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

All right we're glad to have you and you're recognized. Good afternoon thank you madam chair thank you committee I bring before you today House memorial resolution one thousand and one luckily we don't have a lot of these. In the sessions I think perhaps in the five terms I have been here this I have about involved with two. Of. But you can't miss the opportunity when there is somebody. Ally Charlie Stewart. Who is a former member of this body passed away at the beginning of February at the age of ninety three. And I talked to some the other day who's told me that he was having to work overtime it was our steel because Charlie had been working up to the name died in driving itself into work at age ninety three. Imagine this. If you go up to the fourth floor. At the capitol. on the way to the gallery right across from the minority leader's office. There is the composite for the House that met thank convene in January of nineteen fifty five. You will see a young bright. I am man named Charles Stewart on that. And then if you walk. Down the hall and keep going for the next twenty two composites. You will see Charlie's career in the house of representatives. From. The first in our role of VOL this. Until governor Mike Huckabee and every governor in between a total of forty four years. Can you imagine twenty two terms my guess is that it was so much. Easier happier life in those days. Charlie was thank you most of what we want to see about Charlie we attempted to put in the resolution but just to put it another way. Charlie was beloved and in a quiet man who dearly dearly loved Revenue and Tax in the state and what he's if he was going to send once I got over that committee I what I'm gonna let him get you know. But. Just another concert. When I graduated high school in nineteen seventy nine Charlie was about halfway through his tenure in the house of representatives. And I would just ask for a do pass on this so that we can commemorate a life of service both to the state of Arkansas the most importantly to our house a man who walked those halls for forty four years and served honorably thank you. Are there any questions by committee members. Casey nine I don't see anyone the audience signed up to speak for or against OCZ represented Springer did you have a question madam chair I was going to do a motion to pass at the appropriate time thank. Okay we have a motion to pass on the floor all in favor say aye. Opposed no. The eyes have it and the resolution passes thank you madam chairman thank you Committee thank you for bringing this to us. Next we have by house bill thirteen seventy nine Representative Penzo this is represented Penzo day we have three of your bills today. First we have an amendment on that they'll represented Penzo would you present this amendment first and then we'll go into the body of your bill. Thank you chair. Would which one we're doing first we are doing thirteen seventy nine. Okay House Bill third of government it just adds a Senator Ballenger. As soon as sponsor okay were there any questions about the amendment. Okay we will adopt the amendment when we adhere to them. I'm sorry we need to adopt the amendment first so represented Barker has a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye. Opposed no the amendment passes and I will go ahead and hear the bill. You can can I bring someone up to the table yes. J. P. if you would please introduce yourself. Good afternoon I. This Fisher you're my kids on. And you may need to put to work to a little bit. Can you hear me now that's better yes my name is John I go by JP treble and I'm an adoption attorney here in Arkansas in little rock. Whitaker argument one second go ahead yeah okay so representatives considers asked me to. Be a little bit about these bills at thirteen seventy nine is a bill that is proposing some changes to the the. Law the consent laws where. Attorneys would have to offer independent representation to birth mothers this is largely designed to ensure that they have representation. Should they like to have that there is there is a waiver if they on their own free will decide that they don't need representation they can waive that but it would require in all cases of adoption that they at least be offered independent representation from the adoptive parents the design for that is an order that there's obviously no conflict of interest between the adoptive parents and birth parents this arises largely out of the history of some bad actors in the adoption area where they have represented both sides. there's also a section that amends the affidavit of expenses law that specify use. That the extent the adoptive parent expenses that have been paid should be broken down into categories to make the law clearer and it would. As a new measure require a birth parent to declare expenses received that are related to the adoption also broken down into categories like rent food the healthcare IT center. If If you all remember two years ago winter DO some adoption legislation that was to you know the impetus was to protect the the Marshallese population you'll probably members old Paul Peterson story of those warm here there's some attorneys that were. The predators contractors institute journeys but they were they were capitalizing off of you know bringing it's easy to bring in people from the Marshall Islands because they they can come freely under the compact free sociais Asian so there's not like work reasons have to be applied for anything like that they can just come over get a job go to work so they were bringing people in to the country And coercing them three different ways to give up their children for adoption then the attorneys were pretty much selling babies the profiting and then kind of. three DO threats or coercion getting him to go back home without their children and then you know there's there's a whole list of of different things that we were trying to address two years ago and for those of you know that were here you might remember join in our own offices teams at that point we were we were fighting we ended up stripping some things out of the bill we got some good list legislation passed in in the of course a lot of people involved in this it's been working over the last couple of years trying to find solutions on how we can you know get get some more things done that are agreed to I guess of of all this bill on the second of February I think thank available around the same time noted one of them yesterday I learned that there is some opposition out there they will come up later to to probably speak against this but there's there's a lot of uh been been working with the Marshallese community adoption agencies adoption attorneys the the or association was in opposition last year would you say there probably would fall neutral on this or or the in support you know the viruses union forces Asian we say they're neutral probably early central Italy sensible this round so they don't oppose it to my understanding yeah I'd I'd I'd go to them you know earlier to make sure we were on the same page and no opposition from them so. this is one of the items that was asked to be addressed in this bill so all open and for any questions that you all may have the about this particular thing for yeah go ahead okay what that one thing I would like to mention as well since we've looked back a little bit on the history one of the things this bill is designed to do that corrects an issue that we were having the last session is to encode best practices. To address the issues that have happened in the Marshallese community to address the issues that have arisen because of bad actors in the field without a disparaging way it's. Is happening in the rest of the state that was a big concern we had last time that has been able to be rectified. So does so to speak it does not through let's say the ninety percent of non Marshallese adoptions under the bus merely to take care of terrorists it it does raise ethical practices though in the requirements. In the reason we're addressing the expenditures is because that's one way they were you know legally selling babies pretty much I mean they were finding loopholes in the system to get money to the birth mother and so this this this bill has some accountability you know so the B. documentation on what exactly those expenses are for. Are you open for questions yes represented Barker you're recognized. Thank you madam chair. I'm I'm all for stopping the predators your work but do we need to mandate the requirement of a lawyer can get the parent already seek to have representation. Okay the the issue with that is normally and adoption practice in let's say the best practices what happens is the adoptive parents offers should offer to pay for independent representation for birth parents so obviously you have a lawyer representing each side what happens in practice is I would say some less ethical lawyers represent both sides that creates an inherent conflict of interest that's what's happened in the bad practices Many lawyers would say to a birth parent if you want it if you want representation go higher it. So that would be on them the ethical best practice is for the adoptive parents to provide independent representation course they in the birth parent has the opportunity here to elect. To not have a lawyer should they choose date what it is what it presents is they may not elect to use the adoptive parents attorney the reason for that is because in. Paul Peterson's case or in some of the bad actors that have that are under scrutiny they have been representing both sides. Follow up yes I guess my question is how is this mandate going to fix that unethical behavior well if there's only certain circumstances under which a birth mother can waive it and. Otherwise if she. The attorney for the adoptive parents is required to offer her independent counsel. The attorney for the adoptive parents may not represent the birth mother. So it there's a legal bar for that to happen. Okay does that answer your question I don't think so. Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly. Resident of workers you want we can circle back around to you if you want to okay well let over represented Springer. Thank you madam chair good afternoon good afternoon I'm just trying to understand what what are the issues of the system of law under this other than the fact of. Counsel for the. Well the best given up the child and the expenditures you mention issues other issues so I didn't hear what the other issues war the the other primary issue there are three issues one one is as you said the Attorney the expenditures and then if the birth mother does not speak English as a native language she is required and she must be offered the services of an interpreter. To interpret the language that they can set and her native language again she has the opportunity to knowingly waives that under certain circumstances for example if she grew up in the states in her English is good enough that she doesn't need an interpreter even though her native language is not English she can knowingly waives that yes the if she has independent representation in her attorney can communicate directly with her in her native language then she can also waive it but it's designed it yes. The non native English Speaker is consenting to an adoption she has the opportunity to have that consent explained to her in her own language so she can understand it. Thank. It's not exclusive to just the Marshallese population I mean that's just probably one of the most risible because there that the dynamic of the compact the makes to the targeting targeting that population easier but that happens a lot in the Hispanic population as well. Represents a cloud. Thank you madam chair just have a question about the process if the biological family desires to have representation. And the adoptive family is required to pay for that. Can the biological family choose their own lawyer or do they have to go through and the adoptive parents and say you know wait a minute I will representation and then their lawyer gets. The other lawyer do you understand absolutely yeah there's nothing that would stop them from saying I went seven Senator representing. Nothing at all that would stop that in the bill okay and then the. Dr family would still be required to. Bye for that yes okay thank you. Represented Hudson. Thank you madam chair eight suffered through this this bill and I have some knowledge of what happened with the Marshallese population of northwest Arkansas which is horrible but is it it sounds like even though you say this would applying to all adoptions that really this is focused upon a single population that the the trouble and and that issues that were presented by unscrupulous lawyers taking advantage of the Marshallese so I guess my question is if we are talking about addressing a very specific issue is it necessary to have this type of broad based bills that applies to all adoptions and complicates all adoptions in a way that may be unnecessary and expensive or more expensive for the families in the and the birth parents are going through it is it necessary for us to have this type of broad based legislation when it is really geared towards a specific problem which is as I understand it being being taken care of by that the judges in the bar in that area. Well first of all it it apply yes it does apply to all adoptions there are issues in the bill that are broader than merely the Marshallese community as representatives Penzo said and I certainly feel strongly about the interpreter section applies to anyone who doesn't speak English as a native language of course that's going to be a relatively small population of birth mothers but I noticed specific instances where we have hired Hispanic or Spanish speaking attorneys to represent Hispanic birth mothers so effectively addressing that issue and that's really an issue of common sense that if the birth mother doesn't speak English you would do that however there are plenty of actors out there who were not providing them away to knowingly consent you're losing parental rights which is a constitutional right they have in. It certainly seems reasonable to make sure that they're consent is a knowing consent rather than merely moving through the motions of giving up a constitutional right with regard to the required attorney for a birth mother again the birth mother may elect to opt out in there are instances where I am aware that a birth mother may wish to not have an attorney and she may opt out merely by signing and knowing waiver and I can tell you that from the way I practice law but that this bill will have. Almost no effect to it will change virtually nothing that I do already. and I know other lawyers where I would argue the same thing this will have. Very few changes to those people that are in making best practices. I think one of the issues it certainly does though is for a lawyer who is. Less aware of the nuances of adoption it does raise the minimum closer to best practices and that certainly is a good thing there's a huge gap between the minimum threshold the law requires and. What D. and let's say what is morally right if you will and when you're talking about a birth mother relinquishing. at her parental rights which is a constitutional right I would think that we would want to be sure that it really is and knowing relinquishment rather than just going through the motions of signing paperwork that she relinquishes her rights. And I don't select sated it's not just an isolated group that's just the most prominently visible it could be. This anybody could be taken advantage of that is a. In Arkansas also like to mention that I guess the the quality tourney's you have been. I mean this this was kind of scrutinized by a lot of adoption attorneys correct correct so many risks it was sent out to a lot of people to do the majority the adoptions in Arkansas and had them review it for issues and it's been revised several times and Johns worked real hard on addressing the other attorneys concerns adoption attorney concerns. We've we've had agencies there's been a couple of attorneys that represent birth parents we and in there it's been disseminated to all of the there are five members of the academy of adoption in assisted reproduction attorneys in the state all of them it had a chance to review the bill and it and several other parties so and a lot of the main actors in adoptions in the state as representatives Penzo said have See in the bill have given into it invented it and. These don't seem to be big issues in the adoption community. So I would say on the contrary the support is pretty high within the adoption community to raise the bar to. Ed ensure that better ethical practices happen of course if these practices happen if of birth mother. If we can ensure that a birth mother knowingly genuinely is waving her constitutional right to parent then that reduces the opportunity reduces the risk later on that she may want to collateral the attack and adoption by saying I didn't know what I signed this is not what I agreed to. We can ensure that she did agree to the facts that are contained in the consent then that would reduce any any potential down the road. Representan Barker with circle back around to you. Okay no questions any other questions from committee members. A. Represent if. Representa clout I have you down. And then we'll get you represented McKenzie. There we go thank you madam chair. That is it still a current Arkansas law that the birth mother has ten days to change your mind on that option yes she has thirty days unless you wait sit down to five days correct okay follow up please yes okay and would would this bill in any way affect those rights that thank you. Represent the cans yes so your hand that is not showing up here on the screen. Your ego okay now we got you. Thank you madam chair and represent Penzo I appreciate your hard for this and I know last session when I recall you worked with me some because I of course had cemeteries Dobson trees in my area that had some concerns so when you mentioned just now some questions been raised but when you mention that that people had certain attorneys have had a chance to review I reached out to mine haven't heard back from them yet that's my fault and Justin do it soon enough so my question is how widespread are we getting from the input and we say that they've had a chance to look at and I want to know I guess I'm running you know are your region statewide these attorneys and to get their input because I'm a little hesitant to move until I get the input from folks I know had some concerns last time again I do appreciate how you work with this last time on it. Well also started out in an JP's get something that you can I know that I reached out to the the Bar Association initially because they were in opposition last time and sedate would you please look over this get disseminated out to whoever you need to and and give me some feedback on on where we're at in in pretty much their consensus with they came back was you know if you know the the docks internees we spoke with good with it so you know we're we're we're not coming out endorsing it but we're not against it were you know we're we're we're okay if if they're okay it's pretty much the how that played out so I know that. It has nothing to do with prosecuting attorneys but I get back to my prosecutor nicety look this over and make sure we're not missing anything open and I mean JP can talk to. You know on his end you know who all they want to. Well as I as I've said we've jetted it with all of the quite a internees in the state and we have a sedative with I know DHS is actually I've spoken with the DHS attorney about it of course The I've heard no opposition to this portion of this really doesn't apply to DHS of March because typically DHS you're dealing with a different nature said they don't that they are not opposed to it in the quite a attorneys are practicing or whatever the state so again it's not a geographical a question of Little Rock attorneys supported it it's we have attorneys in Northwest Arkansas they do look at this in Southeast Arkansas in the event of course Central Arkansas city attorneys are spread out all over the state and actually practice throughout you know the exposure is statewide and then agencies that are located both in central and northwest Arkansas has look at it In you know we've asked people to get to work around and I haven't heard of any opposition other I believe under the judicial council I think that's the only opposition I'm aware of to it. I'm not seeing any other questions from committee members we do have a couple of people in the audience signed up to speak both for and against the bill first I'm going to ask Sarah Webber. To come and speak for the Bill. And this waiver if you would introduce yourself to the committee. Good afternoon I'm Sarah Webber I am an adoptee and adoptive mom and a birth mother advocate with the local adoption agency so what we're really talking about here is transparency and ethics and adoption in our state. So many times we have women who come to us in crisis there are food insecure they are homeless they are battling addiction and they find themselves in a crisis pregnancy and they fall prey to bad actors they have attorneys who are not advocating for them they have attorneys who are offering them legal services they aren't making sure that they have food clothing shelter they are essentially taking baby at the hospital charging exorbitant amounts of money not answering for it and then leaving mom stranded essentially so. Currently right now we provide mental health services to four women who did not get separate representation. During their adoption plan what that means is the attorney said I can support you and I can also represent hopeful adoptive parents. You have five days to change your mind. But hopeful adoptive parents didn't provide her her own attorney so five days later when she decided to revoke consent he said I'm sorry I'm not your attorney I don't actually represent you stopped answering their telephone calls and mom lost baby she had no one to go to she had no one who could help her draft affidavit documents she had no one if you could be that checks and balance process and now BT is in another state. She doesn't know how Beebe is doing and she has the trauma on top of all of the other crises in her life. Now that she House to manage so. At your beginnings our average adoption right now is very low compared to other agencies and we're only seeking. Between three and four percent fee increase to provide separate representation to a mop to make sure that she isn't preyed on to make sure she has a voice to make sure she has a choice to make sure that if she decides to change her mind because she made a decision and crisis