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

Nice. Thank you thank you madam chairman and members this is a of a resolution to recognize cool wrecked the council awareness month national the month of March is colorectal cancer month and all this bill does is to make us aware of how did Lee and Davis colorectal cancer you and also that's was no we can get treatment time that we can also say about why so this is more or less an awareness bill and I'll be more than glad to go in details but I know you all have a very long agenda but I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for representative Alan. Representative garner. Did you have your hand up for your I think you're just reaching to jacking are seeing no questions representative Allen would you like to close for resentment questions. K. we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The representative Allen on a personal note my son and my brother are both survivors of colorectal cancer so thank you for bringing this thank you and I think last session you have this amendment I mean this resolution of or not mistaken been the two carat one session yes yes thank you and I'm glad that your families as we covered thank you and yes well. Is that representative Womack in the audience. Without objection I'm going to bring representative Womack for house bill one six six six he assures me it is very very short. Representative Womack you are recognized thank you madam chair and committee I would be happy to answer any questions this is a bill from all it that is just some technical changes that it adds about ten words of the the point of that is just make sure that all can keep doing his job and without an attorney using some word as a trick so we added a few words to match existing language so all I can do is work and I'll be happy to answer any questions if there are any. Committee do you have any questions representative Womack. Seeing nine representative one act would you like to close or now then I think I'm close thank you for letting the president and I would appreciate a good vote. Right we have a motion that we have a motion do pass is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed say now. And that the bill passes thank you madam chair committee thank you. And without objection I'm going to go to representative brown who is here to present senate bill four one one representative brown you're recognized. Thank you madam chair representative Carolyn brown in I would like for money. S.. To introduce himself definitely the German I'm awesome blues on the chief of staff in the CFO for the Arkansas department of Veterans Affairs we may need you to move that Mike a little closer. Is that better much better thank you thank you. today we are presenting House bill or Senate bill four eleven to allow our state veterans cemeteries to charge the same be. That are and correct me if I'm wrong just charge the same fee for the burial of a spouse bills are federal cemeteries charge in to allow our state cemeteries to charge they have not been charging but to allow them to charge that same fee for disinterment of a veterans or spouse or eligible dependent. Yes that's correct Arkansas Code twenty eighty one one twelve kind of lays out the revenue structure for the Arkansas state veterans cemetery right now we receive eight hundred and seven dollars for the basically an award from the Federal BA whenever we enter an eligible veteran at either one of our state veterans cemeteries the same code section also gives the authority to collect three hundred dollars from an eligible dependent if they want to be entered with their eligible better in which nine times out of ten is a spouse we're just trying to ensure revenue parity to insure that the amount we can collect from an eligible dependent matches what we're receiving from the federal VA so it would raise the three hundred dollars up to eight hundred and seven dollars. Not I'd like to comment in full disclosure as you know our state veterans cemeteries they are funded through the state the state budget and I have some products served on the foundation that supports the veteran center state cemetery in north little rock for the last eleven years and our foundation functions to support the cemetery whenever her specially whenever there is a lack of funds for particular needs and things have arc in the budget so to be able to charge this additional fee would be most appreciated. Because you know what cut what operate on small margins. Are there any questions by the committee representative berry. Thank you madam chairman and Mr boot good to see you again but also so the dependence of would follow the same guidelines is a dependent burial is what we do with our our federal centers that correct yes Sir that's correct okay thank you thank you jim. I'm not seeing any other questions is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill. Against the bill. Would you like to close for your bill representative brown. Thank you madam chair I am close for the bill and I would appreciate a good vote. I have represented Brown is closed for the bill do I have a motion. Senator berry makes a motion do pass any discussion. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no. And the bill passes thank you very much committing madam chair. And last on our agenda we have a house bill one thousand and six representative Lowery is bringing this back to our committee today. Committee please keep in mind that the amendment has already been adopted. To the house bill one thousand and six. Representa Lowery you might want to read that amendment to us just remind us of what it is do you have a copy with you yes I do all right thank you. And representative Lowery you're recognized. Thank you madam chairman thank you members. There there's a been some confusion it's probably mostly on my part of you did adopt an amendment when I presented the first time but the bill that had been out there did not show the amendment that was because it's been explained to me Blake explained to me that once a the bill fails as amended it doesn't end up being engrossed or whatever but The Amendment specifically took care of the main concern that the judicial council had which was establishing a burden of proof the burden of proof on the relocating parents of that burden of proof issues been taken away and it then with that amendment the judicial council is not opposed to this bill as a matter of fact if you remember the judge has sat down here next to me really was just supposed to sit here and say that they were not oppose that they were neutral and if you remember his testimony actually was very supportive he said that there's nothing in this bill that