been in the state of Arkansas and then also in my nearly at this point fifteen years of practice what my experience has been in the court's handling lots of these cases over the years. First of all let me say that for many years in the state of Arkansas but the standard has it has been and still is what's in the best interest of the child okay that is the standard in any joint or any any custody case what is in the best interest of the child. But for years the way that was interpreted and including long before I ever started practicing law was that in a custody case one of the parents was going to be awarded custody and one of the parents was going to be awarded visitation and in fact the case law in the state of Arkansas said that joint custody was expressly disfavored. In other words it was not favored for judges in the state of Arkansas to award parties who were involved in a custody dispute to award them joint custody and that was the law in the state and the practice in this state for decades. In twenty thirteen the legislature and I think very wisely and probably beyond time well past the time that this change should have been made followed other states in recognizing that joint custody in Arkansas would receive favored status and so in the custody divorce statute what you saw from the changes the legislature made was it was reversing those decades of case law that said the joint custody was expressly disfavored for the legislature to come in and say no no joint custody in the State of Arkansas is favored and again the reason we did that was to reverse decades of existing law that it's a joint custody was disfavored and that was a very substantial step that was a good that was a step in the right direction. it didn't get us to where we should be and. Other important historical context and there used to be in the low a maternal preference. and we have with what they call the tender years doctrine which was that young children should be awarded to the mother and that was the law of the state for many years the legislature abolished that instead that both parents should be treated equally with respect to child custody and we the the attended your temperatures doctor and has been abolished and that no longer applies since twenty thirteen joint custody has been favored but I will tell you from my experience in practice and this is when I started in two thousand six. When I took a custody case in two thousand six this was just the the Bill backed in the law. If I went to court representing someone with custody there was not gonna be any joint custody with the vast majority of judges again as I said earlier we walked into the courtroom you were either getting custody or you were getting visitation but the one going to be any joint custody unless the parties settled on it. And the in twenty thirteen the legislature made that change since twenty thirteen things have gotten a little better. But I don't think that we're where we need to be there are people who are here to testify today other attorneys litigants who had these cases in the courts who say even when the legislature said the joint custody should be favored in practice it hasn't been in one of the things that I think is striking and quite alarming really is what senator Clark mentioned about the bench book which is. We are the largest where the legislative body who makes policy decisions for the state of Arkansas and in twenty thirteen we made the policy decision that joint custody should be favored and we were telling the courts at that point. Courts we are telling you that joint custody should be favored and that's based on mounds of research which says in cases where joint custody will work it is far better for the children and some of you should have a book here should have been passed out to the committee but it has. Research study after research study which indicates that joint custody is better for children because children. Even with divorced parents this is what the research indicates children even with divorced parents do better to have two parents who are actively involved and engaged in their life. And under the system as it's been for years when a party gets visitation let me tell you what the standard visitation order yes it's every other weekend and one week night a week okay and then on on varying week nights it's only for a couple hours. And I don't have the exact total but basically under the old system has been for decades we have relegated parents and in many cases parents who wanted to be involved in that child's life who wanted to take an active role as a dad or as a mom but the courts didn't let him and we relegated down to visitor status in the life of their child and I'll tell you we look around the society today and you wonder what's the problem with society today. And I will tell you the courts. There are some. Responsibility in that because they relegated good parents decent parents people who wanted to be fathers to their children or mothers to their children to the visitor status and that is wrong and in twenty thirteen the legislature recognized that and we said no not as a policy decision joint custody is going to be favored nine practice I can tell you because I still practice family law I have to open family law cases right now. That in practice that is still not always followed it's getting better and you'll hear from some of the you'll hear from some of the witnesses who will tell you especially you know as the older judges you still kind of have that older mindset as they move off the bench and as you have younger judges come in they're kind they're recognizing Board awarding joint custody more. But it's time and what this bill would do is say that as a state we took a substantial step in twenty thirteen to say that joint custody should be favored now it's time that we say. Joint cut joint custody is where we're going to start. When you step into the court room if this bill passes in this is what we call the rebuttable presumption so if you look at the first part of the bill in an action concerning an original child custody determination in a divorce or paternity matter there is a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child what does that mean that means the starting point in a custody case is we're going to start with the idea that joint custody is best for you guys okay. Well not joint joint custody is not appropriate every case I will tell you this I mean I've seen plenty of cases I have cases right now we're joint custody is not appropriate so if it's not that presumption can be overcome that presumption can be rebutted and we list tell if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence. That joint custody is not in the best interest of the child. Now one of the things that you'll hear the attorneys to get up here later some of them say is that. The issue with with that particular provision is that you've made the the burden of proof required to overcome the presumption clear and convincing evidence and so one of the things that you have to understand or the varying burdens of proof that we have in our court system okay and probably the three primary ones that we see are the preponderance of the evidence okay that's one a clear and convincing evidence which is what we state here and then beyond a reasonable doubt and so a preponderance of the evidence is this it's fifty percent plus anything it's if you have the skills right here and you can tip on ever so slightly one direction or the other you've met the burden of a preponderance of the evidence. And what we've said hereby including clear and convincing as the standard to overcome that presumption is not gonna be able to come into court with petty grievances anymore and did not apparent joint custody you're going to have to have some real legitimate reasons and solid proof. That joint custody is not best but you're not gonna be able to come in anymore and say well when I talk to the other parent on the phone I don't really like their tone. That's not going to get it all the petty grievances that we have seen fill the courts in these family law cases over the years and I promise you I've seen a many of you probably have to all the petty grievances that we have seen fill these courts we're going to put an end to that because any judge and I'm just gonna say aye any judge worth their salt if the burden is a preponderance of the evidence. Can say well I find that the scales have been tipped ever so slightly in favor of one or the other and I'm awarding custody to this one and I'm awarding visitation to this one no. It's going to have to be real evidence is going to have to be solid evidence eight now one of the things that you'll hear the opponents of this say when they get up here is that clear and convincing evidence is such a high burden it could never be overcome they may even go as far to try to tell you that it's going to require expert witnesses in child custody cases wrong. Wrong no it will not let me tell you this when I was a prosecutor in criminal court the burden of proof in criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt. And I had to meet that burden in every criminal case that tries the highest burden that we recognized in the law beyond a reasonable doubt. And I approved the. Countless criminal cases I couldn't even tell you the number I approved countless criminal cases beyond a reasonable doubt without an expert witness one so don't tell me. That you have to have an expert witness to meet the clear and convincing burden standard no you don't if the evidence is clear if the evidence is convincing you can't meet that burden and judges are going to be able to make a record if that type of evidence is present but I expect that you're going to hear that those arguments from the attorneys that are here so how do you overcome the burden however how do you overcome the presumption number one if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the joint test is not the best interest of the child that's one to the parties have reached an agreement on all issues concerning because if the parties agree that joint custody is not best okay fine that overcomes the presumption. Three if the parties if one of the parties does not request sole primary or joint custody. Or four if a rebuttable presumption described in subsection C. or D. of this section is established by the evidence and so I want to clear that up what that means. Where the objections that we've heard is that if we pass this rebuttable presumption of joint custody they're already existing presumptions in the law and that you would have competing presumptions and so how do you deal with competing presumptions. Those presumptions are number one that is not in the best interest of the child that the child be awarded custody or that a parent or or person seeking custody who is a sex offender be awarded custody I think we would all agree with that and that's an existing presumption in the law and so what we say is that that presumption is established by the evidence. Then that overcomes the rebuttable presumption of joint custody and to prove that presumption it's only a preponderance standard so if you can just prove that ever so slightly then joint custody the rebuttable presumption of joint custody doesn't apply the other one is the sex offender and the pattern of physical abuse and so we have another existing presumption in the law that if there is if a party to a custody action has evidenced a pattern of domestic violence. That is not in the best interest of the child that that person received custody and so what again what we say is if that can be proven by even just a preponderance of the evidence in the rebuttable presumption of joint custody does not apply. And then we add and this is one of the things that the opponents of this bill suggested and again out of deference to them and trying to accommodate them we added that the circuit court may enter an order to reduce areas of conflict in a manner determined appropriate by the court so if you have parties that have issues of one another the court can enter an order and be very specific to try to reduce the conflict that may exist between the parties. And those are