and now babies here and her heart is beating outside every test she has somebody that's going to be able to show up for her to help her navigate these situations. We're asking again for some transparency and how fees are paid and how much is actually involved in a potential adoption plan and then we're asking for a mom to be read her consents in her native language this to us is all a part of what as a cool in transparent adoption looks like an as an adoptee I would feel much better about my adoption knowing that my first one was taking care of the rest someone advocating for her someone was taking care of her someone was there to support her in this process because. Oftentimes there just isn't and lease heartbreak and devastation behind and it is heartbreaking every date when we get those phone calls and we don't have any way to help them because it's done it is heartbreaking. Are there any questions for this witness. Thank you for your testimony. We have one person signed up to speak against a Robert hurt spelled. And if you will introduce yourself to the committee. This offer speak loudly or I'm getting take it off somebody says would you mind putting yours on I don't want to you're good on the item to you because you're you're sixty so I think you're at at a distance from all right if he's okay with it. But yes I'm good but everyone to all right so Hey my name's Robert Hurst bills I'm a circuit judge from Benton from selling County I I do appreciate the opportunity to speak today I also expressed my appreciation to represent of Penzo for his interest in these areas I I regret that we didn't speak until we texted yesterday we didn't speak until is this more this afternoon I believe this morning I'm sorry about that in the future as we have as you have issues you're interested in particular related to probate or adoptions you you have my cell number and I don't want you coming in the future so we can visit I don't like anybody feeling like they were getting the same back or sides but that's certainly not my intention of being here I would have rather have talked to you previously and I'm sorry okay the I'm here on behalf not only is it is it is a probate judge I've been on the bench for a little over twelve years I have presided over the estimated yesterday about over about seven hundred and fifty adoption cases in the past twelve years I'm also the did you the juvenile judge for slain County some speaking on my behalf but also on behalf of the judicial council which voted to oppose this bill there's as big as mentioned earlier represented Penzo as three and a three adoption related bills the in one of them is I would think would be safe and fair to say is more of a technical correction the judicial council removed their opposition to that bill and of the last night and so we're we're not opposed to and I'm personally in favor of it so I hope of your dress that later on hopefully should be pretty smooth sailing the subdiscipline so there's three issues to date on their this one is what I would say the other one we just talk about the shorter one the technical corrections is a I would say is a green light this one I would say is a caution as a yellow light and then the one that I expect we'll talk about in a lot more dense that is. I think it's on the one that was on the agenda for today which is regarding post adoption agreements for the judicial council I would say that's a red light until we have some strong concerns about this particular bill that I think are relevant I hope to help help educate you all about our position on that and what we think are some issues but the the main bill I'm here to talk about will be later when regarding post adoption agreements I do think there are some points to not be helpful one is that I apologize Mr Mr trouble spoken mentioned in a gun there were some question about whether to is for and who is against this bill he mentioned the quiet day it soon that's an adoption an American adoption attorneys association I've never heard of that organization other than maybe in a context of talking Struble couple years ago that's not he said there's five lawyers in the state they're member of that association so that's not Representative of family law attorneys in Arkansas there I'm sure they're great attorneys but there are plenty hundreds of attorneys across the state of Arkansas who handle adoptions is a part of their practice that I don't know what they all have to say that I do know what the attorney I spoke to today who is from my hometown is the president of the selling County Bar Association told me which is and she couldn't be here today because she's not a lot and she had a meeting but I won't read the whole statement Bob's read the first part this is from Laurie Howard use this link anymore president I reviewed HB thirteen seven nine concerning consent to adoption relinquishment at expenditure reporting and use of translators as president of the selling county Bar Association and a practicing attorney who handles adoptions frequently I'm in opposition to this bill I've spoken to several other small firm attorneys it also expressed to me their direct their opposition to this bill I believe it's requirements would greatly increase the cost of adoptions from our clients were merely provided trying provide a better life for the children of our state and I can read the rest of it is your your time as is precious but I think to say that. The bar is not opposes it as an organization I think it's probably accurate I think you would not be accurate to say that adoption attorneys are adopted attorneys to practice the adoption field are United in support of this I'm certainly I'm sure there are Mr and I believe again also Mr trouble is coming from a good place I'm not this is not a I don't really like testifying against bills that I'm here on behalf of the council because the voted to oppose it that I think knowing who may not be in favor of it is it is helping you will help you when you go back home and talk to the small town attorneys and to say if this is passed wattage output all this extra work on me why do we have to find an attorney or even draft up this new business new paperwork when I do it right I'm I'm an ethical person we've got a step parent adoption should be lickety split and now we've got to get another lawyer involved and maybe the step parents in another state in those and all these other things that make it more burdensome. It for attorneys and families and trying to reunite and create new families that I think is unnecessary given the fact that the main reason I believe that this bill is here is because of. A very good reason which is that the Marshallese community has been preyed upon and my heart goes out to those those folks must my sister teaches English as a second language to Marshallese islanders who live in northwest Arkansas that I have I understand. A tiny portion of what they do and what what about that what the problem is with that community but I can assure you the judges are well aware of the probate judges across the state extremely well aware that these issues of the problems of with the fact that one of the attorneys who is the bad actor that's causes to come to our attention is now in federal prison or headed that way speaks to the fact that the system Including the Attorney let those people down in our and I'm sorry about that and I and I wish we had which the federal government I guess or somebody got **** sooner welcome dragon will be that I apologize so. To me this is a broad response to a very narrow issue there are wait their ethical rules on the books for attorneys there are laws on the books for attorneys to protect to make sure that they're doing it properly one other point before a. Open up for questions is this it's going make sure it's also clear that this bill does not give the birth mother a lawyer for the case the bill is written to to help for the lawyer that they ask for to help them understand or to in fact I think it even says certify that they understand what the paperwork says and then it's it's for that limited purpose only and I guess also the purpose of submitting the objection or withdrawal of consent if they change that but not any more than that they're not getting a free lawyer to getting an attorney to sit with them and signed that the inside and certify that they understand what's going on. That's possible under the limited scope practice that the that has begun happening in New York Arkansas in the last few years to broaden the opportunities for people to have attorneys but they're not getting a free lawyer. For what you might think it would an ordinary person might think is in in you know specially if that if that young woman thinks that this is their large who's advocating for them that would be very hard to explain if that's what they thought that that's not what it means they're supposed to explain the paperwork and tell them the rights and certify that they done that and then be available to submit paperwork if they were if they were revoke their consent that's all my reading of that that's all they're there for inserting an attorney in that potentially gives a false sense of security to that individual that I think is troublesome potentially again I'd have no problem with the intention of think that either of the I think compact I'm one thousand percent sure that both the gentleman next to me I believe this is the right thing to do they're doing it for those purposes but I think they're unintended consequences that went on another run in potentially under unintended consequences that the every judge in the state if there are judicial council as opposed to. So questions one. Representa Springer. Thank you madam chair of. All represented Penzo based upon what the judge has stated would you all like to go back in and. I'm new here now to go back and correct your bill to address the concerns of the voice because he's saying that based upon this reading of your bill that it does not do what you say that is supposed to be doing so what is your response to that one I don't know I'm not putting words in his mouth I just think this is what I'm sorry okay we'll in all that you clarify that my understanding on our brief conversation today that there really of wasn't compromise language that could be it's the it's the principle and and my anchored and saying that's more about the other bill okay I'm. I think there might be some warm but I can't I can't speak for the council today yeah and so so we'll say that last time okay this is been going on for. The two previous legislative sessions nothing happened. You know then that's to my knowledge nothing happened to legislative sessions back two years ago in a less litigious legislative session we were able to put some criminal offenses in but but this this aspect is something that's been worked on behind the scenes over the last two years to get where it now because one of the arguments two years ago was well if you if you have. If you if if we have to pay for them an attorney in the cost of the options go up so then the cost was one of the arguments that maybe even the adoption attorney or was it something that was they were it was against the cap tax the capped okay so I mean there's there's so many dynamics that have happened but yes this is. It's. This is this is our attempt to it It compromise language and we brought the majority the parties on board that were in opposition to this two years