is problematic in terms of their adjudication or their exercising of of their responsibilities. I'm not gonna spend a lot of time running over this again because I don't want to keep you but basically the build it's not something that just came out of thin air this is legislation that route that and I really could not find a summary that talks about how many states of this application takes place but there are a number of states that when a custodial parent relocates more than a certain amount of miles and and what the the information I got is that that can range anywhere from sixty miles to in the state of Utah because there's the it's so widespread a hundred and fifty miles from their listed domiciled the the address that they listed with the court that when they move outside of whatever that predetermined period is according to state statute that they have a an obligation to notify the court and also notify the non custodial parent the state of Arkansas has no such provision of originally when I first started trying to pass this legislation several terms go I was dealing with looking at intra excuse me interstate relocation and I was told at that time that there are interstate compacts that already deal with that that if the parent is going to move out of state then they are required because of the interstate compacts to report to the state but there is no such provision for intrastate. Relocation and that's why the judicial council has worked with me the last two sessions to trying arrive at language that they would be secure with because they do feel like that a judge once they have ruled on a A divorce case a custody case they still maintain control of that case into the child is eighteen and so for a parent to move away from of one in such a way that it affects the visitation schedule of the non custodial parent the judge feels that that they should have that type of ability to review that and to consider all of the appropriate information of whether that move whether that relocation is in the best interest of the children or the child. let me let me just say to you how much I appreciate you allowing me to present this to you again and I'll and I'll just tell you bringing it to you again and bringing it before committees as I've done several times is not just because I'm hard headed and I'm persistent. this is something that affects me personally. When my children children's mom and I divorced my kids were four years old in two years old and and and I'm going to try and be very judicious in how I explain this vote within a year of our divorce my ex ex wife started seeing a gentleman who wanted to move the children and her out of state now this law this bill would not apply to that. But he wanted to move them out of state. If I had not had the resources to bring a suit myself in many. Many fathers don't and and I'm just assuming that is a situation where the father is the non custodial parent because they're paying child support and they're also having to maintain a domiciled if there's multiple children usually they're provisions that each child has to have their own bedroom so that parents that noncustodial parent has significant expenses in addition to child support so they don't always have the ability to be able to hire an attorney to file suit to go to court to force the custodial parent to come back to court I was fortunate that I had some resources limited resources and part of that process was going through series of depositions that included the boyfriend. In the process of those depositions we found out that this man had been accused of molesting his stepdaughter when he was married in a previous marriage I was able it taught that time to get joint custody and to be able to a halt that that relocation. My attorneys told me that the only way that I was going to be able to get custody is if I were able to pony up some more money and have someone in the state of Oklahoma where this gentleman had been before. To go there to unseal records of that divorce to find out exactly what the facts were of of the accusation of molestation. And to my greatest regret to this day I did not go to my parents I didn't go to my friends and ask for money for me to do that. Because within a year found out my ex wife kept seeing the gentleman and I found out that he molested my five year old daughter. If I had not had the resources. To stop. That move he would have been able to continue to groom her. To molest her to abuse her. Billy well into our teen years and her father would not have been able to be there the holder to talk due to hope hopefully get her to tell me what was going on so that I could protector. I know that this is just one anecdotal example and I'm not just saying it just so I can. Elicit sympathy. But I want you to understand that this is the case with a lot of noncustodial parents. They're doing their best to be active in their children's lives. They stretch themselves to the maximum amount enter terms of making sure that they're able to provide a loving home even when that child is to maybe just with them every other weekend. But then to also pay into maybe a college fund or to pay child support. We talk all the time about how important we believe it is that fathers stay involved in their children's lives. And yet many times we really don't step up and make sure that that is done. This is one time that you can do that and I'm making an assumption and I think you could probably say it's a fair assumption that in the case where there's not joint custody and there is a primary custodian that there still is a tendency to give primary custody to the mother and that the father is the one that is just getting visitation rights. Many of the factors that go into and it's laid out in the bill that the judge can look at into terminating in this is the main thing it is not about what is in the best interest of the custodial parent. It is what is in the best interest of the child. Now it may be in the best interest of the child that the mom is going to be earning more money. But the judge has a responsibility to weigh all the necessary factors if for instance the increase in pay that that mom is going to get because of that job really doesn't. Meet isn't enough of a difference to cover the fact that the mom has not had to pay for child care here locally. Because the grandparents. The non custodial father has been able to keep the children while they're they're working but then they want to move away and I'll just tell you and and anyone that's worked in this area of law will tell you that many times that decision to move away for another job or to go to college or whatever many times as just cover for an attempt for parental