the major things I think that's. The probably the major things that the bill does one of the things I will say in one of the major concessions that thank you were familiar with the initial bill that was filed the opposition we we nationally had included that the modifications that the. Our presumption of joint custody would apply and modification of custody actions in other words after the fact. And I would agree that that's not a good idea. when you have cases that have been through extensive litigation two years in court that have been settled by court order those are not the kind of cases that you should start with a rebuttable presumption of joint custody on and so we took that out and so if there's ever an action for modification that doesn't apply but it will apply an initial because the actions. Section three we talk about court shall consider the best interest of the child when making a child custody determination that's existing law a parent who is not granted sole primary. Or joint custody of his or her child is entitled to reasonable parenting time with the child unless the court finds after hearing that parenting time between the parent child would seriously endanger the physical mental or emotional health of the child. if the party request a written order of course it is your written order and the court needs to be very specific as to the frequency time duration can condition and method of what that parenting time is going to be if you're not going to give it a parent custody they need to be very clear about how much time they're going to get with the child so that's all that says and also in making that decision the courts should take into consideration the developmental age of the child section four After there's been a hearing on the merits on a child custody action. the court should enter written order includes facts findings inclusions of law and that maximizes the parenting time for each parent and that's consistent with the best interests the child so the point is. If a parent is not awarded joint custody. Hours. Order obviously sole custody then the court needs to try to the extent that they can to maximize time with that other parent because again the research is clear there is a mountain of it that it's better for children. To spend time with both parents and to have them actively involved in their life. And so I know I've said a lot I don't want to belabor it anymore but that's what the bill does this is a good bill it takes the next step forward from favored status to presumption status we wouldn't be the first state to do this if we pass it. but I think it's it'll put us where we need to be put parents on equal footing and to ensure that children have the benefit of two loving parents who want to be actively involved in their life. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions and by Senator Clark has. The. As we finish here the. I will come back to the other thing that will be set. Is that. The bill is not needed and goes too far. But I never could get an answer. Two where is the in between. Because two thousand thirteen was obviously not enough. When we we said that they would be favored and in two thousand twenty one the judicial bench book said. Even though the legislature said we favor joint custody we don't. So obviously we had to go further. Of by their own writings. And as we worked to work this out of like to tell you that no one. But in the legislature I think. Works more at working out bills. Got a water bill that I worked on for four sessions that the Municipal League now. Of. Endorses as to the water providers I've got an open child welfare courts actually not open but we're well on families and other affected members and we work with the with those judges they now endorse that bill will be in this committee education bill that I had the department of education of then governor completely rewrites civil asset forfeiture just re introduced today with the version that the prosecutors actually rewrote I'm have some skill at working with people and coming up with a compromise there was. Of. There was nothing to be had there was with the Family attorneys outside of Pulaski County across the state but there are there wasn't what the judges and there wasn't with the Bar Association and I lock on both so I hated that but I know when people are trying to work with you and I know when people are not trying to work with you of and so I hope you will keep that in mind when they tell you that we're going to far and that is not needed how for a sworn and what what if it what did what we do before not doing so with that we'll be happy to take questions. Representative cloud. Thank you madam chair of the thank you gentleman. The representative Gazaway help me understand. As far as if one parent has more financial resources than the other of. Are they able to come in and and use their resources and to persuade if you will the court that there is clear and convincing evidence so I'm just concerned about how this fits in with if one one parent has a whole lot more resources than the other thank you. Sure that's a great question and that's something that we see in our courts already even without this law. It's just it's a sad reality but parents who have great wealth and large financial resources I have the ability to come in and and use that to their advantage and in court cases I think this bill would actually help with that because unless they have that's why that clear and convincing standard so important unless they have I don't care how much money you've got unless you have a real legitimate clear and convincing reason why that. Child or why that is what what joint because he's not in the best interest of the child. Then you're not gonna be able to destroy joint custody for the other parents. So it it it means they're not gonna be able to take the resources and come into court and take every competitor Petty complaint that they can come up with and. And meet the burden in order to destroy joint custody for a child which we know is best for the child so I think this bill actually help in that regard I don't know that we can never stop that people that have the resources to do that now people that have the resources will continue to try to do that I think this bill helps with that clear and convincing standard kind of build a firewall to stop them from being able to do it so easily. Representative Barker. Thank you madam chair you said that other states have already made this change to this language of can you tell us a little more about that the committee or any data on the. I think we have some witnesses who can probably address that better than I can and I can tell you there is a presumption I believe in the state of Kentucky. their presumptions You know in other states and again I can't I can't recall one of the things that they've seen in Kentucky I mean I'll just give an example also thank Arizona but in in Kentucky I mean I'm just reading from some of the information that you should have since they passed their presumption of joint custody they sent ten percent decrease in their family law case load in two years. And you know that's the point it people that want to abuse the family law courts and put children used to try to use children as pawns because they can't get along the Joint cut true joint custody laws very effective at preventing that sort of thing again I know they have it in Kentucky I think they have it members on a I think there other states they're probably witnesses who can speak to that better than me but we we certainly would not be the first. Thank you. I'm saying no see no other questions I'm overlooking anyone. A representative Crawford. Thank you madam chair. In you may have said this But this does not go retroactive correct we're going to start with. If this passes we will start with whatever days in the bill is that correct. That is correct is not retroactive and then one of the important things that we did previously would have applied to modifications which it would have allowed people to go back and open up their core kept their old cases and try to apply this standard we specifically took that out you know that was an objection that was made that was well taken and we took that out we don't want to try to re litigate cases from the past but going forward this will be the new standard so yes follow up yes. Okay I understand that that's what I thought I heard. But what if a family wants to read it again Kate's I mean is that still open or. Is it stopped working where does this go. We don't affect we've not done anything to change the existing law existing law on modifications is if there's been a material change in circumstances since the last quarter order then. That provides a justification for modifying the last court order. if there's not anything that's changed since the last time the court ruled the courts won't allow modification to go forward but if you've got a material change in circumstances you can bring a modification to try to change a previous court order and this doesn't change that so you'll still be able to do that. One more follow up. I'll circle back around to you okay thank you. Representative berry. Hello I thank you madam chairman so senator or representative Gazaway what is the the biggest concern of the judges that you've spoken with because it in relation to beyond a reasonable doubt or clear and convincing evidence because to me it's almost like you're trying to get ninety percent of the legislature to to agree on a on a certain issue can you address that point what what is the biggest concern the job heard from the judges. Of. The day wall DO not wall or. A great many of them Because as Russian guys was born L. other younger judges. Of. Your DO follow the law thankfully. they want the discretion to of to do whatever they think is best and whatever they think is best is not following. The law that. We start. A joint custody. And saying no more questions representative Crawford will come back to you. Thank you madam chair. representative Gazaway one of the things that we heard representative bought talk about today on the house floor concerns me if a child which nobody would know but if the child is being abused and mom that no it dad didn't know what whichever direction it goes. Will there ever be a time where the children will be talked to without both the parents there that maybe that child. Will there be a therapist there I guess would be my question other than just attorneys to where that child would feel comfortable may be opening up when they never have before. That's a great question. It's not I don't think that that's something that we specifically address in the bill that I can just give you my experience which is that a lot of times when a child has if there's very really serious allegations like that and the parties know that that's going to be something that the court wants to hear about I've had you know there be requests that both parties leave the courtroom so that the job so that the child can talk to the judge by themselves and that's something that I've seen routinely happen. most most parents and most parties in litigation I've seen over the years will agree to that step out of the courtroom and let the child speak their concerns to the judge that's not specifically addressed in this bill but that's just my experience in practice about how that usually dealt with all in. Yes quickly okay let's try to stick to this bill. I thought I was sticking to this bill. College as my concern. Is that in joint custody what time for my son's divorced they're enjoying most days it works pretty good so I'm not against that. My concern is a child and I've seen that happen to to where they have both parents leave the room and. The child is taught to by a judge thank about that. How child would feel talking to a judge that they didn't know. So. I'm coming from a part two where that child needs a therapist I don't know I don't know where this goes whether it's before all this happens but if you're gonna legislate. Dule parent ship then can we legislate therapy. I think that's a good question one of the things I forgot to mention is that in a lot of these cases is pretty routine