Judiciary Committee- House

the table, there is an amendment on this bill, so we're going to pass that amendment out when you have an opportunity to look at that amendment and then representing Lindstrom will come back to you. Thank you. Representing Lindstrom, you're recognized to uh identify yourself and present your amendment. Robin Lindstrom state representative, District 18. This amendment basically is uh results of both law enforcement and the medical marijuana community, um, clarifying the definitions, and I will explain the amendment in the bill. Remember you've heard an explanation of the amendment. What's the will of the committee? The motion to adopt. We have a motion to adopt the amendment on the floor, any discussion of the motion to adopt. Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. You're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Chairman. Um, HB 1452 is about notice. It's about key information that was not put into the original medical marijuana Act. This provides definition. This also gives clarity for police agencies and as well as the courts. It removes ambiguities and uncertainties that are in our judicial system when it comes. to this particular topic by cleaning it up and putting it clearly in the law, I would like to thank law enforcement for bringing this to me, and I also I'd like to thank the medical marijuana community for taking this seriously and for working with me on this bill. With that, I leave it up to the committee. Rep Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So when you say law enforcement brought it to you. Is this from the Chiefs Association or the state police or the sheriff's association or which law enforcement? No, this is brought to me by my local law enforcement that has to deal with recreational marijuana coming through from Oklahoma. OK, thanks. Representing Clowney, you're recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Blunstrom, can you just talk a little bit about the problem that this bill is solving. Just let me understand this. The issue is when you pull someone over, for example, on Highway 412 in northwest Arkansas coming over from Oklahoma, a law enforcement officer will pull someone over and they say, oh, I've got medical marijuana, and they have paraphernalia in the car, but none of it is from a legal Arkansas medical marijuana distributor that is in the proper container, so it puts law enforcement in an awkward position. Yes, it's medical, but it's not in the medical containers and then the, the definitions are ambiguous, and so this clears that up. We need if medical marijuana was what the people voted for, let's keep it legal and let's make it easy to understand. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions from the committee, we do have a couple of people who have signed up to speak against the bill. Recognize Sarah Moore. Miss Moore, if you'll come to the end of the table, identify yourself, and you may speak against the bill. I don't. Can you hear me OK? Sorry. Uh, Sarah Moore from Fayette, Arkansas. I'm the executive director of the Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition, much like this body. I'm just now taking this information and I sent the body and the email of concerns, and it sounds like some of these were addressed. I, I, you know, do have some concern that the people of Arkansas through, you know, direct democracy, we were able to vote at the ballot, you know, to make medical marijuana legal. There are already, um, So many barriers to accessing medical marijuana for individuals who worked, you know, specifically with the medical professional to be able to access the medicine that they need. Thank goodness I've never had to access it, but I do know individuals, especially, you know, for cancer treatments or have, um, you know, different medical ailments that really have to use it for pain management. My concerns in regards to the bill with the community members that we work amongst are recognizing this very vulnerable part of our community in the rural areas that have concerns around access to transportation and getting to their medicine. One of the areas, and I don't know, sorry, Representative, if it was talked to in the changes was in regard to the amount of ounces that can be picked up. Is that there's no changes. OK, thank you. One of the concerns that we did have was that, you know, individuals who might get a ride or might have different pain management needs, concerns about, you know, 5 ounces being, you know, the limitation that's been placed again because someone's working with a medical professional to determine what their pain management needs might be, and so unbeknownst to us, how much, you know, they might need to transport at any given time, being concerned about the legality of that. The other thing that we had had a concern about, and I that it's been changed to uncontained, which I appreciate is I talked with different dispensaries and so I'll I'll defer to Representative Lindstrom to be able to speak to this because we were concerned about the unopened container that had been in the original language, and so I just wanting to understand about an uncontained medical marijuana is in, and I've learned a lot about medical marijuanas in so many different types of package forms oftentimes too, I'm in a dispensary, they actually end up, you know, in some format and opening it and having to put a new seal on it, and so I just want to make sure that um whenever we're talking about how it's contained, I have a concern honestly that we're even regulating on how it is contained because again we've said in the state of Arkansas and, you know, voters are, you know, not concerned about folks consuming medical marijuana. I don't think it, you know, it's not like alcohol. We have many laws in place if somebody I believe this bill came forward originally being concerned about someone that might be Consuming while they're like in a vehicle that's a fair concern, and we want to protect public safety, but we have intoxication laws. We have driving under the influence. If someone's in a public space and intoxicated, you know, public and talks, and so you know, it feels like, you know, it's an additional way to criminalize, you know, individuals who might throw no faults of their own, even, you know, stumble into a situation in this regard. So I apologize. I'm just taking in the language and so I might have other thoughts to talk to the committee later, so just, just The public, you know, just now getting to see these, I would ask that maybe hold this and not vote on this today. Thank you. Ms. Moore, are you, if there are questions, are you there to answer questions, are there any questions of this witness? Seeing the questions. Thank you, Ms. Moore, for being here today. Next we have to speak against the bill. Oh yeah, let me leave it. Katinazine, and did I pronounce that right, Mr. Lizzy. I think, uh, Sarah kind of addressed everything that needed to be addressed. OK, so you don't want to speak. All right, thank you. Members, we have no one else who signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Clanny. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Would it be possible to have somebody from law enforcement at the end of the table. There's just some questions I have about how this would be enforced in practice, and I think maybe if there's somebody that'd be able to answer some of those, it would be helpful to me before voting. I'm also just trying to take this in last minute. Let's see, I see a couple over there that can't hide from me. Scott or Gary, would either one of you like to come to the end of the table as the others are all backing behind someone. Mr. Sis, Chief Sipes, if you'll come to the end of the table and if you don't mind, I know you're not signed up, but representing Clowney has a few questions and if you'll identify yourself and if you'll uh take those questions, we'd appreciate it. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Sy. And I'm sorry, this is not, this will not be a gotcha. I just I'm trying to work through kind of how this would look in practice. So I have to just really 2 questions. There are a few places in the bill where the language in the presence of is used, so in the, you know, in the presence of a minor or in the presence of a pregnant woman. I guess my first question is what does that mean in terms of law enforcement in the presence of in the same home, in the same room, you know, could you just expand on that a little bit, yeah, basically that would be concerning. Our motorists going down the street. OK. Yeah. OK, great. And then the second question is sort of along the same lines. This is not in the amendment but in the original bill. There's language about the um marijuana being readily accessible. Can you talk about how that's determined? I mean, cars are such different sizes. People, you know, things can be, um, you know, if, if marijuana is in the trunk, does that count as readily accessible? Can you just walk me through that too? Well, I think what the bill is referring to is uh how it's Contained medically in the packaging from a medical uh standpoint, uh where uh you usually in uh illegal uh possession, it's in a Ziploc bag, but the I think what the bill is presenting here is that it be contained in the packaging that they received it in. language says the medical marijuana is within an area of the motor vehicle that is your mic's off. Sorry, um, the language here is that the medical marijuana is within an area of the motor vehicle that is readily accessible to the driver or a passenger in the motor vehicle in a seated position. Yeah, well that would mean inside the vehicle, not in the trunk. So if the driver's in the front seat and the product is in the backseat. That would be readily accessible, you think? Representing Collins, you recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I think Mr. Symes, you may be able to answer this or maybe Representative Wanstrom can. So it looks like there are, uh, 3 things that are described as criminal offenses, classy misdemeanors, and they at least 2 of them seem like they're referring to things that are already unlawful under the Constitution, so it's unlawful under the Constitution to knowingly use medical marijuana through vapor inhalation and. one of the places already prohibited and smoke in one of the places already prohibited and then to possess uncontained on in a vehicle. So are those things currently criminal violate or criminal prohibited by criminal law and if so, what is the classification of those? Are they classy misdemeanors already, or what are they right now? Right now we're not changing any of those laws. We are codifying and defining. That's what this bill does. We're not changing any amounts, we're not changing anything, um, the containers, the issue has been that it has been a container that's not been from a medical marijuana facility. So. It needs to be in the original. We're going to keep medical marijuana medical. It doesn't take away medical marijuana. It doesn't change any of that. These are the same. Laws as we've started out with, it just codifies it and makes it clear. Well, I mean, if it's a criminal law and it's not codified, I don't think it's a criminal law, so this is, this is legal marijuana. OK, but there are 3 Class C misdemeanors here. Are they currently Class C misdemeanors in law or are they they currently are classy. I'm not an attorney, OK, I'm not expecting to say the Holiday Inn last night, so I have no clue. um, but we are keeping it the same as it currently is just clarifying. And Mr. Sypes, you Agree. Yes, sir. OK, thank you. members any other questions, seeing no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Sachs for coming to the end of the table. We have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Lustrom, you're recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. This gives enumerated lists and definitions that are not transmitted right now in statute. It helps the policies. It helps the police, it helps the courts have clear outlines. This does not take away any constitutional rights that have already been granted by the Constitution for legal marijuana. This only makes things clearer and protects both the medical marijuana cardholder and adds clarity for law enforcement, and with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Members Representative Lindstrom has closed her bill what's the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations you have passed your bill. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time. Member Senator Dees is coming into the room and so with that we're going to turn to Senate Bill 234, Senate Bill 234. Senator Dees, we have Judge Bresswell here if you'd like him to come to the table with you. Some members who you'll turn to Senate Bill 234. Yeah See You recognize, so identify yourself for the record, and you may present your bill. Thank you members. Thank you, Chair. One woman. This is Senator Tyler Dees. Senate District 35. Good morning, Troy Braswell, circuit judge in the 20th Judicial District that covers Faulkner, Van Buren, and Cercy County. Senator Deser recognize. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this is a great bill, Senate Bill 234, is addressing a need for the population growth that we've seen in the state of Arkansas, um, especially in, um, in my neck of the woods, and so during the review process, this is a normal process of the judicial resource assessment Committee that has reviewed a number of caseloads across different counties across different geographical areas across our state and looked at the number of cases. 4 different courts and has assessed a recommendation for an additional circuit judgeship in the 19th Judicial District West, which is up near Benton County, and so due to the caseloads they saw an average of about 857 cases that are that are coming through that that district court in assess the need for an additional judgeship. And so that's what this would do. This statute would would allow to bring an additional judge the same process for how we let judges still goes on the same normal process but would allow for an additional judgeship. Happy to answer any questions and and or maybe I should pause, would you like to add any additional commentary? Thank you, Senator. Um, I would just like to point out to this committee that any time that a judicial district is asking for a new judgeship that our judicial council takes it very serious. Um, we go through a very lengthy process to ensure that when we come before, both bodies, um, that this is an absolute need, um, we've looked at the data on this jurisdiction, as you know, uh, is growing at, at rapid pace. Um, the judicial district. had the highest caseload 3 of the last 5 years, 2nd, uh, in the two, other years, uh, and so it's uh certainly a long process every local legislator, quote unquote, county judge, prosecutors, public defenders have all signed off and agreed uh to request for this position. I also note that in Benton County, there are, uh, I believe under new construction for a new courthouse that will have room for this additional spot. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing their questions, the only person signed up was Judge Braswell, and he has spoken, and with that Senator Des will recognize you to close for your bill. I would just like to say thank you, Representative Dalby. You, you spoke in the Senate Judiciary Committee for me, and so I had to return the favor for you and your committee today and so I appreciate a good vote and thank you members. Members, Senators' clothes for his bill. What's the wishes of the committee? Would motion do pass, where mo do pass on the table is there a discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. Dis have it. Congratulations, you have passed our bill. Appreciate it. Thank you. Have a good day. Members, let's go back to the top of our agenda and we're going to pick up with House Bill 1433. Representative Moore, you're recognized come at the end of the table, identify yourself. And you may present your bill. Members, this is House Bill 1433. Thank you, Madam Chair, Kendra Moore, District 23. Madam Chair, with your permission, I'd like to invite Barbara Mariani with the Arkansas Domestic Coalition of Domestic Violence to join me at the table. Sure. If you'll just identify yourself, Ms. Mariani. My name is Barbara Mariani. I'm legal counsel for the Arkansas Coalition of Domestic Violence. Thank you. Representative Moore, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you. House Bill 1433 is a part of a package of domestic violence improvement bills worked on by a bipartisan. group of legislators, the concept behind House Bill 1433 is just to make the process safer for everyone. The statute has not changed, only adding subsection C. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that all criminal warrants are served on the respondent when a temporary order of protection and a notice of an order of protection is served on that respondent or when they appear in court for the order of protection hearing. The problem this bill is addressing is that respondents have been coming to court for an order of protection hearing with an active criminal warrant and have been leaving court with unserved active criminal warrants. This bill simply asks that law enforcement officers serving that order of protection also serve any criminal warrants, if applicable at that same time. A few other key points I wanted to address in the bill, uh, just domestic. violence, victim safety when that domestic violence victim and the abusers are in that same courtroom together. If the warrants are served prior to that hearing, it really helps ensure the safety of the of the victims. When those outstanding criminal warrants as far as community safety when those outstanding criminal warrants are served at that initial contact with law enforcement. It really helps ensure just the safety of the whole community. Also safety for the courtroom and security before that respondent enters the courtroom, if that criminal warrant is served, it goes even further to ensure safety in the courtroom. And then lastly, just it's an efficient use of taxpayer money. Taxpayer money's not wasted on paying more than one law enforcement officer to serve that respondent. This bill has been vetted through the administrative office of the courts and judicial counsel, the Arkansas Police Chiefs Association and the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. And with that, I will try and answer any questions. Representative Tosh, you're recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Representative, I'm just making sure I would have thought already that law enforcement would have been serving these criminal warrants, so you're just wanting to make sure that, and I know sometimes in big cities that maybe some of them doing the civil process side of serving these criminal warrants and then the bailiffs or whoever at the courts may not be familiar with this, so you're just wanting to put into the statute, hey, check each one through, I guess ACIC and make sure there's no outstanding warrants, and if they are, then you're just saying, hey, they need. To be served while they're there in your presence, which I, I would like to think they were doing that anyways and, and uh but it's just reassures us that that will be done. Is that what I'm gathering from this? Yes, sir. That's a great assessment. I, I believe to your point, law enforcement overall is doing a good job of this. There just are some duties that aren't being collected as well as what you're saying. So we just want to ensure that, um, they are being served at the same time as that, as that Sybil. Thank you. question. Thank you. Reps saying guess what you recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I actually Have several concerns about this bill, which I'll get to, but to follow up on Representative Tasha's point, uh, Law enforcement in many cases is already doing this, is that right? Yes. OK, so one of the questions that That is Why do we need a bill? And the other thing is, is while law enforcement is already doing this and does a fairly good job of it. This bill mandates it. It says that they shall do this. It when, when we talk about a judge, it says the judge shall order law enforcement to do these things, then law enforcement shall do these things, serve the warrants. Um What happens if they're not able to. What happens Uh If, if there's a You know, some impediment in the way that makes them not able to do this. I'm going to defer that question to Ms. Marianne. Um, uh, generally, yes, the police are serving these. However, um, as was pointed out earlier, there are certain jurisdictions where there's such a high volume of orders of protection, um, the statute allows the judges to ask the sheriffs for help. And so what the judges do is they ask the sheriff to serve the orders of protection and the notices. In those jurisdictions, a lot of times those sheriff's departments have two separate departments. They have the Civil Service Department, basically in the criminal. And so what happens is they're not talking to each other. So, uh, deputy will go out and actually serve an order of protection, and there could be a, uh, domestic battery in the first degree, which is a very serious offense, and if they don't look it up, they don't serve it, and that person is not served an act of warrant. So it is happening um I've practiced. Uh, also in this area, and I've actually seen it happen both at the sheriff's levels and the police levels, and it's not because they're not doing a good job or they don't want to do a good job. In fact, the law requires them to serve active warrants. That's already in the law. The problem is they are just so overwhelmed with all the warrants that are coming in and the service requirements. Um, and so this is double tiered. So, first of all, the first tier would be the sheriff would serve it while he's there, which does save taxpayer money Otherwise you're going to have to have another sheriff go out and serve it at some point and if for some reason it doesn't get done at that level, then when it comes to the court, it says if the court is aware of the active warrant, they are to notify law enforcement. Um, as far as the remedy, it's like the remedy in any other kind of statute, uh, the court has, uh, contempt powers, and under those contempt powers, the court can call the sheriff in and ask why it wasn't served and that's up to. the discretion of the courts, so there is some enforcement if the Court wants to enforce. You recognized for a follow-up? All right, thank you, Madam Chair. So, you know, and again, to your point, This bill requires It mandates the service of all warrants, misdemeanor or felony. So Someone has a warrant for driving on suspended license that they weren't aware of. They have a warrant for leash law violation because they failed to appear in court on a leash law violation. They must be picked up. They must serve the warrant. They must arrest him. Arrest them. They must take him to jail. Even on something as innocent as that. That's how this bill would function, right? It's a mandate. It specifically says criminal warrants, so they have to be criminal warrants. So, um, leash laws, uh, generally are ordinances. That wouldn't be a criminal warrant, uh, driver's license suspensions, or traffic warrants that wouldn't necessarily fall under the criminal warrant, so we're talking about a misdemeanors and up, so they're actual criminal warrants. Also, as far as you have to serve it. It's all, I mean, officers are already required to serve it. So that's nothing new in our law. I will say this though, uh, officers always have the discretion to cite people out, and that happens all the time, so you do not have to arrest someone on misdemeanor offenses, officers can cite individuals out and what that is is basically like a traffic ticket, they can do that also on, uh, misdemeanor warrants. It can also actually be done on felony warrants if they're nonviolent felony warrants, they just have to contact the prosecutor's office, and, uh, make sure that the prosecutor is on board with that. You recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a lot of concerns. I'm not sure that they're conducive to a back and forth questioning style. I, I can express those at some point. Um, but I'm, I'm really concerned about the fact that orders of protection. are so often used In custody cases, OK? It is, in my opinion, in 18 years of practicing law, one of the most abused processes that we have in the law. Now, is it necessary? Absolutely. Are there cases where it's legitimate and these are, uh, these work really well to stop domestic violence, absolutely not arguing that point. But I have also seen. These abused time and time again, I represented someone recently on one of these. Uh, where when I showed up to court, the judge had 16. orders of protection on their docket. By the time that they went to trial, there were 3 orders of protection left. On the docket. The others had all been dismissed. People had dropped them. And this applies to ex parte orders of protection where someone can just go into the clerk's office, get a petition, fill out any allegations they want, whether it's true or not. And then judges, you know, commonly sign these because they're concerned if if there is any truth to it that something bad could happen. So they sign them. My concern with how this bill functions is. what that means is when they serve the ex parte order of protection. They're also going to have to serve the warrant. And so what that allows is someone who wants to gain an upper hand. In a custody case to go fill out an order of protection, put whatever allegations they have to in order to get the order protection signed, and if they know, That their husband, baby daddy, whoever else it is, the opposing party. Has a warrant for driving on suspended driver's license second offense. Or whatever the case may be. They know that when the sheriff goes out under this bill, not only