alienation. To try and separate those children from the non custodial parent. You have a great opportunity here with this bill to protect children. To act in the best interest of the child to let the judge to the judges sat here with me said there is nothing in this bill. That is problematic those were his words it doesn't prevent him from being able to adjudicate fairly what is in the best interest of the child. But if we don't pass this legislation that does judges will not even have that that opportunity they won't even have that that chance to be able to ask questions you know we've taken away the burden of proof issue okay there's not a substantial burden of proof issue on the custodial parent all the custodial parent has to do if they want to relocate more than seventy five miles and that's the distance that's closer to the the low end of what is a curse another state sixty miles two hundred fifty seventy five miles that they would be able to present their case before the judge that this is in the best interest of the child so rather than to belabor this at thank you again for allowing me to bring this back and I'm open for any questions that you may. Represented Fuhrman you had raised your hand. Okay representative had said. Thank you madam chair and representative Lowery thank you for speaking so personally about this bill and. I guess I need you to explain to me in the course of your saying that one reason we need this bill is to help noncustodial parents of limited resources in looking at the bill it looks like a noncustodial parent. Less file a petition have the other parent served ensure that specific elements are identified in that petition for the relief that they are seeking include a proposal for a revised schedule of custody have a warning order issued to the non re love or a warning order issued in less than on we looking parent makes forward objection it in all of these different steps that have to be accomplished and that's before the court is charged with determining of fire hundreds of evidence how this How this new because your insurance should look how is that simpler than simply filing a petition for contempt under the current statute and telling the court that the custodial parent is in contempt of an existing order. Well and this is one of the pieces of evidence or testimony that was given the last time that really was incorrect that unless you specifically miss best Hoover who testified said we don't need this you can just find him in contempt you can't find him in contempt of court unless it specifically in the initial custody order that the custodial parent cannot move more than sixty miles or seventy seventy five miles of the address that has been filed with the court so that really it is is kind of a false narrative to say would you could file contempt of yeah I think that we would all hope that maybe we can bring enough attention to this issue that any family anyone that is going through a divorce with children that they that their attorneys going to bring to their attention especially the non custodial parent you you need to make sure that this clauses in there that they cannot move but I'll just tell you from my own experience of going through divorce I didn't want my divorce I didn't want to go from one night taking my kids into bed to. Then the next not only getting to see them every other week So the last thing I'm thinking about is anything that is going to be adversarial. Matter of fact in in a divorce that I had I unfortunately bins divorced several times but only once involving children in in one divorce case by attorneys they fired me. Because they said you're not letting us do our job we what we want to we want to subpoena financial records we want to make sure you know put your your acts or your wife under deposition so I'm not gonna do that. Because a lot of times you don't want to be adversarial but I you know I I I would agree with you that if it is in the initial order that they cannot move then yes there could be a contempt of court filing. Follow up manager. It didn't and I don't see what you're trying to say there and respectfully from my own experience I I'd have to disagree with you a little bit on this wouldn't you agree with me that if someone moved outside of their and local area that and and it's impacted the ability to do visitation say they pick them up from school every day now they live seventy five miles away isn't that without all of these hoops. A contemptible issue no according to the judicial council it is not and I've worked with just various judges on this judge Vance Smith was one of the first judges I worked with on it and when I was pressing for the inter inter state provision he said representative the you know there that is already covered but he said I will tell you there is nothing in Arkansas state law like your bill that would deal with intrastate relocation. Thank you. Representative garner. Thank you madam chair and thank you represent Lowery for bringing your your. Personal experiences. Due to the committee into this bill I've had several attorneys that are concerned about the fact that the principal place of residence is not described there's not determined and they're they're set at I've had a couple of them say that this actually would help with the contentiousness of the parents because they get an opportunity to to pass over those kinds of issues that they're trying to get away from primary parents and they're trying to get away from a lot of those terms and go to joint custody and joint of parenting and all of that and this kind of makes that. Moot almost. So some of the same issues that. They were concerned with are still in the bill just to set the sixty to seventy five and this didn't change anything. We'll if I answer my and my understanding is in a in please forgive me I'm not an attorney I don't work with these things other than having been through it personally in the pain of it but the primary place of residence is established by the the initial custody order that that is what is in the records and the comment the judges of made to me is that yes we really would like to have a law that tells us when that custodial parent moves from that primary place of residence because the judge says we still maintain control of that case it's not something that you know once this thing is gaveled out that it's over that they're all there should be a responsibility to notify the court but yet without this law without this particular bill that is not the case but primary. Place of residence is usually already established by the initial custody order. All right Sir. Thank you I'm they're saying that it is not and that there are many times that apparently