now that a judge will appoint what's called an attorney at law item and that attorney is there specifically to represent the child in the best interest of the child and that is routine in a lot of these cases now again you know that we just are trying to address joint custody in this bill and again that that presumption of joint custody can be overcome so it's not an absolute you know that this will not be an absolute law that every case has to be joint custody not at all it just simply recess the starting point to say we're going to start a joint testing if you can show me a good reason why this white shouldn't be the judge has the discretion not to order it but in many of these cases the judges appoint attorney at law items to represent the best is interest of the children and they meet with the children privately they make a report to the court about their findings and so that's how the courts currently kind of address that but therapy is a it can always be helpful in those situations to. And. Representative Crawford that's a good question my experience and I'm not an attorney but my experiences mostly in dependency neglect of. Where the children are assigned in Atlanta they can be in these cases but where they are assigned and a lot of which is an attorney who represents them. And you know they can ask the court for whatever whatever they think is best for the children and an often in those cases of there are. Kelce worship therapist except a and. And that it really is the state's Avenue is that if someone suspects of abuse or neglect you call the hotline and then DCFS of illicit think it's criminal in C. ACT would do an investigation and it and then you would set off a whole another chain of events if they found the truth finding and which case it's not unusual to have of the help other top people involved with the children. That completes all of the questions from committee members we're going to move to the audience a representative Bentley. Thank you chairman in order for us to be able to hear everybody came here to testify to limit. Two to four minutes per Speaker per side so each for each B. would have four minutes to share this. Yeah that's proper motion then that motion the repeat that is a resting at each Speaker to have four minutes. You're asking the Speaker to have performance correct yes presented Bentley we do have a very long list this non debatable all in favor say aye aye aye opposed say no Hey that passes so we will move now a representative Cllr I'm seeing your name here after representative Bentley's motion. Did you. Okay list this sent very quickly. Gazaway do you have a question for you can you give us just a quick estimate. if you take out the in joint custody. Parties that have reached an agreement or the parties where one is not requesting. so primary custody how many as left. What percentages but with I mean I know that's not exactly just a ballpark are we talking about. Twenty percent I was looking at joint custody is what they're trying for orders. Seventy percent of its already settled before it gets to the core. I don't know that I can answer that accurately You know as far as a percentage goes I will tell you have begin my experience is that you're seeing a lot of what more parents it seems to me agree on joint custody these days you know when people come to me in my office over these matters and is I don't do this exclusively but I do not public to know I'm hearing more from people that they want joint custody and that they're willing to settle for joint custody. So you know I think I think you see a lot of those cases settled we know we're both parties want joint custody there's certainly nothing that would prohibit that but it to try to put a percentage on the number of. Folks who are contesting custody these days I think it's probably went down I don't know that we have as many contested custody. Cases we once did because I think there's kind of become this public awareness that joint custody is best for kids and is best for kids if if parents who are divorced you know even if you don't like one another get along. For your child because if you don't get along you're really going to affect your child so I just think we're seeing a lot more that settle outside of court but I can't qualified ma'am sorry thank you okay we're gonna move now to the audience we have a lot of people signed up to speak for and we have several signed up to speak against so I would ask you we want everyone to have their say that I ask you please to keep your remarks as brief as possible and if someone has already made the point that you're making you might want to consider just making a different point in that case so first we have against Angela Mann. Is mess man here madam chair do we stay here early. If you'll go ahead and and I'm sorry I move that to the audience thank you manager. This man if you would identify yourself for the committee please when you reach the table. And push the push the button. I need to pull it towards you. My name is Angela Mann M. I am a family law attorney and I am here on behalf of the Bar Association. I first want to say that we have attempted to work with senator Clark on this bill and we've actually suggested some amendments and those amendments have not been accepted and I'm gonna talk to us on a couple of issues and I think some of you have already asked questions about these issues so please ask if you have anything to follow up first one talk about the clear and convincing evidence standard. Clear and convincing evidence and standard was set by the United States Supreme Court to protect certain constitutional rights. The United States Supreme Court defines clear and convincing evidence as substantially more likely to be true than untrue and the court must be convinced that the contention is highly probable. Black's law dictionary defines clear and convincing evidence as highly probable or reasonably certain this is much higher than this typical burden of proof in family law cases which is the preponderance of the evidence. Clear and convincing evidence only appears in Arkansas courts in a few areas it shows up with termination of parental rights adoptions and then in the employment context. As a representative Gazaway mentioned in the custody statute there's up there is a presumption already that is not the best interests for children to be placed in the custody of an abusive parent or a parent who is a sex offender. But that burden may may must only be proven or disproven by a preponderance of the evidence so there's a disconnect you only have to prove abuse or sex offender status by a preponderance of the evidence but we have to prove a for custody purposes a clear and convincing evidence and those two don't match. Of this standard is just too high In many divorce cases we do have to have experts and I believe in the the the handouts that your provided a few days ago there's a statement in there that a clear and convincing evidence does not require expert testimony in my practice I have to have expert testimony in a lot of divorce cases anyway experts include a child psychologist sometimes we have a custody evaluation sometimes we have to have a therapist those are all experts and many litigants can't even afford for those people to come to court they charge more than the attorneys and in many cases. And a lot of people in a domestic relations courts don't have resources and I believe it was it was asked if one party would have the ability to use our resources to meet clear and convincing evidence where is the other party would not be able to do the same and I think that's a real risk with this bill. People who want to litigate or going to litigate regardless of what the law is and people with more resources can afford to bring experts to court they can afford to do more to present the evidence that the court wants to hear to me the clear and convincing evidence standard most custody cases are decided by. They're all that right now they're decided by a preponderance of the evidence and that burden is often hard to prove it's hard to meet courts have they essentially have three options joint custody custody to mom in custody today at and those three options are being taken away to an extent by assuming that both parents are fit willing and able and even want joint custody because the presumption assumes that joint custody is the best interest of children regardless of any of those factors being present before anybody steps in a court so and miss Hoover's going to talk about the presumption a little bit more so I'm not gonna go into that too much but to overcome that presumption by clear and convincing evidence is to hive are to reach. I am a senator Clark and representative Gazaway I believe cited to two states statutes that they have based there's there statute time is up. Where the questions for this witness. Representative Hudson. Thank you madam chair I'm I'm glad you finished on those two states because that was on the questions I had written down and if we're talking about basing this new statute on something that's already been done are there significant differences in what the statute does and have the statute's been successful in other states. The two statutes that are referenced or Kentucky and Arizona the Kentucky statute does have a presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of children but the standard the burden of proof and that one is preponderance of the evidence and that's statute went into effect in twenty eighteen that the pamphlet I believe that you all were given shows that there was a decrease in in family law cases in Kentucky but I'm not sure if those were tied it it's unclear whether those were tied to test the test of the statute or if that was just a general decrease of the Arizona statute does not have a presumption of joint custody of the Arizona statute actually says. It actually says there's a presumption that parents should share in decision making and maximize parenting time and the statute specifically says that this does not mean there's a presumption for equal parenting time and that's statute has been found in that the previous study that's and and that that the proponents of this bill will site to so that the Arizona statute as a model statute and it's actually very similar to ours. Follow up manager yes so you've mentioned the preponderance of evidence standard a couple of times as opposed to the clear and convincing was preponderance one of the things that that the bar would prefer in this type of statute is that and is that a more realistic burden it is a more realistic burden but we would actually prefer that there not be a presumption at all and the focus remained on the best interest of the children our proposal was to codify the existing case law which essentially states that joint custody is the starting point and I believe that's what representative Gazaway stated is that they want they want joint custody be this the starting point and not just favored and we we agree with that. Representative very. Thank you madam chair so owner rent my head around this so correct me if I'm wrong but did did you state say that a judge has three choices the the mother the father or joint custody correct yes okay in but you also said that whether the parents like those choices are not so essentially the judge could. mandate joint custody whether the parents wanted or not that's that's correct and I've had several cases where judges have done just that okay thank you. Thank you thank you for testimony thank you next we had and if I mess up on these names when you come forward please correct for the record Gary Crompton. Speaking for the bill. I think it's Greg sorry. And please introduce yourself it is Greg and Greg Crumpton I'm a family law practitioner in Little County Arkansas I've done it for. Fourteen years a parent of an eleven thirteen and fifteen year old I've had joint custody will time of since they were two three and five Mister Gazaway represent Gazaway did a very good job explaining and legally what the bit bill means I'm gonna take my time to explain how I feel like it is beneficial to the best interests of of children and how it will be applied as senator