are they going to serve them without that order of protection, but they're going to put them under arrest. They're they're going to arrest them. They're going to put them in jail. Which means when they show up for that order of protection hearing where custody will be decided. When they show up to that order of protection hearing, their husband, baby daddy, whoever it is that had the warrant is going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit and flip flops and handcuffs, which puts him at a distinct disadvantage. He's not just there. To defend against the order of protection, which many of which are bogus, by the way. He's not just there to defend against that. He's now he's now he's arrested. Now he's in handcuffs. Many of them are also legitimate, by the way, I should say. But this is a concern and I'd like to hear you address that. Uh, first of all, as to the concern about an individual showing up in handcuffs and uh I'm assuming you're referring to a jumpsuit, uh, because they've been arrested. This is civil system versus criminal system. So the criminal system, which would be the act of criminal warrants that are being served, they have to have a hearing, uh, within 48 hours to make sure that probable cause has been established and a judge is required to set a bond unless it's capital murder. And if it's capital murder, you're not entitled to a bond. And so I guess you would show up with a capital murder, but anything short of a capital murder, you're going to have be set a bond. Once you set a bond, if you make that bond, you're not going to show up in handcuffs or a jumpsuit. Additionally, in civil court, things aren't put on the docket within 24 to 48 hours. Uh, I, I do believe we have a judge here who can witness to that and so, uh, that just really does not happen. And third of all, we have to come to a point where we either trust our judiciary or we don't trust our. judiciary. I mean, if judges are making bad decisions, the solution is to vote for a different judge, but I think our judges do a very good job. They look at all the cases. They are attorneys and they know that they cannot consider pending criminal charges because maybe someone is in handcuffs or in a jumpsuit, they can't consider that in their rulings, and I don't believe they do. A couple of follow-ups. Sure, let me ask, and I'll come right to you. I have a quick question that I want to slide in here because I don't want to forget it. You testify just a few moments ago that this was limited to misdemeanor A and felony. Criminal warrants. I'm sorry, criminal warrants, uh, you, you testified misdemeanor A, A. Capital A, Mr. Mayor's not a misdemeanor and felony criminal warrants, and that's on Page 2, line 3. There is nothing in the bill that says misdemeanor A. That's correct. I misspoke. It's misdemeanors in general and so misdemeanors, but they do have to be criminal warrants. So for instance, an example of a B misdemeanor would be probably an assault in the 4th degree is a B misdemeanor, um, so with, uh, disorderly conduct would be something lower than an a misdemeanor. And again, I will emphasize on those cases, officers can cite people out. They do not have to arrest on those. And I understand that, but your bill doesn't say misdemeanor criminal warrants. It just says Mr. Mayor or felony warrants and that was just a concern I had seen the way you're recognized. All right. One of the Assumptions that you make, I mean, you mentioned that someone could make bond. Well, of course, that assumes that they have the money to make bond. As you know, many people don't make pie. Which means they will show up to their custody hearing involving their children. As an incarcerated person. There may be a percentage of that. I mean, I cannot, I can't refute that, but I will say that if judges are doing their jobs like we trust them to do their jobs. They set bonds accordingly and, um, generally speaking, those lower level, uh, uh, crimes that are misdemeanors, don't have very high bonds at all, and a lot of times they're released on their own recognizance. That's the majority of the cases on those. Now, even if they do show up, we still have to trust our judiciaries. I mean, judges do not, are not allowed to take. that into consideration and, uh, I trust that the judges do what they're supposed to do. All right, I have some more, but I'll get back in the queue. Thank you, Ma'am Representatives, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just, I've got a little confused here and, and If you, if you've got a warrant, Whether it's a whether it's a misdemeanor or whether it's a felony warrant and you're in the presence of a law enforcement officer. Are you saying that the law enforcement officer would not serve the warrant if it was a, if it was a civil misdemeanor war or criminal misdemeanor warrant. I mean, I'm not real clear on that, because if you, if you've got a warrant on you, here's my point. If you have a warrant and you're in the presence of law enforcement, law enforcement has a duty and an obligation. To serve that warrant, uh, regardless of where you're standing or what you're doing at the present time. That's their duty and that's their obligation. You're not saying this law would permit that in any way, are you? What you're trying to pass here today? No, no, it's enforcing that. It's backing that up. Well, I didn't gather that from that testimony. I, I took it to that if it was a misdemeanor warrant that it wouldn't apply, but that's not what you're saying, I hope. No, sir, that's not what I'm saying. We're talking about I was addressing Representative Gazaway's issue with someone being in custody at a hearing. What I'm saying is police officers do have the discretion to cite people. You serve the warrant, but you can cite them out. Now you do have to take him to the detention facility, uh, to do the paperwork, but they do have the discretion to cite out Madam Chair, follow up. One quick follow up and I want to be clear on this from the standpoint of law enforcement if for some reason, and there could be a lot of those, but if for any reason, law enforcement, uh, they failed, I guess to say that they failed to actually have someone in the presence that had a warrant, and they didn't serve it for whatever reasons, and that can happen, so what would be, uh, what is, what does this bill do as far as uh penalizing law enforcement for if that happens, there's no penalization for law enforcement officers in this bill because we don't want to pen law enforcement officers. We want to work with law enforcement officers. We want the communities to be safe, so we want active warrants to be served when they can be served. This encourages officers to make sure and run as you, as you pointed out earlier, a criminal check, an ACI check to see if there's active warrants if they're serving civil. And it's not, there's, there's been several cases where that's not been done. I think it's because they're overwhelmed, honestly. Well, and the reason I asked the question Representative Gassway made a good point. He said that I, I, I didn't, uh, I didn't catch it, but He did. He just said that I think there's language that says you shall to law enforcement that you shall. Is that has a different meaning than than May, and you know that, and I do too, so is that in the bill that they shall and would that put them in some type of precarious liability if they didn't. It wouldn't put him in any kind of vicarious liability because there is no uh remedy in this bill to penalize officers for that. I mean, sometimes mistakes are made, as you well know, and we understand that and that's why we didn't put any kind of penalties whatsoever in the bill. All right, I'm just making sure that this bill wasn't that far. OK. Gassway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to go back to Orders of protection. are often used. or a part of a domestic relations case. Involving custody, would you agree with that? They can be. Yes, and many times it's not uncommon at all that the initial time that the court hears about the issue of custody happens through an order of protection, right? I wouldn't think that would be the majority. Well, I didn't say the majority, but it's Common It's a separate proceeding. So when you file for custody and visitation, that is a separate case than when you file for an order of protection. You could do both or you could just do either. I'd know how it works. I know well how it works. The point is that These are, they're filed in the domestic relations division of circuit Court orders of protection. They oftentimes accompany other domestic filings where custody of children are concerned. In the order of protection itself, you check boxes about your requesting custody of the children and custody is decided at an order of protection hearing, right? It can be, but it doesn't necessarily, and it's very hard actually to get orders of protection to cover children because of the custody laws. There's a appellate court decision that basically says if the facts. The, the basis of the custody and visitation is the same as the facts in the order of protection, the custody and visitation actually takes precedence and the judge in the order of protection cannot issue an order of protection overriding that. I'm not talking about granted against in favor of the children. I'm talking about the issue of custody, who has custody is decided at the order of protection hearing. That's just a fact. If there are custody of children, judges make decisions about who gets custody of the children at the order of protection hearing, not necessarily. It has to cover the child. I'm just saying I, I've been in the orders of protection and the judge can, has the authority to do that. My experience is they are reluctant to do that with custody and visitation issues because there's actual an action for that. You actually can file for custody and visitation and also in the statute itself, it specifically says it's temporary if that decision is made until a custody and visitation court makes that final ruling. Um, that said, this statute has no effect on that. We're not touching any of that, I understand that, but the point is, and I think you Basically just admitted That judges make decisions on these, it's temporary. There may until other filings happen, but custody is decided in an order of protection hearing. I mean, I've done this for 18 years. I've literally Do this. I mean, you can't tell me that judges don't decide custody in order protection hearings. I'm not saying they never do that. I'm just saying it's not a given. then they don't necessarily do custody, uh, determinations at the time. All right, well, here's, here's the one of the other points. I mean, it was argued that One of the reasons that we're doing this is for judicial efficiency if we're serving an order, an ex parte order of protection, we might as well serve the criminal warrants. And that there is a point to that. But the problem that I have is if this isn't about gaining an upper hand in terms of custody and in a domestic relations issue, why didn't you make this apply to the service of summons. Sheriffs serve a lot of legal documents. They serve summonses. They serve subpoenas. They serve writs of execution. They serve writs of possession. They serve lots of documents. This bill doesn't apply to any of them. This bill only applies when a sheriff has to serve. An order of protection. Because we wanted to target the safety of the community, the safety of the courthouse, and the safety of domestic violence victims. These are very volatile situations and people with active criminal warrants where a judge has found probable cause that they have committed an actual criminal offense, um, causes dangerous situations, and so we just want to make sure that our communities are safe, the courthouse is safe, and also, uh, domestic violence victims are safe. Members, any other questions? We do have someone who's Signed up to speak against the bill. I know more than I do Brian Vandiver, Van Diver, Vandiver, Mr. Vandiver, I apologize if I've mispronounced your name, but you're recognized to come to the end of the table and speak against the bill. If you'll identify yourself once you get there. I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Brian Vandiver, and I appreciate the opportunity to present to you today. I'm here on behalf of our organization, Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality. Many of you may remember our efforts 4 years ago to pass the joint custody bill that we have in our Arkansas today that we're very proud of. Our mission is broader than that. Our mission is to protect the equality of, um, females and males, moms and dads in family law. And so the reason that I speak against this is several points, but as Representative Gassway has so eloquently raised what this bill can do and likely will do is weaponize orders of protection further. They're already weaponized to a degree, but this will pour gasoline on the fire. And if you don't think family lawyers will use this to their