has forty to sixty percent or or there's not and the kids are changing or the parents are changing and that kind of thing and in that case it's not defined. So is there a way to. Go back and to find some of those kinds of things or well I you know I think that the yes it if there is are some areas of contention I mean they're probably are ways to to make sure that that is to find. I think we could all agree that the the the absolute preferential position would be that the parents get a law that they work together fortunately it other than the issues that I had where we ended up I ended up having to step in and protect my daughter after that my ex wife and I were cooperated fully in making sure that pick up some schools to place and that that it was something that could be accommodated in I think we would all hope that we could aim for that unfortunately we can't always legislate to make sure that that happens in the mean time very dear is a necessity for those situations where the two parties are not. Talking and and I think maintaining the presence of both both partners but or skews me both parents in the life of the children goes beyond just fussing it's really a critical part in their social and emotional development in in the social emotional development of the child. I'm seeing no additional questions from committee members is there what anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill. Please introduce yourself. You're recognized state good afternoon madam chairman and Sylvester Smith and most of you know me from my work on behalf of small business and other for profit enterprises but when you are not in session I still to make a living and I do so as an attorney and I have practiced in a numerous family law cases I think I've done about. Fifty of them across the state in the past seven years and I can tell you that this concert there's a lot of merit and it frankly in the late community people already some people are I believe that this is what the law is that if you're going to move outside of your county we're going to move school school districts that you need the court's permission and in fact unless it's in the order of that is not the case and I do understand that this could potentially create contention where right now I'm not exist but I would also say that most people who are going through this painful process they do want to do with like representive Labdia from the experience of let's try to work together let's let's be positive let's be cooperative and sticking something like this in the order can be contentious and so even those that are wise enough to recognize that again I'm talking about in the current universe with this law does not exist even those who recognize it would be wise to put some sort of geographical indicate limitation about moving in the order if the other side doesn't agree to it will now you've got to go to court and you've got to hold that the judge sees fit to do it I wish for Mostar Kansans is that the type of endeavor this going to cost you twice of what a settlement would cost and so could be another two to six thousand dollars if you harm a good friend of Lauren Hoover and so I I think that's is important for you to consider the other thing that I would suggest is maybe this is going to have to be amended again to add a sentence sponsor and so maybe those that are opposed to it considering making it so that it only applies with there's not a a joint a joint co parenting type situation because that's not while this the trend is not always the case the other thing is in most co parenting situations they have what's what we like to call joint physical custody but one of the parents as primary legal custody and so what that says. Is this this is the parent that if the two don't agree they get to decide and so we would just make sense that the primary physical address would be tied to whichever parent has the primary legal custody because they are technically under the law the primary payer but there is great danger in these custodial parents being able just pick these kids up moving halfway across the state and then the. Onus is then on the non custodial parent to take them to court to try to do something about an absent that being in the order which in my professional experience it's not there ninety percent of the time that being the where the child will reside contempt is just not an option because you technically have not violate the letter or the spirit of the of the order and so I believe something like this would be beneficial to me Arkansas families and without take any questions if anyone has one in the chair one would allow. Any questions for this witness. Seeing them thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill. Okay seeing nine representative Larry would you like to close for your bill. Let me let me just close briefly by saying that many of your Facebook friends with me and you've seen the pictures of my beautiful granddaughter I'll take them out my daughter is healthy she is a loving mom she came through a very difficult situation as a child that she couldn't even talk about for years and and frankly even to this day is not able to talk with me about it but I am very blessed that even we got through that that I was able to be a constant and consistent. Essence in her life and I think that there are a lot of fathers non custodial parents whether it's a mother or father who want to participate they want to be there you want to pick up their child from school or day care they want to attend of Pete and PTA meetings and teacher parent conferences will sometimes sessions not allowed that's just not possible if you're talking about a distance relocation distance of seventy five dollars seventy five miles one way so for those reasons I I would ask your permission I would hope that you would Make a do pass motion passes out of committee thank you. What are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to pass. Hi motion do pass as amended representative very. We have a motion do pass as amended all in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it the bill passes as amended. And members I believe that is the end of our business for today we do have booklets that Senator Clark maybe not senator Clark himself but to an organization in favor of the bill that senator Clark is going to be bringing to us Wednesday sent over so I have them back here at the desk if you would care to pick one up a weird. Not these are not coming from me we just bring anything that's brought to the committee and asked to distribute to you and less that has some objects to material we make those available to use so it is up here on the desk and with that we are adjourned.