Clark and represent Gazaway stated. This bill requires for a judge to vary from joint custody that there be clear and convincing evidence to show otherwise what I believe that this does is this will will lead to more joint custody decisions not because the same amount or more people litigate these cases and judges make more joint custody terminations but because if these individuals have good counsel they will understand that it is in their best interest best interests of their children to settle if that's what's going to be found I think that joint custody. It is a completely dependent on an ability to co parent and in my experience when these people come into court and they spent a years saying the ugliest things I can think of of about each other to each other to a judge and to their family it makes co parenting an impossibility greatly hinders it on the back in we need people to be able to communicate about appointments to be able to communicate about the needs of their children to stick up for each other we want parents to do that so I believe in practicality the initial child custody determination lead to less litigation and more decisions that are joined by agreement which will allow people to come out and copayment better on the back in I would not have been in favor this legislation had it not been amended because to as amended now we're on a preponderance standard so these parents come out and join by agreement hopefully that works better what they can do at that point in time. Is if one party is not pulling their weight they're not making a doctor's appointment the there are two parties a most importantly everyone of those pages not co parenting with the other parent then that point the same parties can go back in and with the lower preponderance standard a judge can undo a joint custody arrangement I think it will lead to more seven on the front end I find that the cases that settle don't come back to my office those people copayment together they raise good kids those kids become good citizens and those good kids raise good kids and so for that reason I'm I'm in support of this bill if there's any questions I'm happy to feel them at this time. A committee any questions for this witness. Seeing none thank you for your testimony thank you. Next we have Haley Smith speaking against. My name is Haley Smith I am a family law attorney from Jones for Arkansas I practice almost in fact I would say completely exclusively family law I'm also a certified attorney ad lot I'm. This is mentioned earlier this means that I received additional training going through additional continuing legal education courses to be able to represent children in these highly contested cases. One of the questions earlier was asked and what do children do when. There might be of use in the home and they don't want to say in front of lawyers they don't want to say in front of judges or they don't say it for other parents. Let's put him in a room with the judge and have the judge asked them. Children very rarely disclose those kind of things to their own attorneys. I'm a small female I am not an intimidating physical figure and children are still fearful to tell me things to tell on mom and dad. And even still a lot of this can be considered a luxury that some can't afford there was a question also about the cost of these litigations and. How this bill will introduce the idea that there isn't enough financial advantage the amount we disagree because those who want to litigate or going to litigate those who want to litigate and have the means to litigate are going to drive up attorney's fees by doing things like depositions subpoenaing witnesses expert witnesses attorney ad lot Ms cost money. We are given a certain amount of AOC funds to cover up to one hundred or one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars. That's approximately ten hours a little more eleven twelve hours worth of time but a good ad lot I'm going to go to everybody's home is going to talk to school teachers going to talk to the child multiple times to build the report it's necessary for children to be able to confide in you. You're going to run over that and a lot of counties don't have the ability to make up the difference when the AOC funds don't cover the Adlai item. So. Yeah bottom can't do their job the ad litem can't dig in as much the same is true for family attorneys you don't have the funds available to do the digging to call the experts that you would need to overcome this clear and convincing standard and is not recommendation as an attorney at law and going to constitute clear and convincing evidence doesn't meet that burden there's nothing in here that says it does it does not but as an attorney ad laden the judge on the case does not have to follow my recommendation so since they do not have to follow my recommendation does that stand to reason that it does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that would overcome this presumption. The burden is too high it will lead to increased litigation cost due to the expense of that lot Ms and experts. And that is why I am not in favor of this bill and I urge you not to vote for it. Any questions for this witness. Seeing none thank you for your testimony. Next we have speak for the the bill and I'm probably gonna mess up your name Elizabeth. Ruggiero. I always know it's me because nobody can say that. My name is Elizabeth three zero I am a PhD marriage family therapist I've been a clinical supervisor for probably way too long I have been working with family since two thousand and one when I go off script to have beautiful thing written but everybody's already set it so what I'd like to do is actually just kind in light news what happens when these children and everybody else is talking to come to a clinician. We see less fighting interrogating and abuse when it's a shared joint custody when you level the playing field and both parents know that they have a shot at working with these kids is less controversy with a level playing field there's a threshold that we can start with so instead of us as clinicians sitting there. Having to take two or three or four or ten sessions working with these people to get through the fact that something's not fair or the judge didn't listen to them with that they love their children and I'm gonna be pretty blunt everybody so far sitting appears at the parents the parents of parents I'm going to say it bothers. I'm seeing way too many fathers that do not have contact with their children and that is what's wrong right now with everything I'll say it it's what's wrong I need more fathers putting their hands well. Well beautifully on children and even throwing footballs and I need them spending their time with their children and when I have to fight with the system the other reason that you won't hear too many clinicians it appears because we're scared when I called my colleagues and I said you want to come sit with me they said no when I called my colleagues and I ask them how much time do you spend a court they say none we are afraid to go to court he calls double to get me into court and it does a lawyer because I am sick and tired of being beat up. Instead of me going in there being able to say yes your honor judges everybody they need to parents all the evidence is sitting in front of you but everybody else is going to stand up to that have this eloquent speech right to say we need both parents we need both parents we need both parents I spend all my time and money and energy doing that we know this you'll know this. What also happens it would be really clear about is this is what happens in therapy. Has any of you ever done a group project because you should have some trauma if you went to school and had to do a group project. If you have to do a group project and you went into it knowing that you were the kid that was going to carry it all and they have the two. Athletes were going to do anything per se. You're already going to the group project not wanting to do it because you gonna do all the work now I'm speaking on behalf a lot of mothers. I was a single mother had raised my children alone would have done anything to beg for my husband to come in and help me. He didn't that's me I was also raised by a father that's me. But I see in and day out we don't have enough of both parents in the situation my job would be easier my clinicians will go to court more often we have a level playing field and we would be able to talk to the kids about their problems and the parents about how they're not co parenting together instead of this on equitable or unfair or unjust way that it's being done now I have too many fathers that do not have access to their children and it's still happening and it'll happen when I walk out of here it'll happen tomorrow it'll happen next week it happens way too often and you will not hear that from enough clinicians it won't happen because we're too scared to sit here we're too scared to go to court we're scared because it goes against us to say what it is that I'm saying. That's it any questions thank you any questions for this witness. Hissing nine thank you for your testimony. Next we have speak against Lauren Hoover. Committee chair I do have handouts for of the committee I would ask that they be distributed would you bring them at. Madam chair if I could impose that may I have a copy of the amendment. Does anyone has the we really need you to give your testimony absolutely hi everyone my name is Lauren Hoover you seem to testify on January twenty seventh I'm here today because I've been working very hard with the proponents of this bill thank you very much this is the first time I've seen a copy of this amendment. Senator Clark on February fourth made promises to the Senate floor that he would work with the bar to come up with a compromise Senator Clark has acted in good faith and at this moment however we did not receive a copy of this amendment until I walked in the door and how to receive it from one of the members of your committee. I met with senator Clark and other members on February so Senate suggestions on February second twenty twenty one spent an hour on the phone an exam on February third send emails to senator Clark on February eighth I have a two hour meeting in person with Senator Ricky Hill and senator Clark I spent ninety minutes on the phone or in another sandwich single tenant doctor for alien Senator Clark I spent an hour on the phone with representative Gazaway. And for them to get up here and say respectfully that we just said no you will see in your handouts that I have placed before you that there is an exhibit II and it is the proposed suggestions I understand I don't have a vote I'm not elected member but it is the proposed suggestions of how we can improve the current bill to do what the concerns are of the proponents without endangering the best interest of the child in your hand out I just on Monday there were some statements made by another member that said that I didn't know what I was talking about when it came to the law also I'm not here to ask you guys to take my word for it so I brought you the law so attached and in exhibit a is the Arkansas Supreme Court case on what a presumption is and a presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fast a fact exist based on known or proven existence of some other group of egg of fax so before we sworn anyone in a judge's gonna be required to think that both parents are fit and proper to have joint custody in the I. handouts provided by the proponents they did polling and if you'll notice in the polling one of the questions as how beneficial if at all is it for a child to have significant time with each parent assuming both parents are fit willing to be parents and live within a reasonable distance of each other. Not surprisingly eighty percent found that to be extremely beneficial. That's what three assumptions this bill is asking for the court to make those assumptions about the litigants that come into their court right and then instead of having the courts were everybody and start everybody on equal footing which will notice and those suggested language an exhibit eighty we use the Kentucky