advantage. I've got beachfront property in Arizona for you. Because it will. They will use it to their advantage. Now, one point I want to make about the bill itself is the title. The title was misleading because it says this is going to apply to any outstanding criminal warrants related to domestic violence or offenses in which the petitioner for the order of protection is the victim of the offense specified in the criminal warrant. That's not what this bill does. That's not what this bill does. This bill requires service of any criminal warrant, whether the petitioner of the order of protection is the victim or not. So I think there's a significant disparity with the title and the contents of the bill. Second, as Representative Gasaway correctly noted what this does is this conflates criminal law and family law. And you have now a mandate to police sheriff, Sheriff's departments to serve criminal warrants with a domestic relations issue. It's not a permissive, it's a shall. And I believe the testimony we just heard is, well, this bill is to fix a few logistical problems in a few jurisdictions that are overwhelmed because they can't handle the volume, whether that's Pulaski County and or other counties. I don't know. But this bill applies to statewide, presumably to the majority of jurisdictions and counties where the current law is operating correctly. And there are no problems. What this does is this interferes with the administration of those police and sheriff departments and mandates how they are to conduct their business. Third, and of great importance to us is this bill will create a disparate impact on the respondents. Of wars of protection which are overwhelmingly majority male. And we know that. And so what you have is you have a mandate to serve criminal warrants on the respondents overwhelmingly statistics shows are, are the men, and there's not the same. Mandate for the petitioners. If we're going down this road. Why not mandate criminal warrants served on the petitioners too, because there are gonna be cases where both have criminal warrants. Right? The petitioners and the respondents. And so you're going to have these orders of protection used ex parte criminal warrants are now going to be served against the respondents, but oh, Petitioner who may have criminal warrants on their own. They don't get served. That's not required for them. Finally, I'll close with this and I'll be happy to take any questions. Again, I think when you look at what this bill does, this bill attempts to allegedly fix a few administrative problems, logistical problems, and a few jurisdictions in our state, and we're taking a, a sledgehammer and approach to something that can be handled a little differently. And I, I think there are a lot of unintended consequences if this bill is passed. We have these concerns and we are very much opposed. To the passage of this bill. I'll entertain any questions. Representing Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Counselor, you made your statement that this bill would interfere with the law enforcement on how they conduct their business. I'm not real sure I. stand exactly what you meant by that. Would you care to explain that. Thank you, Representative Thoin. I'd be happy to do so, and I understand that the law already requires the service of criminal warrants, and we, we don't dispute. That, I mean, if, if you have a criminal warrant, you should be served with it. I think our problem is mandating that law enforcement do this in conjunction with an order of protection that is a vehicle of family law. And that vehicle was primarily used by women against men. And when that happens, you're going to have that vehicle further weaponized in the family law courtrooms. And then that's going to also, like I said, interfere with, uh, how law enforcement serves their warrants. As the testimony, the testimony we just heard larger departments are going to have different people serving orders of protection versus criminal warrants. How they do that, how they facilitate their business, in my view is their business. I don't think there needs to be a mandate on how they serve those, those warrants. If those jurisdictions are not serving criminal warrants as they should, that should be addressed on a piece by piece basis, not through a bill that affects everyone statewide. Representing Collins, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and this is just a question I guess I could have asked to them, but I'll ask it to you. I, I think you just said and people have said throughout that they already are required to serve these criminal warrants, so I guess why is this an obligation and maybe it's the same way of asking the same thing representative Tas has, but if they have to serve the warrants already, then why is requiring them to serve the warrants any different or a problem. Why is serving the criminal warrants in addition to the orders of protection? No, I'm talking about the criminal warrants. I thought you just said that they're required to serve the criminal warrants under current law. They are, OK, and aren't we requiring them to serve criminal warrants in this bill. You're doing that through the custody code. You're doing that through the statute that specifically deals with excuse me, through the Orser protection code, the, the code that specifically deals with orders of protection. A family law code and through that code, you're tagging both orders of protection and criminal warrants together so that criminal warrants now must, shall be served with orders of protection, and that's not been the case. Orders of protections are served differently from criminal warrants and how those law enforcement operations serve those criminal warrants, that's, that's how they do their business. And oftentimes they are served together, as we've heard. That's the testimony. But what we're trying to do is mandate a fix for a few jurisdictions they may, that may not do that. And now we're again taking a A sledgehammer to fix a problem in a few, a few jurisdictions. Follow up. You'll recognize. I understand and I understand that maybe it's in a place in the code where you wouldn't want it, but I, I guess I just still need clarification. Is it currently required of law enforcement to serve criminal warrants. Is that a show on them right now. Yes, that is my understanding. OK. I'm so confused what's not currently in the, in the law is what this bill does is that This bill triggers that shall by an ex parte filing of an order of protection. And when you file that ex parte order of protection, then you're going to trigger a mandated serving of a criminal warrant, which raises as Representative Gassway says, a, a whole host of concerns, and we agree with those concerns, but you'll trigger a mandate that's already been triggered. You're triggering it on one party. You're not triggering it on the petitioner. I thought it was triggered on everybody already, but I'm sorry, I, I'm, I'm abusing the process. I'll get out of the. Sorry. Representing Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. This may have been a question better directed to the sponsor and the proponents of the bill. Um, but this discussion about what law enforcement is required to do. Uh, and I guess I'm asking this because you've been involved in these issues, but do you believe that If legislation such as this were passed, that there will be parties that will use it to influence custody arrangements. Absolutely, and, and I believe you're saying that from the standpoint that, that folks will come to know that if they have someone who has a warrant out who they may know that they have a worn out that they can Essentially, put it on law enforcement's radar by, by utilizing the order of protection or other or other processes to require it to be served. Absolutely, but and, and actually, and I think Representative Gazaway raised this. In certain instances, those individuals may have actually been well aware for, for many months that that person had a warrant out. And was not looking to try to have it carried out, but then may use it. Now, of course, the tough thing about this is that there, I mean, in the, in the domestic uh with regard to domestic violence is that there are, there certainly are examples of where law enforcement or others, there was a lack of communication and and someone who should have been locked up, commits really uh really heinous crimes, but I guess that comes back. It seems like if this is, if that this should apply across the board, if, if we want warrants to be enforced, that it should be that the same motivation should apply not just in with regard to domestic violence, not just with temporary orders of protection, but any time that an individual is going to interact with law enforcement, shouldn't we ask that they check to see if there's a warrant out there. I mean, because it's it's the same argument could be made for any other service of some. service of subpoenas, service of writ of execution, whatever the case may be, and it sounds like that's already required, but obviously this bill is trying to escalate that and bring it to another level. I don't disagree with any of that, Representative Shepherd, and, uh, in, in fact, we would gladly support a mandate of a mandate where a service of summons or a service of some, some other legal um process is required also serve the criminal warrant. Our concern is that this is singularly tied to one. Aspect That is the order of protection, service of or protection and we know that that has a demonstrably adverse impact on men versus women and it will be used further used as a weapon in domestic relation cases, and I guess the final thing is that I can also understand from the proponents of the bill from the standpoint of in the with regard to uh domestic abuse, uh, that is. if that has occurred, I mean, obviously that there that's a highly, uh, that's, that's an environment that is, that is very dangerous and so I understand, I understand the the idea behind it, I guess the question is just how do we, how do we work to make sure it's applied in the proper way to protect, to protect those that need to be protected. I completely agree, Representative. I don't dispute the idea behind it. We have significant concerns with the mechanics of the bill. And how it is applied. Representing Springer, your mic is lit up. Are you asking for a question? OK. just don't turn your mics on, uh, you know, just kind of give me that signal so we don't have feedback because we were getting some feedback. Representing Springer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I just wanted to follow up on the The numbers. Do you have any information about the number of currently pending warrants, these type of criminal against, so I'm trying to establish how how you determine that there's an impact. Do we know exactly how many warrants are pending out there that haven't been served to uh to these individuals that we're speaking of I do not have that statistical information I'm trying to understand what is the basis then for your belief that there will be an against certain individuals, i.e., males versus females saying if we don't know how many are pending and who the who who they belong to, so that's what I'm trying to understand. Can you representative for the question. I do not have the specific statistics. What I do have is 25 years as a lawyer, and that experience in my years and years of advocacy in this area, uh, and, and my understanding of how family law works and how family lawyers work. And how they use already orders of protection to their advantage in custody litigation, and as I said and as I think Representative Gassway said this will pour gasoline on the fire. But, but we don't follow up, Madam Chair. So we, but we don't know how many the warrants are out there I do not have we don't know what that impact is. I do not have the numbers, ma'am. No. Representing Gasway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just want to Ask your opinion based on my experience with law enforcement. Because this is a mandate. This does say shall. There is some concern that if they don't do it, that they may be subject to contempt of court once it's brought to the judge's attention that you mean you served an ex parte order of protection. It didn't serve the warrant. My experience has been that the sheriff's department has enough to do already. They don't have, they, they're understaffed. They've only got a handful of deputies trying to cover a full county. Then they get these orders of protection to add to their plate among all the other responsibilities they have. They simply go out and try to serve these as the law requires. And Among the other myriad of responsibilities that they have, they may not. Uh, always. Search, know, serve a warrant at the same time that they're serving other documents, whether that is a summons, whether that's a writ of possession, whether that's a subpoena, whether that and even in this case an order of protection. Has, is that also your experience and does that give you