ago so I don't the like you said the other the other bill that will run after this didn't sound like there could be compromise language on this one there may be the potential but like you said he can't speak for you know their group until they have a chance to discuss it so I don't know if there could be government compromise language this one either as the there's of all parties involved in this is compromise language between a lot of parties just not. His particular entity. Follows share yes so are you would you like to do that then if you will can work that out I think that you're going to have a good deal and and the dresses all the concerns because I think that the judges would be the ones to have the final say so with respect to any of the options so if their answer the the question is if they have a answer at this particular time that I think that you would have a better bill in my opinion. You recess. So when one thing I would like to say is I'm a little bit confused because the a judge Herzfeld is saying that this is only providing the birth mother an attorney for the limited purpose of explaining what's in the document the attorney also counsels heard during during that time period and as he did say would help her to revoke her consent should she choose to. When he says that. You're being at that I don't recall the word to use but essentially misled in thinking that she's getting a free lawyer here when she's not under normal circumstances when a birth mother consents to an adoption she enters her appearance and waves a notice of some someone's and Service and that is the end of her actual participation in an adoption of course if it becomes contested then it becomes a different matter and the adoptive parents are not and should not be on the hook to provide her free lawyer to come in and contest the adoption but as far as he's willing to voluntarily consent. Then. There is he's getting all the representation that she normally sees not ever in court were dealing with the parties without representation of a lawyer said that part is quite confusing. I just would like to say that you know my my main priority is is. The. Parents involved with the birth parents and adoptive parents and the child that's involved in a push to push hard two years ago on this and I had to the Bar Association and and the judges in opposition and obviously we had to water down the bill to get passed I don't think it was a strong as I'd like to be in two years ago I don't want to wait another two years in late children and families be negatively impacted that's where I'm at now can we have a discussion if this body chooses that the that's the direction they want to go we'll we'll see when we vote but I just. I know I can't make everybody happy. In my my main priority is to the the children and families. Representative Cllr. Thank you mentor. Judge it's been a long day and so I want to make sure that I'm hearing you correctly. What I heard you say that your concerns or about work loading cost and not a legal issue is that correct now. No that's not what I said could you please help me understand. My concern is for making. A process more complicated across the board for the entire state. Because we're addressing a very serious issue that has that can be and has addressed to me in fact Mr Mister trouble just said it would not change how he does business very in very few cases it would change how he does business he said that a few minutes ago and I thought that I think he does it I'm sure he does a great job okay. Do you want to add comp complexity and expense to the parties the attorneys and also potentially confusing the birth mother's. When the I believe the system is not perfect but the way the problems that were it would be trying to address are being addressed through other means unethical attorneys should be punished and people who are committing criminal actually go to prison and that's thankfully begun to happen in and and and I don't want to change I don't believe it's appropriate to change the entire. Thousands of attorney thousands of adoptions across the state. Because of this one is amended me this issue is not important but is it as I indicated from miss Howard the attorney who does a small practice it's a big chunk of for practice but she's not an adoption agency in a lot of the folks that maybe advocating for the language are coming at it from a different perspective I certainly did not in in if I said the word initially I didn't mean to say I don't think I did I want to make sure that you clarify for you all what I believe is the people who are supporting or may or may not be supporting this I'm not sure if I answered your question but I thought well what was. With the English being our population with English being a second language is growing and I'm going to anticipate in the next five to ten years it's going to grow exponentially. Are the laws in place to protect those. Young mothers. That have a language barrier I believe that judges have a responsibility to make sure that anybody who they believe especially the Marshallese population my understanding is that in fact I've had one case which is not common for central Arkansas. Where I went above and beyond a typical practice to make sure that they understood what was going on May Day they then come to court and and want to lay eyes on. The the question is whether this bill would solve the problem when. They have the ability to put in that connector stack of papers in front of that individual and they sign. That one document without a lawyer without the interpreter in saying I don't need interpreter I don't need a lawyer so they're gonna be an ethical all they got to slow down and extracted a bit and move on to the next paperwork to sign so I don't again I want everybody to be clear I'm not and against these guys I think this bill doesn't do they intended to do okay thank you. Senior additional questions your thank you for your testimony very much. Represented Penzo would you like to close for your bill. Six of. Yes okay JB can interview any clothes yes will provide some leniency so I would like to in closing I would like to provide a little bit of clarification that the bill very explicitly excludes stepparent adoptions which were mentioned earlier yes if there is a step parent adoption this does not apply it does not apply to relativity options within the second degree and it also does not apply in cases where the adoptive parents attorney would be provided the services are provided pro bono. So those three categories of adoptions which I believe step parents make up a large percentage of the dock at the adoptions that occur. This bill does not apply to those cases it also clearly is geared toward private adoptions because we're talking about the birth birth mothers voluntary relinquishment or their consent as opposed to the DHS cases where they're at termination is involuntary so it's also worth noting that the. What we're asking to extend to the birth mother in this case where her constitutional rights are at stake is a similar thing that would be extended to someone in a criminal case however in this instance the state is obviously not paying for the Attorney this. If we are looking at the health of the adoption triad being the adoptive parents the birth parents and the adoptee this is the best win win situation to where the birth mother you already is undergoing a horrific decision of. For whatever reason whether to try to parent her child or give her child up for adoption she's getting a little bit of support along the way that she deserves and trying to navigate what the law means and she has somebody there to explain to her what it means and to explain to her in her language if necessary what it means so it to me it does not seem unreasonable to. Get that assistance to. A birth mother and the better off the birth mother ends the better off the three way relationship in the adoption triad ends up because this relationship whether you're looking at a positive relationship or a negative or even neutral no matter what the relationship between the parties and the fact is you have some sort of relationship between birth parents adoptive parents in the adoptee and the better off the. each individual party is going to be in the beginning the better long term effect you're going to have so it it seems like the best practice would be to allow a birth mother to have her constitutional rights explained to her to get counsel in to have every to see if she needs that in the time that she's consenting to the adoption. In an in closing I just would like to say that you know NO I know there's gonna be some people aren't comfortable with anything we do down here there's always pros and cons but I mean anything we can do to to minimize human trafficking in the state of Arkansas I think I think we need to do so if if these little things can of you know prevent you know what happened with Paul Peterson I know we've got criminal things in effect now but if we can. You know anything we can do to button this up I think it's a good thing and I appreciate you all support thank you. Represented McElroy. Regular. I have a motion to pass all in favor say aye. is that motion do pass as amended. All right all in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The eyes have it the bill passes. And represented Penzo you are recognized by our house bill thirteen eighty eight thank you Jr House Bill thirteen eighty eight sets a a post adoption con tact agreements and we'll go ahead and the Mr tribble take over from here. So. What this bill does is officially opens at jobs excuse me we're gonna need to back that up this also has an amendment correct yes all right I'm sorry as well that slipped by me so if you will at present the amendment to this first and then we'll proceed okay this amendment just and senator Ballenger is the Senate sponsor. Okay we have a motion to pass on the amendment yes okay we have a motion to pass all in favor say aye. Opposed say now the amendment passes and now will proceed into the body of the bill thank you Committee okay Sir the the this bill is to provide for a voluntary post adoption contact agreements which would officially open adoptions in Arkansas and I would like to before I get into the details of the bill I'd like to give a little background there is a huge misconception it nationwide as far as what the status on adoptions are in Arkansas Arkansas is considered officially closed adoption state. And what a closed adoption is is where the identities of the birth parents and adoptive parents cannot be divulged each other in reality Arkansas is not quite a closed adoption state by the public perception is that that's where we stand at that is the way it options were handled back in the nineteen forties fifties and sixties in I believe the late sixties early seventies things started to open up a little bit and this proposal would allow an agreement between birth parents and adoptive parents to set down in writing what. Kind of a great what kind of contact they could have after an adoption is finalized I want to be very clear that this is not a custody agreement it is not the visitation agreement where they are awarded the birth parents could be awarded visitation or custody they can't go back and litigate custody matters later in court. There is a provision that allows it to come into court I'll come back to that a bit later when I'm walking through the bill but I want to be