statute that would say okay Senator Clark is and what is favored me what is favored me what means this means both parents are here on equal footing within say that let's make it say that everybody understands what that means representative Cllr you asked about financial resources let me tell you why this is going to be bad if you have the financial resources are you know you don't have the financial resources you know that whether or not it's in the best interest of your child that joint custody could can't should be awarded for your child based on a number of scenarios you don't have the money to fight that's you just have to agree to that I don't care about parent one appearance you in that case but that's gonna be bad for the kid you can tell by the handouts that you have before you there were provided by the proponents that's pretty expensive handout everybody here that speak for the bill they have active litigation or they were recently in case that thing cost money I use my copy machine in office and into stacks of paper my client can afford does he knows they can't afford the experts you don't need experts in a criminal case to do elements of an of a crime because the factual did the defendant enter into the building did the defendant cause damage that is required expert it's in the ordinary comprehension of a lay person who is sitting in the jury stand everything in domestic court is about feelings about understanding it's a he said she said it's about is someone trying to alienate is some things that are lasting in March of twenty twenty the Arkansas Supreme Court made a very strong case and pacey pace you will have heard me talk about this case before back on January twenty seventh. Please refer to the cases in the handout this is already the law with their questions for this witness. Saying nine thank you for your testimony. Next we have Brian Vandiver to speak for. Thank you chair members of the committee the opportunity to speak in support of this good bill I ask you to vote for it my name is Brian Vandiver I'm attorney been practicing for twenty years in this area. And the reason I'm here today I am a father of three children and I'm advocating not for myself but for parents moms and dads in the future that come through our system because I've seen it I've experienced it. It's a system where if the preponderance of the evidence the feather feather of evidence falls one way or the other that's the difference between being a custody of a parent or being a visitor relegated every other weekend. In a lot of you a lot of them and said. Presumption of clear and convincing evidence is too high. What's not too high it's appropriately high. These cases are important they're deciding fundamental rights between children and their parents you're not car wreck case. These are cases that will impact people's lives forever. And so we should start. Where the parents shared equal custody if both parents are fit parents our policy is a state to require clear and convincing evidence why joint custody in equal time with each parent is not proper period full stop. This is consistent with protecting the rights of the children and the parents. And it also read will reduce litigation contrary to what you've heard the studies from Kentucky and Arizona clearly show that litigation is reduced when it when you have a presumption of the joint custody. Now I'll give you some other examples because I am an attorney and I know I know the law and we all share the same degree I don't practice family law but I I practice law I could take divorce cases Martha wanted to choose not to. But I understand the clear and convincing burden of proof and it's elsewhere in our law where important interest or and state for example defamation against a public figure like elected representatives if you want to prove defamation against the newspaper or someone in the public you have to prove that by clear and convincing evidence why because that protects this free speech rights of the public if we want to in Arkansas the ward punitive damages against a corporation you have to prove that by clear and convincing evidence why we protect corporations and other tort defendants from punitive damages. If a party to a contract or a will want to change the terms of the written agreement you have to do that with clear and convincing evidence that was not the intent of the parties why because we protect the parties in that agreement are these types of cases less important in those I think not child custody cases are some of the most important cases in our system why should we let let a feather of evidence tip the scales one way or the other that impacts the lives of children and parents forever we shouldn't that's why this burden is so important why it's so crucial and it's why you hear a lot of family law attorneys argue against it because they know they know it will reduce litigation. And that's the point. To reduce litigation to lessen the conflict to take families who were throwing these petty grievances against each other out of the court system encourage them to sell because if they know going into the litigation if if any attorney knows the law is changed they will tell that parent you should find about this because you don't have really a chance of these petty grievances you remain real evidence to change. Custody finally this bill is about equality it's about friendly quality about gender equality if you believe in quality how can you vote against this bill. Because we know the stats show that eighty percent including I appreciate you very much I ask you to support this bill any questions for this witness I'd be happy to answer any questions seeing nine thank you for your testimony thank you. Next we have Michelle Huff speaking against. Please introduce yourself for me please introduce yourself. Okay good afternoon my name is Michelle Huff I am a circuit judge in the third judicial district up in a circuit judge now for a little over two years I practiced law for twenty five years prior to becoming judge and I did practice in the area of domestic relations and that is primarily what I handle now I'm here on behalf of the Arkansas judicial council and on behalf of myself to oppose this bill. Of everyone's already talked about the standard I want to talk to you about practical points and I'm gonna tell you what I do now I am a brand new not brand new but I'm a new judge and I can tell you that this is currently the law I don't see any reason to change it when people walk into my court room and it's a contested custody case I always ask them the law says the joint custody is favored in Arkansas what should not grant joint custody here and usually I will get a the parties live a hundred fifty miles apart they live in separate school districts will go tell me I'll hear it later and we'll get into it when I have a temporary case when the parties live in the same school district almost every time I will grant temporary joint custody then I get to see how they're getting along when we get to the final that is the law so it's hard for me to imagine the judges are just ignoring that if you have a case with a good where you have two good involved parents that's what you're going to do if it's at all possible but one thing that I always asked my practice before when someone came in and one of the is what you want because the devil is always in the details is it that you want more time sometimes it wasn't really about time the person wanted to not pay child support and we spent a lot of effort and a lot of time creating the new administrative order ten which is fabulous it takes into account both parents incomes but it says that if both parents have a hundred forty seven nights or more than the child support goes down and I'm terribly worried about that disparate impact on on low wage earners in which is primarily a lot of times going to be women in the impact it's gonna have on the children also control control sometimes it's not really about time with the children it's about control believe it or not I've seen cases where it's my week and it's prom and you can't come over and take pictures it's my week and I'm going to do this and you can't come the problem is we're gonna be doing this in the initial determination and I would argue that it's going to create more litigation. Because then when they can't get along then the gonna have to come back I want ADHD medicine in my week well I don't so there there's a huge can of worms paternity I've got a brand new six week old baby born to a nineteen year old mother and twenty year old father that are not married joint custody joint custody the presumption so of paternal grandma and dad want to have that cute every other week I mean I've got a fuss and now not want to go because the breast feeding sorry honey Daddy's going to visit that kid get a breast pump that's just the way it is and I know the first six cases I had a rule in favor of the father and I got worried that that was going to be a problem but I can't look at everything after look at what's in front of me that's what we get paid to do judges judge when I went to Reno couple years ago we were given the book you are no longer a lawyer you were judging one thing really hit me in that book this is a retired judge said if you handle domestic relations cases remember don't split the baby it's not fair to the baby and that is the only thing that matters I cannot tell you how many times I've heard from a parent but it's not fair it's not fair I need I'm supposed to get fifty percent it's about getting fifty percent not about what's best for the child do you want to go every other week and pack up and go to somebody else's house and stay that we can come back or every two days every three days some kids do and if they're teenagers that's different if it's a two year old and a four year old they need more structure but if you put this in place that's what we're going to be bound with even in paternity and remember sometimes we've got cases where people have never been married and they've been separated for five years and then it comes to mind is come completed okay thank you thank you for your kind remarks about the child support charges on the committee that worked on that one thank you all right next we have speak for the bill Patrick Fraley. Manager. Thank you madam chair members of committee my name is Patrick Fraley I mean ET Dr in Conway Arkansas in a founder of Arkansas advocates for princely quality I've been a noncustodial parent for over thirteen years and my son is almost sixteen so the outcome of this bill isn't gonna change anything for me and my family but it will change things for the people who contact my organization for help on a regular basis and there's many out there. so I'm an answer some of the questions a lot of you have had there are several states will be issued a lot of states that are trying to get a presumption joint custody because it this is something that's sweeping the nation for good reason this is Missouri New Mexico Ohio North Carolina among others Texas actually has a bill right now to overturn their long out dated presumption of every other weekend custody on that to sink in in Texas they still have a presumption you should have your child every other weekend. And even though what I mean that seems foreign to us but there's actually their family law lobbying group is continue to oppose that bill. as of now there are two states with presumptions doing custody as someone mentioned that is Arizona Kentucky Arizona did come in the case law written came with their line twenty thirteen that required maximizing parenting time with each parent the difference is there courts interpreted that to be a presumption and that's been clear in the law ever since as opposed to when we set favored records came back and said but it's not favored so that's the difference that's why that law is exactly happening here if we can't we can't model after there's the other states Kentucky the past presumption for temporary orders in twenty seventeen and then because that was successful and popular they pop a the demand for permanent orders in twenty eighteen and you want to point out that these actually apply