any cause for concern. Sure, sure he does. I mean, I think again when we're mandating, uh, through this orders of protection code, what police officers and sheriffs what law enforcement generally should do, I think that is a concern and they already have that mandate through other parts of the code, let them execute their functions as they are ordered to do through other parts of the code and address it with them on a one by one basis. Just a quick follow up. But you would agree that Under this bill, if they don't do it, given that it's a shell. They, as I think maybe the sponsor said they would very much be subject to contempt of court for failing to serve the warrant. Well, I certainly think that that would be within the judge's discretion and and the judge would have questions if they didn't do it. Fair enough. Thank you. McCullo, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it true that women also sometimes abuse children. Yes, yes. Follow up, please. It does this bill say expressly that it will only be used against men? Well, there's a difference, if I may represent it, between, uh, the statistics for for women abusing children versus men abusing children, and the statistics for who request order of protection. I think you're not. That's not my question. Does this bill target men by saying that only men will be served these warrants. It doesn't expressly say that, but it, it will have, in my opinion, the adverse impacts. Members, any other questions? See, thank you for your testimony today. We have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representing more. Are you ready to close for your bill? You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do uh appreciate all the feedback. This is my maiden voyage to the Judiciary Committee, and I appreciate all the love. I believe you all know the intent of this bill was just to add additional protections to those most vulnerable citizens during a very difficult time of their lives and that's domestic violence victims. It was never meant to be used as an upper hand in child custody or any of the other, uh, comments that have been made. I really do appreciate all the feedback. I think there's been a lot of good work in this bill with the coalition vetting through law enforcement agencies and the courts. That being said, uh, it's my desire to ensure that this is a really good piece of legislation that really helps domestic violence victims. Again, there's been some great discussion and if it's permissible with you, Madam Chair, I'd like to go ahead and pull this down, work with the coalition members of the committee to make this a better bill and achieve its original intent. Remember seeing no objection for the request to pull the bill down without we will allow you to pull the bill down and members, if you have suggestions, comments, you, you've had a lot of discussion. We've had some people who have not. Ask any questions but may have questions. I urge you to get with Representative Moore at your soonest available date so that we can get this bill back up if, if so be. With that, thank you for, thank you for your time. Thank you for your willingness to work further on this bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, members, we're going to turn to Representative Hudson, are you? Are you ready? OK. This one hasn't it. Uh, we have an amendment. This is going to be uh I lost my agenda. 1434 members House Bill 1434. We do have an amendment, so Members, you have the amendment before you on House Bill 1434 representing Hudson, I'll recognize you to present your amendment, and I would urge you to maybe go into a little more detail on your amendment that maybe we got from a previous representative on their amendment, that might be a little helpful and cut the time so, so you're recognized. Sure, um, Ashley Hudson, State Representative District 75. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you committee. This amendment, um, is based on some discussions I had. with, uh, members of this committee and members of the community yesterday about this bill. Um, we'll talk more about the bill once we get to the, to the main, to the main bill here in a minute. But what this amendment does is it deletes the references in the bill throughout to the term quote course and uh course of control, um, the reason for that is that through discussion yesterday, um, it was brought to my attention at this particular phrase could be used, um, in a way that is an appropriate in terms of trying to protect victims of domestic abuse and could be used in a way that, that might be used to get an upper hand by one party or another in situations, um, where there is a custody battle, and so based on that feedback, um, and given the, the spirit and the intent of the bill itself, it made sense to me to, uh, omit that part or that phrase. move forward without it so that we're focused solely on the point of the bill, which is domestic abuse that affects the child. There's another small change to um On page 2, of the amendment, it references deleting lines 14 and 15 of page 2, and that was more of a stylistic change because that sentence didn't flow well, so we, we updated it, took the opportunity to update that while we were deleting course of control. Members, you've heard an explanation of the amendment. Is there any questions? Seeing no questions, Representative. Hudson. Um, I make a motion to have the committee accept my amendment. You have a motion to adopt the amendment on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Your amendment has been adopted. You are now recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1434 is uh meant to be an update, um, to our joint custody law to try to, uh, Improve some outcomes for victims of domestic abuse. Um, one of the things that we know and, and we've talked about this in other context so far during session, um, is that Arkansas has one of the highest incidents of domestic violence nationally, 40.8% of women and 34.8% of men in Arkansas experience intimate partner violence. Only a fraction of those cases are actually reported to law enforcement. um, and this is one of the things that unfortunately, um, goes across. Um, all demographics, um, domestic abuse happens whether uh regardless of what your race is, your socioeconomic class, your religion, occupation, or educational background. So it's affecting our constituents all over the state regardless of where they come from, um, where they live or what their background is. The other thing that is important to keep in mind, and I really do want to center the discussion on this, is that domestic abuse in the home has an extremely adverse effect on children. Um, and, and so in this discussion and, and as the impetus of the bill, the concern has always been to ensure that we are protecting children from what are referred to as adverse childhood events or ACEs, um, and you'll hear that turn, I'm sure from, from Judge Moore when she speaks here momentarily. really. Um, ACEs in children in Arkansas are more common than the national average. So, our kids are experiencing these adverse events at a higher rate than kids in most places in the rest of the country. Um, being exposed to ACEs, including domestic abuse has significant effects on those children's outcome for the rest of their lives. Um, they are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, um, drugs, promiscuity, um, committing crimes and so on, um, they are more likely to develop chronic health conditions as a result of the stress and issues with it, and they in general have a lower life expectancy overall. So, there are significant reasons why and good policy reasons why we want to protect kids. Moving to the law in particular. So when joint custody was initially passed in the 2021 session. This section, um, dealing with what to do in cases of domestic abuse already existed. This is not a new section. One of the issues, however, um, and, and again, now that we've had 4 years, we've got a little data on, on how this works in practice. One of the big issues that was identified. Through discussions with attorneys and with judges and with participants in these cases is that there is no definition in this statute of domestic violence. You'll see that on page one in line, uh, 27, 28. You first talk, uh, the, the statute first talks about, um, a situation in which one party to an action has committed an act of domestic violence, but later on in the bill, um, on page 2. line 7, there's a reference to domestic abuse, um, and then still later in the bill, there is a reference to an abusive parent or elsewhere in the bill rather. None of those terms are defined. Um, they all appear to be used interchangeably to try to mean the same thing, but none of those terms are actually defined. And so what we have found is that there are situations in which Um, judges are left without any guidance on what the legislature meant with regard to what domestic violence is domestic violence is not really defined elsewhere in our code either, which is another problem. However, domestic abuse is, um, and so one thing that this bill does is ties the definition back to something tangible, which is domestic abuse, um, which we have defined in the domestic Abuse Act of 1991. Um, so this is a tried and true definition that judges and parties and lawyers are familiar with. Under the Domestic Abuse Act, domestic abuse is a quote, physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members, or any sexual contact between family or household members, whether minors or adults that constitutes a crime under the laws of the state. That is the, the singular definition of domestic abuse that we have in code right now. So the first thing that we wanted to do with this bill was make clear what we were prohibiting, and that's important for a couple of reasons. One, we want to make sure that we're being very consistent about what we're saying. We don't want a parent to be doing to a child or to their spouse to fall under this exception to joint custody. um, but also we want to make sure that the parties have notice of what it is that they are potentially going to be penalized for, um, given the fact that right now there is no definition for domestic violence or domestic abuse or abusive parent existing in the code and existing in the statute. The second thing that we, um, identified as potentially problematic, um, and again, this is after a few years of actually operating under the joint custody, um, statute is that in section So C2. The statute as it exists today, starts out with the rebuttable presumption that it's not in the best interests of the child to be placed in the custody of an abusive parent. So again, that's an undefined term. Um, and then it goes on to say, Um, that the standard here is in cases where there is a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent has engaged in domestic abuse, again, not defined. So what courts have found in Judge Moore can speak to this as well, is that they were given this, this guidance that there's this rebuttable presumption, but they were given no clear guidance on what they were supposed to do with that rebuttable presumption. So the courts get halfway there, but then what do they do with that? Do they automatically tell the parent who's been accused of domestic violence, that they are not able to see their child? Do they have to do additional? fact-finding? Is there any way that that parent can try to rebut the allegation that they have done something that should prohibit them from keeping their child. We don't know, because the statute was silent as to that issue. So the second thing that this bill does is provides the court some guidance, and this was developed. This language was developed with the guidance and help of the judicial council, um, gives them some guidance on what to do. It also gives some guidance on what a parent who's been accused of, of, of abuse can do to rebut that allegation. So they can, they can rebut that presumption that they have done something to abuse their soon to be ex-spouse, um, by proving using the same standard or preponderance of evidence that having custody or care of the child will not endanger the emotional and physical well-being of the child. Now this is important too. Because as the the statute is right now, there is a rebuttable presumption that it's not in the best interests of a child to be placed in the custody of a parent who's been found, um, to have engaged in domestic abuse, but that domestic abuse could be against anyone. It's not limited strictly to abuse that would have affected the well-being of the child. So that means, as the law exists today, is my husband and I were to get into an argument while the kids were upstairs asleep, and our argument got physical. I could use that argument right there to say that my husband should not be able to have access to our children because he engaged in this domestic abuse, but it didn't affect the kids. It, it affected the two adults in the relationship. So today, I could use that against my husband. Under this, I would