very clear that this is not a custody agreement so what it does is. Effectively in the old days in let's say in the fifties sixties and seventies what legally happened is a child to be adopted was subtracted from their birth family and added to the adoptive family you can very clearly see that in our adoption code we still have the same notion in Arkansas where clearly birth parents rights are permanently severed in an adoptive parents rights are vested. That will not change but the the general idea that of being extracted from one family and placed into another family. That notion has been weakening over time in the United States transparency is generally acknowledged as being healthier than secrecy and what is happened is there's a trend over the last several decades of increasingly open adoptions where the birth parents in the adoptive parents know each other and they have contact. To give you an example in nineteen eighty seven to nineteen eighty nine there's a survey that reflected thirty five percent of agencies offered fully disclosed adoptions that's about a third in two thousand twelve ninety five percent of adoptions were open and some for. And. By the end of the nineteen nineties there is an error consensus that the openness and the adoption process has led to better outcomes for all members of the transit being birth parents adoptive parents and the children. in two thousand seven there is a United States department of health and Human Services charter published on a two thousand seven national survey of adoptive parents and it reflects that sixty seven percent of private adoptions today include post adoption contact agreements that by the way is fourteen years ago. So fourteen years ago two thirds of adoptions in the entire United States were including these post adoption contact agreements One of the results according to Dr Harold grow to thank you is a PhD whose research this issue and written extensively on it is that adoptive parents have expressed. Less fear and that birth parents would try to reclaim their children in open adoptions when there is a post adoption contact agreement rather than what would have been expected read as compared to confidential and options so the more the adoptions are opening at the consensus is the more at ease adoptive parents or when they know and in the beginning what kind of contact there will be and it puts the birth parents cities here again as we have mentioned undergo its serious emotional trauma and it allows all parties to put down on paper what the expectations are of each other and first and foremost it allows all parties to advocate for the best interest of the child. Because just because the legal relationship is severed between the birth parents and the child that child still wonders about his birth parents for her birth parents and. What their origins are they wonder about why they were given up for adoption in studies show that the more they know about their background when they know they've been adopted they are familiar with their birth families. There. Grow up to be better people there they have fewer issues surrounding the loss that they had. By the adoption taking place there's also an issue of power dynamic where prior to the adoption birth parents have. The upper hand in in this power dynamic at the adoption tree I. The that is one issue which we were emphasizing a little bit in the last bill is the oftentimes the birth parents don't realize the power they have in the beginning once the adoption is finalized there's a power shift to the adoptive family and often times they realize. That that power existed in it has shifted long after that is taking place Posted option contact agreements have passed successfully in many states as a two thousand and eighteen twenty nine states plus Washington DC have laws permitting posted option contacted grievance in all of the states just to give you a general overview there is the best and best interest standard at least in most states where these are approved as long as it's considered in the best interest of the child. one thing that is universal is a breach of the agreement is never a ground to set aside the adoption once the decree is entered no matter what happens with the agreement the decree can never ever be set aside by a failure to abide by the agreement that is universal in all states that have the agreements and. Posted option contact agreement can also never be considered a condition proceeding for the consent to adoption which means any failure to uphold the post adoption contact agreement does not affect the validity of the consent these are important ideas they're universal. And another thing that is universal as they're typically negotiated after the consent to the signed where the birth parents declared and they've had counsel presumably they declare that they want to place the child for adoption in prior to the entry of decree so there's more of a level playing field among the parties at that time. So also it. I have gotten some feedback from some colleagues in different states who have experience with pockets and I wanted to run through that quickly in Oklahoma for example in one attorney is commented eleven years there's been one contested posted option contact agreement litigation is very rare a Maryland is had these agreement since two thousand five an attorney responded with feedback has negotiated over a hundred of these agreements not one was brought back to court for enforcement. Washington state which I believe is the first state in the US that instituted a post adoption contact agreement is have them since nineteen ninety that's twenty one year at thirty one years now there has been not one single published appellate case litigating the enforcement of posted option contact agreements and the. The attorneys knowledge and belief there's not a single and published case the feedback there was if noncompliance happens which is usually on the part of adoptive parents typically a phone call from the attorney that explains what is required in the pocket is sufficient to rectify whatever issues there may be with the agreement these are a lot of these issues are going to the concern about the enforcement of the agreement that comes up later on. In California they've been enforceable since nineteen ninety five yes I'm an attorney responded there and over twenty years only about five or seven four submit cases arose one of those was it went toward litigation but was were resolved through mediation prior to litigation. So in effect none of them made it all made their way to court their comments were the last thing the birth mother wants is to litigate with adoptive parents even if the adoptive parents behave badly birth mothers are reluctant to enforce the agreement is those agreements they're only lifeline to their biological child. threaded enforcement is usually a good enough to turn at in as the child gets older of course the adoptive parents feel a lot more comfortable with this contact as more time goes by also birth parents typically need more contact is the child is younger is time goes on they may enter into other relationships or life circumstances change in the typically seem to need a little less that contacted that contact needs shifts over to the child at that point is the child is growing older In an an attorney in California or he represents primarily birth parents or expectant mothers commented that not providing for these agreements has started to become a deal breaker issue for more and more expectant mothers when they're selecting adoptive parents. Also known cases in Arkansas where expectant mothers insist on finalizing not in Arkansas because they live here but rather in another state because the states provide for these posted option contact agreements were again it has had them since nineteen ninety three and in. But there's an adoptive parents and wanted to can typically continue these relationships after adoption since they permitted opening up to the relationships Forsman action is rarely brought in those actions that are brought Moster resolved through settlement. in the past decade they cannot think of an adoption case where at a pocket was an issue a very there's been very little litigation on the issue and the majority of private adoptions use these post adoption contacted remits Colorado's currently working on passing the same kind of legislation so there's been a lot of feedback in in many many different states and it is I've spoken to attorneys throughout years this is not necessarily a scientific study but the feedback I've gotten from attorneys from other states every years and my colleagues have gotten is overwhelmingly positive the. Basic idea of the pocket is to allow the birth mother were a birth father independently to enter into an agreement with the adoptive parents and it can set forth a number of different types of contact it can provide for visitation at which would typically be a physical meeting where the child can see his birth parents for a limited time let's say for an afternoon or something of that nature more frequently it might involve periodic phone calls or video calls were most frequently exchange of photographs and letters It is of. It would be required to be in writing that is a very important notion here and It's approval by the court is required and the reason for that is the court is merely meant to work to ensure that the parties are entering into good faith they believe that it's in the best interest of the children the enforcement mechanism is actually designed to give some teeth to. The agreement however. The idea that and practice shows that they rarely ever get to court the idea is to keep it out of court as much as possible we don't want to clog up the court with litigation on these issues so I think with that I will Yes but Representative Penzo throwing any comments and then open up for any questions. Yeah the this is you know the. This is gonna requested because the the Marshallese community of the. They have the. Obviously a different culture that you know a lot of times a let kids go stay with family members and that was one of the things a kennel that into this so adoption of these these open adoption agreements with the real beneficial to that community and I know I don't want to be just you know just for the Marshallese because as he can mention this is going on in other states it's not because in any any conflicts so but anyway will open it up to any questions you all may have. Committee members do you have any questions. Represented Bentley. What's your not hang on we get your Mike on sorry thank you chairman so just very briefly this is all voluntary I'm in this collaboration between adoptive cans in the birth mothers it can completely voluntary thing and they can decide which direction I want to get absolutely it has to be voluntary among all parties and that's one of the the if it's not voluntary judges not supposed to recognize the voluntary agreement in a court may not require an agreement prior to entering an adoption is absolutely voluntary I think it's a great and thanks. Represented Fuhrman. You're recognized for a question thank you madam chair thanks is a great bill as a foster parent I've been to conferences where this topic was discussed at length both from a scientific perspective perspective and just a familial bond perspective and you're actually right and super beneficial and I think it's a great building about to make