to modifications as well so in in some ways these men further than our bill in each case there is opposition saying how just disasters the outcome of those bills would be but the thing is the disaster never happened instead other states so um citing them as positive examples and want to follow in twenty eighteen there was uh journal legal journal that publishes study on what they're legal professionals thought of their presumption in Arizona and overall the thought of it as positive in best interest of the child and they did not see any increase in litigation. So again no increase in litigation when they've actually had in law. And then in Kentucky a public opinion surveys have been positive towards it and then as mentioned there domestic their office of the courts other domestication is falling five percent of each of the years following implementation of the law. An. The some mention has been made of the public opinion poll I want to point out that this is a weighted public opinion poll done properly by official polling groups eighty seven percent supported a presumption of joint custody so that's a very high number it's hard to get anybody to create anything nowadays but eighty seven percent supported presumption joint custody another finding was that seventy eight percent felt that awarding custody to one parent over the other increased conflict between parents so for years we care judges and attorneys argue for primary custody as a solution to parental conflict the thing is so custody awards are part of the problem not part of the solution. Some mentions also been made this best interest standard this isn't this came out after the maternal preference was was given up and replaced it on paper it appeared flexible child focused and gender neutral but in practice it is not without its critics it's it's credited with creating the high conflict manager of an industry in family courts that we know today it's been too flexible to produce predictable results so if there's no objective basis to predict the custody outcome at least you prolonged and contentious litigation that's detrimental to children when you have no objective basis and you have to decide between to fit parents the star inviting biases about gender parenting styles and cultural values to make over your decisions this excessive discretion put judges in a position they were never intended to be and the presumption of joint custody restores a degree of predictability and provides a backdrop of the quality starting twenty quality for both parties to to lead in okay any questions for this witness. Seeing none thank you for your testimony thank you. We had W. lance Owens speaking against the bill. Is Mr Owens in the audience. And not seeing him we have Kathy Compton. Eking against the bill. Thank you madam chair committee on Catholic on leased please that. Turn on your my input toward you a little bit. It's read there you go you got it I'm Cathy Compton a circuit judge for Pulaski and Perry counties just completed a six year term DO in probate and domestic work I'm now doing all criminal but I had a lot of interest in this bill but calls on it you know. Represent Gazaway when I started practicing law in the Piney woods of south Arkansas we still had the tender years doctor so I know all about that. But. I've been sitting here listening and as I read the bill I don't understand what problem we're trying to fix that's not already. Been fixed as a circuit judge I started with the statutory presumption that joint custody was what we're going to do if we could. I believe very firmly in joint custody I've read the studies I know the statistics children moved for better. But I did that throughout my term as a as a domestic relations judge I started with the presumption that you all have told me I start with. That joint custody should be what we do and then starting with that we go into what's in the best interest of the child one is it in the best interest of the child so I've been sitting here the whole afternoon that we've been talking about this wondering what. Problem is that we're trying to fix because I already did all of that judge hello of already did all of that all of my colleagues already do all the things that you're asking for now I do think that we've seen attrition taking care of part of this problem older judges they were chancery judges the older judges primarily male primarily white grew up in a generation in which they didn't believe. That they should have joint custody they didn't believe in that they thought the woman was the one who stayed home they carried the tender years doctrine well past its actual law all the time that it was the law. But attrition has taken care of the bulk of that problem. You all know that. We have to retire when we're seventy or we give up all or retirement so that also has taken care of a large part of the problem we have judges now. Who believe in joint custody and who start with joint custody of their presumption. So I think this is. A problem that somebody has created in their head because maybe they didn't like the outcome of their case. Because this is what we do. Every day. And Allen use up all my time but I'm here for questions if anybody has any. Representative Hudson. Our representative has in which you press your Mike again there we go okay we got. Thank you for being here so you mention a couple of times that this is more or less what the bench is already doing so why would you say that this new bill would be bad. Well everybody's already talked about the burden of proof I think the presumption I made that clear and convincing evidence is primarily used for constitutional issues and it's very hot burden as by the Arkansas Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court have told us repeatedly so I don't think we need to get into that also echo what some others have said this is a bill asking for. Any quality because of the money it's going to take some litigants to overcome that murder any bird there's a there's I don't have the bill up here with me but there's a provision in there for if I if I don't if I didn't I keep forgetting I'm not doing this anymore if I didn't give joint custody I'm supposed to say. All these factors about the child's mental health and emotional health and physical health I'm not a doctor I'm not a therapist I have a lot of training in the law. I don't have training. In Madison or mental health. That's that's not what I'm looking for I'll look at all the things that tell me what is in the best interest of the children because even back in the dark ages when we did operate under the tender years doctrine even then. It was still the rule that we looked for what was in the best interest of the children. That's what we did. Follow up madam chair yes it thank you for that and because of this I was thinking about that is you testified I am a and I don't know if you've had the benefit of looking at this amendment or not but since we do have a judge up here I wanted to ask you about something in section one of the original bill it says that this will apply to an action for divorce or an action to modify custody order now in the new amended section one it says it will be in a divorce or paternity matter. To me I have some concerns about a paternity matter because in my understanding the character of that type of proceeding is much different and I wondered if you could talk a little bit about that I'm glad you asked that question the character is way different and you know for one thing. The Arkansas law as it stands right now says that a single mother is the parent of until there's been no proof of paternity so a lot of times we have people coming in the court of seeking joint custody and they hadn't even been declared. The actual father yeah there's been no DNA tested but nothing but say well my name is on the birth certificate okay. But so in paternity cases I think this would be a real disaster and I hate to say something that says in delicate is this but what of what we see often in paternity cases or very young people who barely know one another. That's just the nature of the beast teenagers. Will be teenagers what can also. I think it would be a disaster for paternity case. J. saying no more questions thank you for your testimony thank you. Next speaking for the Bill Stephen bright. Please introduce yourself. Thank you madam chair. Structure members of the committee I am Stephen bright I have a unique perspective and all of this it done I'm one of the few testifying today that set your position I was a member of this body for six years from two thousand to two thousand six Back in two thousand three. I got a call from a constituent. And they asked if they could come to the capitol and they met with staff and was a minority couple in my district and they were. They were young I've been married about ten years He had been divorced had a seven year old child. I'm. I walked into the side office and they had a stack of papers was about a foot and a half that. And they started telling me all the tragedies of their. The court case and how. He had been through so much court and he was seeing his daughter one day a week and every other weekend if he was lucky if he made his ex wife mad she would hold withhold custody or visitation. In his wife was telling me what I'm an amazing husband and father he was. And. I walked out of that meeting that day and saying it couldn't be that bad. Stacking a half a foot and half stack it couldn't be that bad. I've not heard anything about this. I seem to be a pretty informed legislator. I met with him several more times and I just. Could not wrap my head around it I was on the Judiciary Committee at the time. So I ask members of that committee asked members of the bar I ask members of AOC. Isn't this back. I said absolutely not this was in two thousand three back in two thousand three we passed up a wall that says you may. Consider joint custody. It's been twenty years guys. I go back to that couple I told them over and over over I didn't think that I could do anything for them. What they were asking me to pass back then was just to give him the right to love his children. To be the dad that he promised him that he could be. They walked out of my meetings more dejected more heart. Thank you thank. Shame on me. When I asked the members of the committee and the A. L. C. in the the board session at this bad they said no it's not that bad. Shame on them. Five years later I sat in the same exact position is that young couple. I was going through a contentious divorce. All sorts of accusations. Very good fodder for the front page. I realize it's not that bad. It's a hell of a lot worse. Judge moody just said she doesn't know why we're here I will tell you something about judge meeting she was my judge. And she is one fine judge and I told her this two weeks ago I don't even know she remembers running into me at lunch. Almost all this content I'm so sorry. In. She took notes she did everything that she could to make sure that the best interest of my children were taking place. My first judge have been divorced twice I was a bad husband a good father. I ask for your support this amendment in this but this bill thank you so much for your time any questions for this witness. C. nine thank you for your testimony. I apologize to judge. Thank includes all of our speaking we don't have any body else signed up to speak against the rest of the witnesses are speaking for Matthew Ingle. You madam chair and members of the committee my name is Matthew Ingle and I'm here today is a noncustodial parent I'm not an expert I'm just a father who wants the opportunity to add more never other we. I have a son and two daughters my son was born was in the middle of a five year enlistment in the United States Marine Corps after returned home in two thousand eleven I went to court to establish paternity joint custody was a favorite of the times on it up with visitation just every other weekend. I'm currently employed as a police officer I'll be graduating law school in may. The reason I went to law schools because what because one of experience in the family court walls of seen first hand that what is happening to fit parent is