have to be able to make that 2nd showing that he endangered the emotional and physical well-being of our children. So there are, there are two different distinctions here. There are the things that happen to the adults in the relationship, and there are things that affect the children in the relationship. And this makes it clear that we are only dealing with the things that affect the children in their relationship. Even if the court still determines that there have been issues of domestic abuse in the relationship, the court is still empowered if it chooses to, based on all of the evidence presented before it as the factfinder to grant unsupervised visitation with the child and the parent who's alleged to have done the abuse, but the court has to make certain findings, and this is as much to protect the court and the parties as anyone else. So it is clear what the findings are with regard to whether that parent or party poses an ongoing risk. So, for example, going back to the situation that I that I I posited earlier, my husband and I have had interaction that became aggressive towards the end of our relationship, um, but it didn't affect the children, so the court would have to make findings about whether that party, um, is an ongoing risk to the child, not to me as the spouse to the child's physical and mental well-being and why the parent or other party who committed the domestic abuse does not present a risk of harm. So in the case that I've given you the example, you know, mom and dad get into spats when the kids go to sleep. Um, this doesn't affect the kid, doesn't affect whether or not dad is a good dad. And so therefore, I'm ordering visitation in this case. Um, the court is also entitled to, but not required to order safety. conditions and a completion of of a certified domestic violence intervention program if the court feels that it is appropriate in a particular case. It is not required that the judge do that, um, and the judge is given flexibility on how they want to do that, what those safety conditions might look like, whether or not the parent is able to go ahead and start having visitation with the child while they're going through the course, um, and so on and so forth. But again, the court is not required to go through that course. Um, or require the party to go through that course. It is simply an option. Um, courts also, uh, Order these types of, of, of courses now, um, they're empowered to do that now. And at various points throughout the divorce process, the state orders the parties to go through, um, different types of courses on co-parenting, they have to fill out forms regarding their financial means and so on and so forth. So there are Already some some courses and some responsibilities that the parties have to have in order to go through the divorce process. Um, and, and Chairwoman Dobby, I would like to invite Judge Moore to provide a little bit additional context on the judicial side of this, if that's OK with you. Sure, but we've got a question in the queue. You wanna go let's go ahead and go to a question and we'll come to Judge Moore if that's OK. Representing Shepherd, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just 2 or 3 questions really quickly as I look through this. Uh, number one, I want to make sure I'm clear. There's language at the top of page 2 about someone who has been found to have committed domestic abuse, and then it it continues on to the old language in cases where there's a finding of preponderance of evidence. So is, is the word committed is that reference to a case in which there is a finding, but I mean the, the old language was where there's a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. Now we've added the word. committed and so I'm just making sure that those are relating to the same, the same instance. That's that's correct. Um, it, it, it is intended to use the preponderance of evidence standard because this is a civil proceeding, a divorce proceeding, civil, and so this is the finding, um, based upon the judge's read of the definitions in the Domestic Abuse Act. OK, then, then my second question is, if there is a criminal matter that arises out of a domestic domestic abuse, then. In order for this, and this, this may not have changed anything. I'm just trying to make sure we understand that if they're, let's say law enforcement's involved, someone is charged and ultimately convicted of a crime that also was domestic abuse. This does not apply until they avail themselves of the domestic Abuse Act. And there's a finding or are we saying that the criminal matter would be sufficient to justify because I don't and I don't know if the criminal uses the same definition of domestic abuse that the domestic Abuse Act has because the domestic Abuse Act, that's as I understand it, in my experience, that relates to where a petitioner, being the, the, uh, Injured party, the part that that they actually take action to seek an order of protection, so I guess I'm just trying to understand what a criminal offense triggered this, or do they still have to uh go through the domestic Abuse Act, and then the third question, which is, is. Probably, I guess I'd, I'd be curious. The term pattern is deleted from this, and I think the more that I look at this, I think that how the the attempt to spell out how it's how this is handled, uh, you know, it looks helpful, but I guess my question would be as to the deletion of the term pattern and what the thought is there because that would be, that would be more of a substantive change as opposed to just merely spelling out process. Sure, no, and thank you for those good questions. Um, you know, I think that, that, that we can agree that if you have a parent who has been convicted of a crime that's obviously going to be important evidence that the judge would use to determine whether or not they are guilty of, you know, or whether they're culpable for domestic abuse, such that there needs to be a change to the custody arrangements. I mean, certainly if you've got somebody who has already been adjudicated and convicted. That's important evidence for the judge. Um, with regard to the, the, the deletion of pattern, um, pattern is also one of those words that was not defined in the original bill. And so the question becomes, what does that mean? For example, um, if my husband locks me in our bedroom and beats me up all weekend long. Is that a single incident or is it a pattern? If I, as the mother, break my kid's arm because I beat them so senseless that, um, I was breaking bones. Is that a pattern? And is it sufficient for me not to have custody of my child. Um, and so ultimately the decision was made to delete pattern, because there are obviously certain situations in which one incident is sufficient to make the environment so dangerous for the child that they shouldn't be in it. However, um, and Judge Moore can speak to this more. Obviously, the judges always have discretion, um, to require something more, pardon the pun, um, if they are presented with evidence that they feel is insufficient. to justify a finding of domestic abuse under the definitions in the Domestic Abuse Act. gasaway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So have lots of issues with this bill as well. Um. One of the things that you just mentioned, and we talk about these presumptions and you're putting these presumptions in the law and all of this, and you talk about you're deleting pattern. Because one incident can be enough. And I've heard you talk a lot down there this morning. You've said a lot of things, but the thing I've really failed to hear you say is about the best interest of the child, which is paramount in all of these cases. And so one incident can be enough of domestic abuse if the judge believes that it's not in the best interest of the child. Because of that one incident, is that fair to say? Absolutely. I mean, no, no. Amy says no. The judge says no. Judge Moore, will you, Judge Moore, identify yourself for the record since we've not really formally recognized you and if you need represent gasway to repeat his question, he will otherwise go ahead and you can speak to his question, and thank you, Madam Chair and thank you members, um, there was actually a court of identify yourself with the record so sorry. It's all right. So, um, I'm Amy Moore, I'm a circuit judge in the 6 judicial district, which covers Pulaski and Perry counties, um, and I Have my docket is exclusively family law and probate cases, and so I hear orders of protection, and I hear custody cases as substantial, um, number of the cases that I'm dealing with, um, and, and Representative Gazaway, I, I believe if I'm remembering what your question was around the pattern of domestic abuse if judges would have the discretion to be able to say, notwithstanding the language that says there has to be a pattern of domestic abuse. if we could consider there to just be one incident, um, and I will tell you that there was a court of appeals case that dealt with this issue, that interpreted it and the judge who, um, uh, who was overturned on this, uh, there was, he relied on one incident and was, was overturned because there was not a pattern. Well, follow up. You reckon and so here's and I appreciate that. What we don't know is all of these cases are very fact dependent. They uh, they, this is a case by case analysis and best interest encompasses a whole host of considerations, but it's been my experience that if one party stabs another party in an incident of domestic violence. That one incident is enough to make it clear that it is not in the best interest of the child likely to be awarded. To the parent who did the stabbing and I mean, is that fair to say? I think that that's, that's fair to say. OK. And so the issue that I have is You know, the statement was made that that one incident alone wouldn't be enough essentially to for the court to consider, but Uh, I think under the best interest standard, the court can already weigh all of those things. And so the problem that I have with this bill, one of the problems I have with this bill. is that it sets up all of these new, this new rebuttable presumption. It You know, when we talk about, and I will say going back to the pattern. The law already Says that there's a rebuttable presumption that it's not in the best interest of a child to be placed in the custody of an abusive parent. Who is engaged in a pattern of domestic abuse. Is that an accurate summation? Yes, OK, and I don't think the words a pattern of domestic abuse got there by accident. Legislature put that there very much for a reason. Because And once again, these are all fact dependent. Circumstances, but not all cases are created equal. And what we know As adults is that When relationships fall apart, people often There's conflict and people sometimes that escalates to some form of physicality. Not all of that is created equal. And because of that, What I, I believe the legislature's intention was when they added pattern there was that. If there was one incident that occurred, whatever that may be is is innocuous as it may be. would not be enough and if if it maybe it didn't even involve the child. That's not enough to say. That You can't have custody. That one incident alone. In order for that person to be considered an abusive parent. This has to be a pattern of behavior for them. Is that fair? I think that typically in in true domestic violence situations, it is going to be a pattern of behavior. I think that the concern that I have with the pattern language in this particular subsection is that this is the subsection that in order for there to even be a presumption to rebut uh the joint custody presumption, there has to be a pattern and so if um if I have a mom who gets. shot in front of the kids one time, and that's the only evidence that I have of a domestic abuse situation. I don't have testimony or evidence of any sort of pre, you know, seeding events, then at this point I would read that to mean that the joint custody, the clear and convincing presumption in favor of joint custody would still apply. That's my concern. So I think we just agreed. Prior to this, that one incident alone, if it was severe enough considering the best interest of the child standard. You know, judges have a, a, as you well know, judges have a lot of discretion in these cases. In my experience has been judges know how to make their record, and if I want one person to have custody, I know how to make my record so that that person has custody, and if I want this person to not have custody, I know how to make my record to so that they don't. And I don't have to rely on the presumption under the best interest standard alone, given the fact that this person shot the other person and engaged in such wild and reckless behavior. I make my record that that person will not get custody of this child. I don't have to go down here to this presumption, part of, part of the statute. I is that fair to say? I mean, I think that having clarity that's within this, I mean, obviously the best interest is always