a motion to proper time. Thank you. Represent of cloud you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair please provide some clarity for me on page six. And. Nine two and following where the court may appoint an attorney ad litem for the minor so what I'm what I'm wondering is we all know kids can get unhappy with their their family and then they can. Seems like to me they can use this this is a loophole to to go between the adopted family and the biological family I'm not getting what I wanted or not taking care of me or whatever and so then the child gets an attorney. so please clarify that okay what the what that is regarding if for example a teenage child is. Disappointed or upset with his adoptive parents he can't go records and first of all he's not a party so he cannot that go to court to sue his adoptive parents because they're doing something wrong this is typically an enforcement mechanism would be brought it is not limited to them technically but typically it would be brought by a birth parent and the birth parent would have to show that the adoptive parent. Is acting they would have to essentially proof that the adoptive parent is acting contrary to the best interest of the child and that they are not That any enforcement would not undermine the constitutional parental authority at the adoptive parent so a child to the point if that is. Similar to custody cases where when a child gets old enough if the court feels that the child needs of what he's if there is an enforcement mechanism which again and some of the feedback I've given you should be extremely rare. Then the court may decide the child needs an attorney ad light. Once the child is old enough to have an input if it appears that the child abuse on his contact with his parents may differ from the birth parents in the adoptive parents. Represented McKenzie you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. I think I'm a little slow on the trigger sometimes once I see a lot of this new language here I find myself wondering a lot of questions here and I know we've we've been here for some time I have a lot so I think you know the answers was we discussed before I get hesitant when we're starting to I see the court here record here the court will do this court will do that so I find myself saying I want to hear more input of course like I mentioned before is I'm wondering if we had a small pocket so to speak of of input from practicing attorneys throughout the state it sounds like maybe on the last last bill it sounds like the same thing again I just wanna make sure before I act that I get isn't much input as I can from my attorneys I know reached out to me in the past and all the other folks that are gonna be involved in this the more folks we have in here and providing input that have experience more so than I do on this I find valuable so. What was our reach here on getting input. the Reese's been the same at the same people been consulted on all of these bills. Follow. You're recognized in one of the details but I know you mentioned a couple other states have this is this is this language pretty much pulled from the other states can you give me a little more information who has it in this language here that we're doing with this agreement yet the language the language basically when it was drafted as other states pocket bills were considered and this was in order to achieve what we're trying to achieve of essentially we tried to pull the best of the the best notions from pocket bills in other states. to write this bill so. Essentially all of the ideas that are encompassed in this exist in one state or another. Are there any other questions by committee. Okay we do have some here to speak for and against the bill we'll start with Sarah Webber. If you will introduce yourself again for the record please. Hi I am Serra Weber I am an adoptee and adoptive parents and birth mom advocate at a local adoption agency and nonprofit. So I'm coming to you right now first as an adoptee I'm telling my age but forty years ago there weren't posted option contact agreements my adoptive parents are amazing people who met my birth mom where she was and set up their own agreement and because of that I was able to now hill at my family of origin lies I was able to now my younger brother I have nieces I have another set of grandparents who were able to live on me and my adoptive parents never gave up any decision making power they never deferred to my birth mom they simply just facilitated that relationship and because of that Rebuilt we are family so just bear with me actually it right now as I testified to you my birth mom is my nanny taking care of my adopted son right now at my house because we were able to you know keep that connection and she loves him and she cares about him and had my adoptive parents gotten scared and said no we're not going to keep that connection I would have lost out on a huge amount of my life I wouldn't know who I am I wouldn't help my agent ID it's so important I am to me as a person to my well being to my mental an emotional state to have those connections to my family of origin I also have a post adoption contact agreement with my son's birth mom she lives in Washington so it has entered into court record that we have the post adoption contact agreement what that means is every six months I sent her an update I sent her photos. I love her so we talk more often than that but I am only required the bare minimum contacts but because of that my son is able to you know has family of origin keep his culture he's able to go to the person who has the answers when he is old enough to ask them and I don't have to answer them for her rate she can answer the hard stuff and I can deferred to her which I'm really looking forward to not having to answer those questions and from an agency perspective what I have seen serving women in crisis here in central Arkansas as we have a huge issue with substance abuse we have a huge issue with poverty and as I go and meet with women who are referred from pregnancy crisis centers and we talk about why an adoption plan looks like I have to be honest with them and say right now Arkansas presents as a closed adoption state and if you make this decision that means that the adoptive parents may close the adoption on you and you don't get to see your child anymore and mom say I would rather take my chances with food insecurity with homelessness with the cycle of poverty with addiction and I have moms who have lost their children to foster care before you I know that they're following that same road because their core fear is that they'll never get to see their child and isn't it worth a couple of photos and an update every six months to keep a child in a place that is stable and secure and happy. We are. There are twenty nine states right now Is that. Recognize that don't recognize post adoption contact agreements right that you're recognized so we're in the minority here in Arkansas states across the country are already doing it they've already seen the benefits the emotional benefits that physical benefits of a posted option contacted green mint I can tell you as a parent it is not scary as an adoptive parent I feel much better about our situation about our relationship knowing I have the protection of the post adoption contact agreement knowing exactly what's expected of me knowing exactly what's expected of my son's birth mom he can go back to that in eighteen years and see that this was entered into and a formalized way that was very thoughtful and it was very methodical and he was taking care of all along the road so I would really encourage you please to consider this bill it. It's completely voluntary if the birth mom or birth dad or adoptive parents she is not to enter into one it's not punitive it is only positive at this point. Members are there any questions for this witness. Okay seeing none thank you for your testimony. Next we have judge hurts failed here to speak against the bill. Please introduce yourself again for the record then you're recognized. Definitely in it and for the record my name is the judge Robert her still. And I am from still from selling County. We're. Thanks so. The good news is many of the things that or. In fact all almost all of the things in this bill. Adoptive parents and biological perspective or perspective adoptive parents and biological parents can do. everything they want right now. And again the okay I think a clarification I don't believe at all anybody try to do it. Misleading buddy but. There's a difference between being a close state and being a mandatory close state okay so in Arkansas people right now and I guarantee you that Mr tribbles firm does turns of open adoptions where the parents have agreements with the birth parents adoptive parents have agreements these days exchange pictures sixty pictures ahead of time your family history all of the things that didn't used to happen the end of the fifties sixties or before when it was a real close adoption like in the movies right where somebody is adopted they don't know where the kid we don't know where the parents came from they don't know any of that that that is I would almost say that those are I mean actually deferred to Mr trouble but I would almost say that those are rare he said that they were sixty something percent where they had agreements but those are probably rare from agencies where they don't know anything and I don't know that that happens often Arkansas may I don't have any statistics on that I'm going to tell you that it's very common for there to be open adoptions in Arkansas right now and for decades. Okay I don't I don't. Like using other people as reference but I have family members who have multiple adoptions were they knew and met the birth parents and there is some exchange of information that trickled away pretty quickly for a variety of reasons okay so you can do all that right now and I think it's great if the parents want to do that I strongly encourage them to do that for their sake for the kids sake for the informational safe if nothing else for health reasons and then the language that Mr trouble used is that this gives that agreement teeth. That's the word that Mr we used. because is not enforceable so it is possible right now for about adoptive parents with their children to go to to the park as often as they want my agreement in writing or not to spend time with the child. Forever if they want to do that. But the biological parent can't sue them to make the parent DO something they don't want to do later on. They don't have the ability to come to the courts and say you need to make the adoptive mom. Follow up on that agreement even up whether they like me or not I need you to be able to order them on paid on punishment of contempt of court or whatever else where they can go to jail if they don't want me around the the child anymore and because I don't think they're being fair that's what would happen eventually may not happen very often Mr tribble said it doesn't happen very often with it doesn't happen very often the why you need that in the law. that if you have you know I'm I'm super. It touched to hear her family's situation how they have been able to manage things there are families who are not as lucky. in the contact and have a relationship with her the fact that her birth during his or nanny's beautiful and you can make a movie that I've watched okay but there's plenty of folks