not only unfair but more importantly not in the best interest of the children. Now also I wanna make sure it's clear I'm a law student I'm not a lawyer therefore not here speaking about joint custody as a professional in the legal field. to speak of my experiences and observations as a father that's been fighting for equal time with my son for the last twelve years. just a little bit about my background I've spent my entire adult life serving others in the military as a police officer I have no criminal record of no substance abuse issues I'm not provided anybody with any reason to believe that I'm an unfit parent. Of the eleven I got me involved in this issue started when I try to get joint causing two thousand nineteen. My son and his mother lived about a hundred sixty miles away from me but they moved within eleven miles of my house which may joint custody feasible. I ask the this person's mother she would agree to joint custody and she said now so after refusal a petition the court to modify to a joint custody arrangement thinking that the laws have changed in the joint because he was not favored. In denied my request for joint custody circuit judge said that it would be unfair to punish the mother from moving closer to the father by modifying custody and held that they're not gonna sufficient change of circumstances need to modify the previous or group agreement which that agreement was nine years old. Before making this ruling the circuit judges said that he had no doubt that both parents were loving and involved parents and that both parties were fit parents. The twenty thirteen amendment to nine thirteen one on one meeting Clear this public policy in the state of Arkansas is one because is favored but if courts are refusing to award joint custody to parents of the court finds to be loving unfit parents it appears that given joint custody of favored status did not have its intended effect. Since twenty nineteen it's been approximately ten thousand dollars in court costs and attorney's fees to try to get something that was supposedly favored Arkansas is money that should have been usable for my sons to. the legislators eggs the legislature has acknowledged that it's important for children to have frequent continuing contact with both parents when is in the best interest of the children in no way is limiting a fit noncustodial parents time with their child in the child's best interest to fit parent should be equally involved in every part of the child's life they should both be given equal opportunity to bond with the child. These things are on some possible to the they are impossible to accomplish when a parents only allow visitation every other weekend every other weekend arrangement facilitates alienation but between the child and the non custodial parent it's impossible for a child to treat both parents as if they're equal when the custody arrangement shows the child both parents are not equal. You know whenever I went to court in twenty nineteen and her to turn my attorney is here and has spoken against joint custody what I keep hearing is that it's the walls are working as they are will my attorney seen firsthand that the law laws aren't working the way they should be If you get in this regard rebuttable presumption for joint custody would ensure that any future parent who wants to be involved in their child's life can be a parent rather than every other weekend visitor for these reasons I'm asking for your support for senate bill eighteen that our support Senate bill eighteen I ask you the same thank you for your time. Not on next we have representative Jay Richardson speaking for the bill. Thank you madam chair Jay Richardson district seventy eight I'll be very brief of most of the items have already been shared with you guys so a couple of wanted to follow up from six from some constituents of one of the points made in this bill and SB eighteen is the benefit of the shared parenting provision that places both parents and equal footing and we've heard that said already today and are many people in my district as well as attorney friend of mine who says that this is definitely a benefit in addition it will make making more difficult for a lot for an alienating parent to gain or have an upper hand during this litigation so this bill will alleviate that and give more ownership or give them the opportunity to really work through these issues again of thank you for your time and those are just the comments that I needed to make. Speaking for Marcus Lewis. To the Committee thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you today my name is Marcus Lewis I was born and raised here in Little Rock attended Parkview high school graduate from Philander Smith College with a degree in business I'm an artist and an entrepreneur I'm here to Andrew Lewis and we have three wonderful children two daughters from a previous marriage and one son from my wife's previous marriage I want to speak with you today about the importance of senate bill eighteen this bill has the power to million families and relationships between parents and their children when I divorced about nine years ago it was the hardest experience I've ever deal with in my entire life I spent thousands of dollars on lawyers and I feel that I had filled my children because I was told by Jewish I can see my children four times a month and speak to them two times a week I was devastated I went from seeing my children every day to four times a month after numerous attempts to see my children outside my visitation I was told by my children's mother I would not see my daughter's outside of my court ordered visitation the last nine years have been a nightmare I attempted to gain joint custody of my daughters two times and I've been denied twice one may ask if you've been denied twice you've obviously done something wrong in regards to your children that assumption is the farthest thing from the truth I've never been to jail I'm always present always been employed and always active in my children's schooling and extracurricular activities so again why would a father that is willing and able be denied joint custody of their own children the reason is because the system is broken and it has put money over presence with regard to children involved and neither of my custody hearings was I asked how many band and choir recitals how about metes I was never asked how many visitation pickles up missed I was never asked why is it so important to me to be in my children's lives this type of question is speaks directly to this bill that states the presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of the children maybe we brought it if the court finds clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not the best interest of Jewish. We often wonder what is a three it in the fabric of solutions as to how we as a whole can fix so many of today's problems with the U. drug abuse martyrs incarceration in a school one solution is getting our homes and families back in order strong family structure is the backbone of our community Senate bill eighteen is the start to this process children need stable and loving environments in order to thrive most of all the any willing and loving parents to help create this environment we often use the phrase the best interests of the children how can it shall thrive no one the only see one parent four times a month psychologically this is been scientifically proven to cause various types of anxiety for children sixty three percent of suicides ninety percent of homes and run away eighty five percent of those in prison all come from single House bills. Single parent households enclosing senate bill eighteen isn't about Marcus Lewis my door is up fourteen and twelve years of age and many in a few years they'll be adults in my career that I've done enough or say it's something that will influence them to be productive citizens I'm here for the parent they cried themselves to sleep at night due to missing there check out I'm here for the pair to eats lunch with their child at school just so they can lay eyes on them outside of the visitation most of all I'm here because all children need both of their parents equally senate bill eighteen provides that right an opportunity I ask that you vote yes for two for the children of Arkansas thank you. See no questions thank you for your testimony thank you. Robin Secrest. The secrets we don't have displace committee thank you you know we do not have displays. Thank you I apologize for that good afternoon thank you for allowing me to speak in support of Senate bill eighteen my name is robin Seacrest and Senate bill eighteen is very significant to me. In less than eighteen months my brother Stephen Barton of Huntsville Arkansas went from being a legally married active involved loving father of two beautiful children. To taking his own life this past September ninth two thousand twenty due to the unsparing family court system that failed him and failed his children. Stephens utmost happiness in life came as a result of the birth of his daughter and his son. He loves his children immensely. Proudly shared all of their accomplishments became a stay at home dad for a period of time. Played with coached and cheered for them. Stephen showed his children affection mentored them and provided countless experiences during his time with them. He enjoyed fishing with his son. And actually would stock a nearby pond with fish so when his son came to visit there was sure to be the excitement of a catch. But above anything else he just enjoyed spending time together with his daughter and his son. Stephens children meant everything to him. After thirteen years of marriage Steven's wife filed for divorce in two thousand nineteen. She with an attorney and he without council agreed to a settlement order which ultimately led to his alienation from his own children. In his divorce the custody and visitation provision gave primary custody to the mom and that they would agree on his visitation schedule however it stated in the event the parties are unable to agree upon particular schedules wife shall have the final say. Stephen good natured willingness to be amicable and sign a document he trusted would enable them to move on with a structured separated family was written by an attorney and signed off by a judge. Within a short time this order was weaponized to eliminate my brother from the lives of his children because his ex wife was legally able to dictate when and if he could see and communicate with his own children. With no end in sight continuing litigation financial devastation and strained access to his children even being excluded from both of their milestone birthday celebrations. Stephen made the fatal decision to take his own life. If it turns judges and the law recognized the importance and value of both parents in the lives of their children. My brother's suicide would have never happened. The right fit and loving parents should be protected. Stephens eighth grade daughter my knees and his fifth grade son my nephew will now live the rest of their lives needlessly without their father this could have been prevented if joint custody was truly the standard. Stephen loved his children and they love their father and the destruction of their clearly evident loving Bond it's heartbreaking it is crushing to read tax and cards from Stevens children expressing their love for him pleading for more time with him and writing mom knows we really really want to see you I'm sorry your time is completed thank you for your testimony. And please support Senate bill eighteen the best interest of children. Next we have Allen McKenzie. Thank you madam chair and members of the committee. Can you imagine being a physician and recognizing it deadly but treatable disease and your child and yet you can't get them the help you need. That they need. I don't have to imagine it because I've lived it. Fortunately by this time last year with the help of children's hospital social workers and the threat of DHS involvement I expels was finally coerced into getting our seventeen year old daughter the in patient treatment that she desperately needed in order to survive this followed months