a pole star consideration, but this law was written, written for a reason and this law was put in place to um give substantial deference to the presumption well to put in place a very firm. Presumption in favor of joint custody. I mean that that's really the default, um, and, and so, uh, when you're dealing with the domestic abuse situation, I mean, as a judge, I would prefer to have clarity in how this. presumption is I met and that right now with the pattern and I believe in the court of appeals case that got that went up, there were the the pattern was allegedly some events that happened prior to the party's relationship even beginning, and I think, I, I think it gets into some sticky issues there. I'll make this one last comment, and I'd like to hear your responses on it. If you were, if this bill were simply to define domestic violence, which to Representative Hudson's point is not a clearly defined term. If this bill were simply to define domestic violence and to further define what a pattern is. Fine. Let's define it. But it does a lot more than that, and we'll, we can get into that later, but I'll get back in the queue, Madam Chair, but I'd like to hear your responses to why, if that's really your intention, why don't we just do that very clearly. C. Hudson, would you like to speak to that since it's your bill? Sure, um, you know, there were a couple of different names to this, you know, the first part was, of course, to try to draw some clarity to the definitions that were, um, so far undefined. Um, but the second part, and, and I mentioned this in, in my opening presentation is that the judges have gotten, you know, feedback and, and giving us feedback that we have the rebuttable presumption already in section. uh, C2A, um, but there's nothing that gives them guidance on what happens after that rebuttable presumption. Um, so there's the presumption that it's not in the best interest of the child in cases where there's a finding by a preponderance of the evidence, um, that the parent has engaged in domestic abuse. So then what? Um, and so what the judges, um, suggested and what we took them up on was creating some additional language that provides the answer to the question. So then what? And also Provides the party who has been alleged to have engaged in domestic abuse, the opportunity and some standard by which they can defend themselves against these allegations and also ensure The judge is considering whether or not the allegations or the findings actually impact the child because it is the best interest of the child. And so that's why on uh lines 11 and 12 on page 2. It talks about that that the judge has to determine that the child, um, is their emotional and physical well-being has been endangered by the alleged, uh, domestic abuse. So again, domestic abuse between two adults that that that does doesn't impact the child would not be affected. I just have to follow up on that and then I'll. One more. OK, and then you, you're, you're back in the queue because I got somebody else that wanted to ask a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just have to take issue with that because I don't think that's what it does at all. When you start on line 8, page 2. What this does, it says the parent or other party that has been found to have committed domestic abuse, has the burden of rebutting the presumption under subdivision C2A of this section by proving. So now that person has to prove their way out of something. And they have to prove, they have the burden of proving by preponderance of evidence that custody or care of the child, and I would make a note about care because the these previous I'll come back to that. Had the had the burden of proving by preponderous evidence that having custody or care of the child will not endanger the emotional and physical well-being of the child. That's not standards for the court per se. That is, that is what the person against whom these charges have been leveled, has to prove their way out of if it's been, if it's been found that they've committed an act of domestic abuse and the way domestic abuse is defined. is under the Domestic Abuse Act, which is an ex parte order of protection. So they start out and behind the eight ball having to prove their way out of the situation. That's how this bill operates in effect. OK. If I may respond, and thank you for that question. Um, so paragraph 2A already provides that there's a rebuttal rebuttable presumption but provides no way to rebut that. And so there is already a burden on that person to prove their way out of that presumption. What this paragraph does is say, hey, if you can show that this isn't going to endanger the emotional or physical well-being of the children, um, notwithstanding the fact that there may be an abuse. of relationship between the parents that, that this is going to provide a path forward to rebut that presumption so that joint custody can still be put in place. Representing Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so, uh, I appreciate the the conversation and actually represented Gazaway had hit on a couple of my points, but I'm just curious. I'm looking at the latter part of the bill, Section 3 A and B, um, we, we, we talk a lot about um what's the best interest of the child through this whole conversation, um, and, and yet we get to this portion of the bill and the way I read it is that we're not talking about The default being the best interest of the child. We're talking about. The court has to prove. That this is the best interest of the child versus the default is the best interest of the child and therefore we prove that this is not in the best interest of the child. And so it almost seems like it takes the exact opposite approach, and I know we kind of touched on this a little bit and when we talked about the rebuttable, rebuttable presumption and I, I'm not even pretending to be a lawyer, so I don't know exactly what all that means, but I know we're talked through a little bit of that, um, but it still seems like that we're taking this from the point of where automatically assuming that Anything that occurs in the front of this now becomes the burden of proof is that it is in it is not in the best interests of the child, so could you just speak to that? It's certainly and and thank you so much for that question, Representative Richardson. And so, uh, the way that I read this, the subsection B, which deals with this, this outlines the scenario, um, that describes how a parent who has been to engaged in domestic abuse, how they can rebut that presumption when we start with paragraph 3, I believe that that's going to be looking at a situation where The presumption's not rebutted, so we have a situation where, um, the, the court's going to have to deal with the fact that you have a parent who's engaged in behavior that has affected the children. And so this describes the path for how the court is going to try to address that and, and, and to make findings and to even be able to order conditions that will offer the ability to re-establish a relationship between the of parent and the child. And so I think subsection B is OK, here's how to rebut the presumption subsection 3 is, if it's not rebutted, then here's what the court can do to try to, um, get as, as, as Um, to, to structure something that's going to still allow a parent-child relationship in a safe way. You recognized for a follow up. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I guess, I guess, and, and again, not a lawyer, so I'm trying to read through this bill. When we're talking about section one, we talk about Arkansas code concerning the award of custody, um. Each of these sections, as I read it can aren't dependent on the necessarily the previous section. So if we, if we read through this code and we say, OK, there's that we don't have to deal with this particular element associated with abuse, but we get down to the bottom point and we get to number 3 under this section, we jump straight to the If the court grants unsupervised visitation. We, we in, in the way I read this, it's not dependent on an abuse, um, determining factor. It just jumps to if it Now we have to prove. But it is the best interest of the child versus Defaulting to this is the best interest of the child and we have to prove opposite. No, I, I would disagree with a little bit with, with that personification. If you look at line 13, where, where section, subsection 3 begins. It says if the court grants unsupervised visitation to the parent or other party who has been found to have committed an act of domestic abuse. So as, as Judge Moore pointed out, that finding has already been made. Um, so all that follows in the subsections A and B in that sub-3 only kick in if the court has found that one of the parties committed an act of domestic abuse. So it requires that finding before we even look at those subsections. Thank you for that, uh, I, I still go back to the default, which is that this is, this is making the presumption that the active domestic in my interpretation, the act of domestic already defaults to it is. Outside of the best interest of the child and therefore, then we have to go through steps to prove that it is the best interest of the child to have both parents involved in that circumstance, so I have a little concerns around that. Represent Gasway, you're back in the queue. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I do want to follow up on the meaning of domestic abuse. So to be clear, the domestic abuse in this case in order for it to apply to effect custody doesn't have to involve the children at all. It can just simply be between the spouses. Or the uh the intimate partner relationship. Is that correct? That is correct, that is correct so for instance under the Domestic Abuse Act, and I have seen these petitions and petitions like this similar to this granted, someone files a petition for border protection, ex parte at the clerk's office. They split up with their significant other. And and there's allegations that they were sending harassing text messages to the other because one of the parties has left the relationship is with somebody else. They don't know where they are. They don't know where their child is. They don't know what's going on. Of course they're texting them and they want to know where are you? Who are you with? Where's our child, blah blah blah. They go fill out an order of protection petition and allege that they're being harassed and in fear for their life. And the judge signs it. That is domestic abuse enough to trigger all of these presumptions and all of these things has nothing to do with the child. Just this altercation between the parents. Is that fair? So I, uh, and thank you for that question. I mean, I, that's not how, how I would view it, um, number one, whenever you have an ex parte motion for a petition for an order of protection, that is before a court hearing. And I read this statute to deal with something where there's already been an adjudication, so there has to first be a hearing on the merits where the court's going to decide whether those all and the petition are even meritorious. And then, um, if, if the court has found those to be meritorious when we look at, um, subsection. Let's see, where is this? I mean, I think that, I mean, ultimately there has to be a finding that this is going to be impacting the well-being of the child. Um, in order for For this to impact. What am I trying to say here? Um, I mean, just, just an isolated incident like that is not going to be enough. I mean, if I were to have that case in my court, that would not be sufficient to, to trigger that. I mean, because the domestic abuse Act is just harassing text. This has got to be death threats. It's got to be things that are pretty severe. So. I just, I need to pull up the domestic Abuse Act because as I recall, there's the Domestic Abuse Act encompasses a lot of things, much less than death threats, so it's, it's going to be physical harm, bodily injury. Or a salt, any sexual conduct between family or household members. And then business Not have a risk thereof or something like that. Its abuse. It's physical. OK, here, right there. There we go. So it's, it's physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault. And so, just sending harassing messages, and I, I realized people know the magic words to use, and I'd acknowledge, you know, Representative Gazaway, the concerns that you have and the experience that you have, I see it too, where there are people who abuse this process, um, and, uh, And so, you know, I, I, I hear the concerns that you have about that, but I do not believe that an ex parte order protection issued on allegations of harassment are going to be sufficient to trigger, um, To, to, to switch the presumption, um, where the parent who's had those allegations levied against them is going to have to defend against it in this case. OK, well, to me it seems a little bit unclear because it just says a finding or it says, uh, committed an act of domestic abuse. And it discusses, has been found to