who aren't as fortunate to have a that kind of a healthy relationship and at some point if you have an agreement. You know and there's lots of different kinds of voluntary right I imagine everybody in this room knows somebody who has it has got an adoption or has a connection somehow you probably missed some of you may have in fact we know some folks in this room have done in. When you want to raise a child and your in love with the idea already before we've even met that child. What wouldn't you sign. To be able to put that led into action and raise that child. Right. Not much there's not much you wouldn't do. Mr tribble said that it's getting to the point where in in states that have these it becomes a deal breaker issue. For the biological parents so they're not going to let the child be adopted unless they have this enforceable in court action. That these adoptive parents will feel compelled to sign so it's voluntary legally there's lots of different kinds of volunteer but do they feel like this is what everybody does they can't get a baby. If not now maybe for years if they don't agree to this be locked into the court system potentially. And for the next eighteen years. And But it made clear on the head enter the judicial council is firmly opposed to this bill. And not just me but duty counsel and as I said earlier I said green light on the technical change of yellow light on these on the the the details of the other bill which your past in a more power to you for sure read a lot on this one because of all the potential pitfalls the the ability and I think you know to use. Again these are differences of opinion I respect these these gentlemen and and where they're coming from a hundred percent but what is voluntary from a a biological well with from an adoptive prospective adoptive parent was voluntary I think up. Laid out the question pretty pretty well or at least well enough and then you have the opportunity for a an agency or a lawyer or a friend to say to the biological mom you should sign this because you're gonna get to see your kids are you gonna get to have this relationship. well if it some point in the future is not appropriate based on the parents side of things the adoptive parents side of things and they say no we want to do it well that in that biological mom has to go to mediation has to go to a court has to go to a court who will have heard the defect biological parents or the excuse me the adoptive parents is no what is and then the judge will decide what is in the best interest of the child. You know it's going to be pretty hard slog appeal. Mr trouble indicated there is very little litigation will probably this very little litigation because the type of community who would be induced to sign over based on this language doesn't have the ability to enforce it. And so what we have in Arkansas now is you have the right to have these agreements but it also you should be told as she indicated earlier they tell people you don't have any rights beyond a moral obligation or friendly obligation but if it's a positive relationship probably will continue. But to be told you can enforce it. When it rarely happens. As as he said and if it did happen you're looking at having resources that are beyond their ability in most cases so I'm not saying I wouldn't want well I like people to be able enforce agreements but if you really can't enforce it is that voluntary okay and I don't think it is I think it's bad for everybody except for the person trying to close a deal. Could you can do all of the good stuff already. The stuff that comes with complications from substance abuse or mental health issues that you might have involved in coming into the child's life for the parents they know or or literally I don't like them I don't you know I'm a Baptist that person may not like that the birth mothers Baptist coming around talking about how to how to raise their kids in their own religion okay there's all kinds of things it might be appropriate for adults to decide I don't want my kids exposed to that in a dozen making bad or evil when it even it doesn't even make the biological parents better evil any. Bit parents ought to make the decisions for their own children without the state especially the Courts being involved on a an issue that they are legally different and they have been warned ahead of time what might happen so I'll take questions or to for. Members you have any questions for this witness. Represented Crawford you're recognized. Thank you madam chair a over here hi. So if this bill were to become law. Are you saying that. All adoptions have to be open or can it still be the way it is now worded option agency would match those who won open and who do not want to open who weren't closed so with this change that or do we still have all of that in effect. And I guess I'm just not understanding. What exactly this law would do in a scenario like that is that is it for me refer the engine up for you okay the way I read it is. All of the things it talks about allowing in setting up the procedures for those are available now except that you can't go to court to enforce any more than not high school buddy he was involved in my kids lives could take me to court to they want because they want to see my kid and I think it's not okay or my cousin or or whomever I have the right to to be the parent and make decisions about my children if you want to make an agreement you can do that now. And and you can and you can they will have to rely on the fact that they may change your mind later on that's that is part of the deal with permanency what of what we have and options for the first ability for children. Is that the parents become the legal parents for all intents and purposes and that is their business if you check and they can they may certainly. I feel it's best for the child to have that relationship and they can do that now the only the big thing this changes is how do we punish them if they don't want to do that. How do we get to court if they don't if they change their mind later. Not committing so you can make these agreements but you can't you can't sue somebody over the agreement after the fact that change around the change in mind that's how it is but again they could have N. as we she has with her with her family they have these relationships and it's possible. But if you change your mind is the parent. She would could be fifths taken to court. Order to do that to carry out the agreement if she even if she didn't think it was okay if the judge agreed with the with the bop with the birth parents. And if she continued not to do that she could be held in contempt of court now says in here specific specific performance which in the in the statute and for lawyers for contracts that means the court can only order the parties to do that right he did which I take to mean that there's no attorney's fees or other costs that the judge can order for the bad party whoever did something wrong what that means is when I order something as a judge and some it doesn't follow not water. They have to be punished. Well to serve the person that I think that's appropriate and that that means you have fines attorneys will potentially attorney's fees in jail. And so. Most cases if it gets that far I don't think about birth mother's going to have a as is much of an argument she thinks she may think she would. they have to do with the if the national parents don't do what the judge says they're subject to being held in contempt. Thank you can have a follow up you're recognized. Can I ask a different one. Of the attorney that's with the represented Penzo yes why do you want to change the law. It would do this if we already have that in Arkansas as he was talk will we don't really have it in Arkansas we have. We have the possibility of an open adoption in as much as the adoptive family and the birth family may know each other's identities if they choose that is currently available I would like to answer your question that the scenario you gave to judge hurts failed about the agency's making the match still can happen it doesn't substantively change any of that. If somebody were to want to have a closed adoption in under this law as in other states who have. A law permitting a pocket could still have a closed adoption. What it does is permits the parties on a level playing field to put down on paper what kind of contact they will have later. So the reason is currently the way the law stands if I adopted child there can't be any agreement between me and the adopt and the birth parent after the adoption it's an ultimatum because I can agree with them all day long like I could with my high school buddy I can say you know what you can pick my child up from school today and. Then I can call them back and say no I'm sorry you can't he can't say but wait a minute we had an agreement there's no agreement there. And. It has been shown that these agreements when they're available as miss Webber testified agreements help stability. In knowing what is required of all the parties I would also like to address a couple of points that I understand your enquiring about. Regarding the enforcement issue is in order to enforce it first of all parties agreed that the adoptive parents ACT there is a mandated statement in the agreement that the adoptive parents are acting in the best interest of the child. The birth parents understand that so. In order for them to take the parties to it to the adoptive parents to court. They have to go to mediation first and. It's only if the mediation breaks down were if they can demonstrate that the adoptive parents for not acting in the best interest of the child in enforcing the Parker would not undermine the parental authority of the adoptive parents which in my view addresses judge Herzfeld concerns on that in that regard so it doesn't disparage the parental authority of the adoptive parents it gives all parties clarity as to what they can expect moving forward and they can change it the birth parents and adoptive parents if they wish to change the terms there were. It's in the bill they're able to modify the agreement. So. We have one more audience member who has asked I'm sorry represented firm and you have a question. A judge heard field on Page two line twenty four where it lays out that this agreement will. Vied for future termination if any on what grounds they can be terminated does that address your concern about use mentions something about your concern that in the future if they want to the no longer agree to this if situations change and you want to and this agreement does that provision not speak to the concerned. The the biggest concern is. Parents will could are subject to being sued for decisions they may make regarding their children by a third party who is not legally connected. I'm not sure I quite understand your question as far as the grounds means any if you know what Mr trouble has said is that everybody's agreeing the parents gonna make good is that they're they're making good decisions right but. I'm not coming in just for perspective of of trying to avoid court we got you know we're there we get paid good good salary to do poor handle cases up that's not my concern my concern is. Families. Thank you get their agreeing to one thing or birth parents thinking they're getting all this stuff means I'm not sure it's terribly enforceable and it is the session was there rarely enforced and then you have other committee of