of a down downward spiral the my wife and I recognized even her principal at Central High School and friends and patient of mine and see Russo was calling and texting me about getting your help but we couldn't you see her mother as the self proclaimed ultimate decision maker and we were powerless until Chandler was so ill the medical establishment insisted that she go in patient. At this point Chandler seventeen years old five feet four inches tall and weighed eighty seven pounds pulses and thirties and she was at risk of sudden cardiac death. Again I'm doctor Allen mackenzie M. a family medicine physician and father of three Chandler eighteen jet fourteen back eleven I was previously married for fourteen years and divorced in two thousand twelve. I am remarried and my wife is also a family practice physician and we have the children twenty six percent of the time and we have no medical decision making rights. No of OR any decision making authority for that matter primary custodianship for the mother and visitation for the father was the standard when I divorced. Is taken nine year battle hundreds and hundreds of hours wasted and tens of thousands of dollars spent on attorneys at law items therapist. And co parenting therapist. And I'm hoping that we're going to get there but this bill won't fix my problems either. The biggest losses suffered have been by my children story about Chandler's anorexia is by far the most extreme example of their mothers reckless behavior that went unchecked but there are many many more severe asthma exacerbation suffered by my son Beckham due to non compliance with medication in his mother's house is yet another issue where I had to involve DHS. to order her to given the day medicine he needed to keep as long as healthy yet another example my kids were nearly kicked out of school for lack of vaccinations keep in mind a family doctor that's the business I'm in and yet I couldn't help my own children. You ladies and gentlemen have the power to make decrease parental rights a position that needs proven with clear and convincing evidence I never left my children but I did leave a person who changed meanwhile I've never changed and I've been there for them then tire time. I left a person who chose alcohol over me and I became a court appointed Naylor who gives or forty five hundred dollars a month in child support this used to fund her life while she didn't work for sixteen years. I work two jobs and paid a large about child support and provide a constant health insurance. Providing for rock Children is not a problem that watching them suffer and having no rights to help them is. Joint custody provides checks and balances that would have allowed me to help my children and keep them from suffering medical neglect and psychological abuse for nine years it's been a nightmare please vote yes for senate bill eighteen. Parents like me need your help. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. G. nine Indelicato. She's going to pass our last witness is Michael Devine. Madam chairwoman members of the House thank you for allowing me to speak. Some of which shall cover. Or won't cover now it's been stated but I will review wasn't gonna talk from a financial status standpoint but it's come up the number of times I'm currently unemployed but previously worked on a number of the political campaigns was the manager of a steel plant in Blytheville Arkansas which I had about three hundred fifty employees That work for me and I was responsible for the course plant safety most importantly on performance for that as a resident manager resident vice president senior financial consultant with the firm Merrill Lynch graduated university of Iowa no attended George Washington University. my family on both sides is been. Financially fortunate which sometimes is the more. Harm than anything but from a financial standpoint when it comes to experts in such at the end of the the ruling initial ruling my divorce Update all the attorney at law litem fees was ordered to do so that all of the my attorney's fees my ex attorneys ex wife's attorney's fees all funds and cost the most important which is relevant really to me that was with the help family but the most important thing to me my daughter is now eleven years old Elizabeth van and she was also the unexpected don't think the term or words were brought up teenagers be teenagers adults will be adults sometimes to met mine. Now ex wife just dated three months handed a positive pregnancy test I'm Roman Catholic was given alternative and I'd never change it alternative the. As I have even known not nearly what I should have as a father I'm gonna lose but then here on this or I think the preponderance of the evidence. Is an absolutely ridiculous criteria to meet because when you run into and they're out there crooked collusion on judges who just may not like your attitude or what you have to say they can use fifty percent plus further and the I've had done to me through the court system I was filed on June twenty six of twenty seventeen so this is still going on eleven of the twelve judges in my district a circuit judges recused themselves from a case on down to one last judges currently before out of the stated short visits of approximately twenty two hundred hours you're supposed to have I have my daughter two hundred ten hours the eight hours a day. Two days a month on Saturday and Sunday. The card the judges in the past and now recused themselves made those decisions and are being investigated by the number of agencies and commissions. My daughter lives within who used to go to church with me all the time now thinks that the Catholic Church per mother is a is a blood church when I asked her why because Jesus is hanging on the cross in our church and there's blood trickling down from his hands and his feet from being crucified I wasn't even allowed to pearly attorney in line and take my daughter Elizabeth land to my younger twin sisters funeral about a year and a half ago she passed away from an aneurysm to forty six years old. Well thank you but it was gonna be a sad molds are your chances concurrent thank you in a the trustee will support this bill thank you very much senator Clark would you like to close for your bill. I don't chair members of the committee appreciate your great patience but this I believe is one the most important bills of the session. If we didn't have COVID restrictions. I could feel this. Three up. At least this. With fathers and grandmothers I had some grandmothers as the let me contest hi. About what this is done to our family from a female's perspective. I'm not going to tell you that all the people who didn't get custody have. But what judge Compton said It should think there was any problem with this maybe people had sour grapes visiting it their way. We have a different relationship with our constituents and the. They're not all raw. They're not all right. I told you a lot of what they would say. The things that they told me they wanted fixed. We fixed I didn't think it would matter. I was right. That's what we presented the amendment today. Kentucky cases are down since they passed this. Or something similar to it for whatever reason by ten percent. They act like we would break the system and somehow the system is perfect now. What. I'm with the group that thinks if anything costs will go down. But they act like money doesn't matter now. They they act like there's not a huge envelopes now and I haven't seen the ball or I haven't seen the judges local I really do but I haven't seen him do a blank thing about this when the things the senator Judiciary the despondency inequity in the system between money and no money. But if you think it's not already there. And somehow this makes it there. That's garbage. People who have had means have spent six figures just to try to get to where this bill starts. Sometimes you are speaking to young men like Jay Robb inspector who represent that's the judges. Because I've seen it so many times. In the end user you think it's not gonna happen to you but I thought you just don't know young men just like you young professionals nothing nothing wrong. And the next thing they know. They're on the outside looking in. In this perfect system we have now that doesn't need any changes. The first George said that it's hard to imagine that judges are ignoring it. I gave you this handout. This is the Judiciary. Until a few weeks ago. Thirty the legislature passed a law that so we favor joint custody but we don't. Hard to imagine that the judges are ignoring it. And then argued time after time against joint custody. I knew that their skill litigators that's what they do for a living there good order orders. We just Compton said. There is no problem. And I heard this so many times. And then said but attrition is solving the problem. There is no problem the judges are following the law but the tradition is solving the problem that doesn't exist. I don't know you know math is my strong suit never work. And then the case we heard. And this is not unusual for some the judges are wonderful judges. And the what was written down in the case is it's because I hear all the time about best interest of the child. And I catch on and I turn it around the room because it would if we care but it's best interest of the child we have thirteen and I I love the Director DC of us we work really well together they have thirteen hundred employees you know and we had to fight we had to fight the system because we all knew that visitation will help get families back together and we only had like one hour every two weeks and passed a law that said flowers no one we couldn't do it and when the best time for families to visit. In the evening. But we don't have not shift because it ain't about the best interest of the famed kids it's about what suits our system. What works for us. I wish it was about best interests of the children. This is about what best interests of the children I wish the one therapist who was here test five never laid eyes on or before season want to close it will represent Gazaway I'd love for her to present the bill on the floor. Because Marcus Lewis said what did I do wrong. I can answer that you're the father. That's what you did wrong. So over judges are doing a wonderful job but not all of them. And when they don't listen to us they're not listening to the people. This is the right thing to do. We have worked in every way we could to take in all the codes and everything that they said we fix those and what will he didn't show it to us and we still want and here's the problems. New problems and if I fix those. There be new problems. Because they don't want to change. As the fact we passed bill two thousand thirteen and it has been followed. It was placed the judges thanks for the call. So I'm asking you. For the sake of children. That need to parents. That we start all. Here. I wish so much but nobody ever split up. The no kid ever had to go back and forth. We can't fix that they can't fix that. I wish that no parents ever used the children as pawns that's not their fault. I wish the parents weren't selfish and cared more about their cells and and you and what rather you circuit to fight with each other that's not their fault but it's not everybody and we know. We have evidence that joint custody actually cuts down. And that would be a great thing to do. So I ask you humbly. That you give us a chance to do something else. Could you give me a chance to do something different. And that we really put children first by recognizing that we should start with two parents and if you can really show good reasons why not and there are some loss where there are really good reasons. Then changes. Because the people said so through the legislature. I trust you to make a good decision appreciate a good vote. What are the wishes of the committee. I have a motion do pass. Do pass is that do pass as amended I have a motion do pass as amended all in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The bill passes. Thank you madam chair thank you Committee. Committee thank you for your good work today it's been very long you've been very attentive and I appreciate your efforts we