prospective adoptive parents who may not adopt because they're concerned about having to deal with that some other person for the next eighteen years and they probably will not probably sign an agreement that may or may not like to do that to get to where they want which is they want to make their family all of. The incentives on both sides or skewed and I think cause harm and and because likelihood for some more stress if it breaks down for the children especially over time if they develop if you know you have an infant going to five or six years they have a connection with this other with their birth parent and then other things occur where is not appropriate in the in the back and the adoptive parents opinion. For them to have that continued contact or even to change that contact if that individual the birth parent has the resources you're going to court in if I don't have the resources they've been sold a bill of goods. That either way on the kids and and so I again I. You cannot emphasize enough how much I. Value the concept of open adoptions in in there if they are allowed now if they want to do they can do it the question is do we want the courts involved in in telling parents what they should do who should who should be around their children. in so the grounds they can specify grounds for terms up to your point and kind of reading is I'm talking I hope you appreciate you know do my best the grounds for any for termination of the agreement and import in whole or part will one one one grant is going to be from the part of the. Presumably from the biological parents that you know you can't just do it on a whim that's kind of that's kind of understood if we have a deal we have a deal otherwise why do we have to use it well my point is you shouldn't have to Senate because it is going well it's going well and there's not one well it's bad for the kids. Well I would everyone to be able to have their say that the hours late so let's try to keep our remarks insured as we possibly can please read represented Fuhrman you're recognized for the following right so the reason why I'm I mean I'm in favor of this because I said earlier I've been a conferences where we talked about this the benefit for it and We have seen this is is if something was to to if there is a reason for to be terminated in the future I think we usually B. because the. Adoptive parent finds something that the for a reason in the birth parent to make it unsafe for not beneficial right integrate beyond that as far as probably need right now all parents have the right to say you can't hear advocate and so. That would be a paid most likely the reason that there's something going on but also there could be a non you know non dangerous reason that they may feel strongly about with the religion or behavior or language I mean when I say language when filing which that means lots of reasons people might not want somebody around the kid that wouldn't be. permissible for anybody else to go to court over. Okay yes thank you K. Singh no more questions thank you for your testimony thank you and we have one more audience members who believe that wanted to speak and I'm not sure if it's for or against if you would come forward and introduce yourself. Thank you madam chair thank you Committee I did not plan to speak to David my name's Isaac Foley I am a registered lobbyist impact management group and. I have no plans to come up here until I heard the statement quote people who know their birth parents grow up to be better people. On January fifteenth nineteen ninety two I was born here in Little Rock Arkansas. On January twenty first Filippi Katrina FOR E. trova down from Springdale Arkansas to pick up their first shot at. I don't know about triads or whatever I have parents. My question that I would ask the committee to consider. Is the potential trauma that this would create if my mother a principal of my elementary school that I attended had to pull me out of class to tell me that my real mom. Had brought a lawsuit because she wanted a relationship with. This is extremely important to me and I did not even realize and I just appreciate the committee you know take all that into consideration thank you. Thank you whether any questions for this witness. He sing nine thank you for your testimony. Represented Penzo would you like to close for your bill. Yeah and I would I'm not a hundred percent sure. Anyway I'll I'll come back to that in a second A real estate analogy is hello I'm going to kind of break this down real estate agent so it's it's kind of like you can do this in Arkansas right now But it's not legally enforceable. So. When I'm vision that that's me going up to somebody and say Hey I want to buy your house we're done but transaction I'm just trying to make analogy. Handshake so money is exchanged it's not forcible. Just a handshake there's no legal written document This would put Something into writing I mean if I'm if I'm a mom. And not use. To give up a child in a open adoption I'm doing it because I don't want to give the child. It's not like I just. Washing my hands the situation because I think that's what's best for me and I've got this child that I don't want to give up I still want to be in a child's life. So I'm entering into this agreement if it's not forcible. Wow what a what would I give this child up. In any could just be unilaterally terminated. I mean that's that's what that's what the situation I'm not mistaken is like right now. So why would we not give that birth mother the opportunity. To be involved if you make the decision based on I want to be involved in this child's life and in the adoptive parents are okay with it. Why shouldn't that be enforceable because I'm entering into this agreement to give this child to this person to raise because they're going to do a better job. Do whatever my circumstances or is the the birth mother I don't. I just can't do right now and I want someone to take care of this baby all of this baby I want someone take care. So I'm giving this family because they can provide a better life. Then I can. I wouldn't enter into that agreement unless it was legally binding why why would you enter into that agreement if it wouldn't legally binding so I guess that's that's the biggest sticking point for this is you can do it but it's just not legally binding it can be unilaterally terminated will that's no good to the the the birth mother I mean. Whatever whatever is better for the child I mean that's that's that's the importance of the last bill that's what consultation from a legal Representative is so important for the for the adoptive parents and the the birth parents didn't know what they're getting into this is a legal agreement you're getting into it and you need to be consulted and and make a good decision on on You know before you enter into this agreement it shouldn't be able to unilaterally terminate so I have issue with that and if if Jones got some quick comments I know everybody's ready to wrap this up if you want to clarify some things please do yet basically I think it's important to keep in mind this is still voluntary and a lot of a lot of the debate that is going back and forth today is about details in the agreement there's broad latitude to include in the agreement what the parties want to include in the agreement they have to agree on it before it gets to court if they don't agree on it it's a non starter so nothing requires you to have it it gives I fully agree with representatives ten so that it gives the peace of mind that a mother can give her child up knowing she may have some contact more often than not that contact is pictures and letters it may be a one or two times a year zoom call with the child what is that it is there any real reason to go to court over that no that's why these things stay out of court because most posted option contacted Cremins work. Date the reason there's no litigation is not that they don't exist it's that they actually work and. The You know twenty nine states have already in. Have packages available to adoptions in their state that's more than half of the United States in closing I would like to say in Washington state posted option contact agreements have worked for nearly a third of a century over thirty years with no appellate case in Oregon they've been successful for twenty eight years in California they've been successful for a quarter of a century it's shown in state after state that they actually do work in most people to have recourse to them. Are quite happy with them in once the adoptions final you can't enter into a post adoption contact agreement. So a child being. Hold out of school to be told that his birth mother filed a lawsuit at least under this bill would not be possible it's something they read prior on contact and the contact is usually fairly limited so we're not talking about some kind of shared custody or anything of that because that this does not get it at all this is about limited contact between the birth parents in the adoptive parents so birth mom can be at peace of mind to know her child. Even if it's once or twice a year growing up in the child has knowledge of who the birth parents are it has an open channel of communication that's all this is about. We feel that it will give a lot more stability to families I believe that it will allow birth mothers when they're faced with the decision to parent or to not it might help them decide to give it the child if they know they can somewhat follow other child rather than try to parent and the child ends up in the foster care system for taken by DHS. I think the bill will be very positive for all parties involved in the adoption process in Arkansas will be a better state for. Represented Fuhrman you're recognized for motion and it will need to be as amended. We have a motion do pass as amended all in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The nose have it the bill fails. Represented Penzo you have one final bill is it quite a bit shorter it's super short all right I don't I don't think you but for glad yes this is just clean up language that you have an amendment for this one as well correct DO is just adding Senator Ballenger's any co sponsored all right to have a motion do pass for the amendment all in favor say aye. Posebno all right the amendments adopted and you're recognized for the bill okay like save save some people's trips up here this is the one that a judge city gave the green light to actually likes it and JP I might give you a quick overview of it and we'll get a. Very quick quick though in two thousand eleven the legislature changed the age and the adoption code from which the child's consent to their own adoption was required from ten to twelve years. When they did that there is a provision in the section that allows to. A revoke that consent. Where they failed to change ten to twelve years all that bill does is change the age to agree with the legislatures and tat it has really no substantive effect to the law as it currently stands. Until. That represented Penzo would you term this a clean up bill or technical correction is going the right any questions from the committee. We have no I'm sorry represented Barker. Okay it's the proper time. Okay we have a motion do pass as amended all in favor say aye. Opposed no. Committee thank you for your diligence today this has been very long but very very important and to appreciate all of you have a good evening thanks for your time.