have committed domestic domestic abuse, and when the judge signs an ex parte order to me, that's a finding that someone has committed domestic abuse. Now there will be a follow-up hearing on that, we know, but this bill does not make a distinction between a final order of protection and ex parte order protection. It just simply says has been found to have and an ex parte order is still in order and in my opinion, it's still a finding. And to me, it would appear that it would trigger all of those presumptions, but nevertheless, I also want to take issue with the fact that under the current law, it these the existing presumption only relates to custody. But this bill, page 2, line 2 changes that to the rebuttable presumption that it's not in the best interest of the child to be placed in the custody and you add or care. Which to me, Means that this includes even visitation. That A person where there had been such a finding, uh, now there's a presumption that they can't even visit with their child. I find that highly concerning and I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Short representative guys away, um, The reason for the addition of Orcare is because in a situation in which the judge has found domestic abuse as defined by the domestic Abuse Act. The thought is one, That's a dangerous situation for the child, and again we're dealing with the best interests of the child. So if we have found a situation in which there is such a level of abuse that it affects the care and well-being of the child, then the court obviously is going to want to protect against that. But the second part of that is, is going back down to that sub-3, even in a situation in which the court finds domestic abuse. And this is not available to a party under the law right now, even if the court has found There is domestic abuse, the court can still grant visitation or care, unsupervised visitation or care, as long as the court's able to make some findings about whether there's an ongoing risk, um, and may order safety conditions. It's not required. So the, the, there is still a relief valve for the court in situations where there is a finding of domestic abuse to go ahead and still provide the opportunity for that parent to have access to their child and visitation. With the addition of some safety conditions, which I think going back again to the best interests of the child, um, which is paramount here, we would want to ensure we're in place in, in, in this type of, of situation and environment. All right, thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have some people who have signed up to speak for and against the bill. Speaking against the bill, Matthew Ingle, Engle Engle you'll come to the end of the table and identify yourself, you're recognized to speak against the bill. Oh Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name's Matthew Engle. Uh, I'm an attorney out of Benton. I primarily practice family law, um, and I, I just had some concerns about this bill as it is uh as it's been presented. Um. I mean, I, I kind of agree with the problem we're trying to solve here as far as there's, there's no definition of domestic violence under 913101, there's no, um, definition of pattern. If you look at the law as it's currently written, there's, there's a spot under Subsection A5 that actually defines joint custody. It says, you know, as used in this section, joint custody is defined as or means the approximate reasonable equal division. Um, personally, I think that would be a good spot to define what, um, you know, let's use, I think that would be a good spot to define what is, um, domestic violence and what is a pattern under that statute. Um, I think Representative Gazaway brought it up too. I, I'm concerned about the or care that's added to, you know, uh, be placed in the custody or care of a, uh, parent or other party has been found to committed domestic abuse. I, I'm afraid that that's going to pretty much take visitation off the table for, for a parent wants the court has entered some sort of finding of domestic violence or abuse. Um, You know, not every custody case, this amendment that we're trying to make is for the, the general custody, um, statute 913101. Well, not every custody case is a domestic has domestic violence at issue, you know, under the law, there is actually under the domestic violence law, there is a statute 915, 2:15. That actually deals with factors in determining custody and visitation, and this is for when domestic abuse is an issue. Um, and under that statute, the, you know, the court or the statute says in addition to other factors that a circuit court shall consider in a proceeding in which the temporary custody or child or temporary visitation by a parent is at issue and in which the court has made a finding of domestic or family violence, the court shall consider as primary, the safety and well-being of the child. And of the parent who is, uh, the plaintiff of domestic or family violence, and the defendant's history of causing physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or causing reasonable fear of, uh, physical harm, um, In my opinion, 913101 is working as it was intended when it was introduced in 2021. Um, you know, as a family law attorney, I'm finding that parents who have committed domestic violence are not getting custody. I've represented moms and dads, and if, if it comes out, ultimately the court's going to decide what's in this child's best interest um with without doing a whole bunch of this, um, rebuttable presumption and going back and forth. Um, I've also believe that Um If we were going to address some of these, some of these issues that are addressed in 1913101, that under the domestic Violence Act statutes would probably be a better place to do it. I Try not to come in to Anything pointing out problems that I see with, with pointing out issues without offering solutions, but I just, based on my experience, I don't see issues with the way 913101 has been working in practice. Um, I, I, I feel like there's better ways to do it rather than go through and start amending the custody statute because what I fear is going to happen is that we're going to undo everything that was done when the General Assembly decided that Joint custody was in the best interests of a child. I'm afraid we're going to be creating some loopholes that are going to be exploited by one parent or another down the road. Um, so for, for these reasons, I'm asking for a no vote on, uh, HB 1434, and if anybody does have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer any. Members, are there any questions for Mr. Engle? Seeing their questions, thank you for your testimony today. We have uh Brandy Daley, who has signed up to speak for the bill, Ms. Daly, I'm sorry, Miss Daly, you recognized to come to the end of the table and speak for the bill. No. My name is Brandy Daley. I'm the community response facilitator with the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Thank you, members of the committee and Madam Chairwoman for the chance to speak today in support of this bill, as others have already shared their experiences with various laws being passed in the state. We felt it necessary to share that at the coalition we have seen an increase in the number of children being served in our shelters. We've seen an increase in the severity and multitude of violence happening across our state for the last 50 years. that we have been in operation in Arkansas. We have 29 member shelter programs across the state dealing with the fallout of legislation and policies that are passed here. Every day we hear from people across the state about how these bills impact their families and their livelihood and their futures. And I think this bill closes a really critical loophole that some are using to abuse the courts. I'm here to testify as much as I can about what role shelters can do in this fight. happen to answer any questions, and we also have our executive director here today to speak for the coalition against domestic Violence. Members, are there any questions? Seeing their questions, thank you, Ms. Daly, for your testimony today. We have signed up to speak against the bill. Brian Vander. Vandiver Thank you, Madam Chair. Representatives of the committee. I'm back again in opposition of this bill. 1434, and I want to address a couple of points. Uh, again, I'm speaking on behalf of our organization, Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality. Uh, we worked with Representative Galway and Senator Clark and many others four years ago, as you may recall to pass Arkansas's joint custody presumption, the strongest joint custody presumption in the country, and we've now become an example other states wish. follow in our parental equality legislation. So we are opposed to anything that might jeopardize or weaken that joint custody presumption as we see it, and we, we view 1434 as doing that. Um, I come to you, I gladly this bill is not as bad as it was. We appreciate the friendly amendment, uh, eliminating course of control language that would have been Pandora's box, and very troublesome. So it is somewhat better, but we still have concerns and some of those concerns have been addressed by Representative Gazaway and others. For example, the, the addition of the phrase or care is problematic because care is not defined either. We're adding, if we're worried about definitions in the statute. Then are we going to define care because there's no definition for what that is. Does that mean visitation or not, or something else. And so we're adding a word that's undefined to the statute, that's going to create problems. I would also remind the representatives that this rebuttable presumption existed in the law long before the joint custody rebuttal presumption we passed 4 years ago. This rebubble presumption has existed in the code for many, many years and has operated in the courts long before the joint. custody presumption. And so, we, we have concerns about the changes, uh, now and how it affects that joint custody presumption. I mentioned the addition of the Orca phrase and, and the problems that it raises. Uh, the, the Problem of the deletion of the phrase pattern of abuse is problematic. And I'm familiar with the case that my very good friend Judge Amy Johnson mentioned it's a case from 2022, um, in which Judge Mike Reef of Pulaski County was reversed, and that case is the Pilcher v. McWilliams case. And in that case, the evidence that Judge Reef relied on in not awarding joint custody was a two-hour argument between the parties a year before the divorce and when the mom was still 5 months pregnant with the child. And there was an argument where the dad, uh, punched the wall and, um, threatened to destroy the laptop and burn the house down. That to our argument. That occurred a year before the divorce was the basis for Judge Reef not awarding joint custody. And that's an example of our and the court of appeals reversed him on that and said you did not find a pattern of abuse, a pattern of domestic abuse, so you, you have to reconsider this case. Now, that's the concern, I think that Judge Gazaway has raised, and our concern is, is, as well, is that you take one example, and maybe that's not the example that Judge Gassley wants to rely on. But that's the example I want to rely on. That may be the ultimate goal someday of Judge Gassway, but. But, but right now there's not anybody in this committee wants to call him Your Honor, so. But I think that's the, that's the quandary is when you when you eliminate pattern, when you eliminate the word pattern in this code that has operated for many, many years. Now we get into the question of sure is it one push or as the example that Judge Moore gave one shot and certainly one shot would be sufficient under the code, but now is one push sufficient. And you get into that, um, more ambiguous language without that language of pattern that's required before you destroy joint custody. And it's um and so I think that's the concern is we're, we're making it easier to. destroy joint custody by deleting that language. Um, the other concern that we have um Is that This language uh creates If you look at the language of how the, uh, party accused of abuse will have to rebut the presumption. There's a new standard being created of proof, and that new standard of proof is not best interests of the child. You refuting or rebutting the presumption by having to prove that custody or care of the child will not endanger the emotional and physical well-being of the child. Now, we can argue is that the same as best interests of the child? Is it different? Is it more or less than best interests of the child. I think there's arguments on both sides of that, but it is a different standard of how you rebut that presumption, something new that's being introduced into the law that we've not seen to date. And so we have concerns about how that's going to be interpreted, what that means, um, and finally, with the that's being added. domestic abuse or course of control. Uh, does that mean they've been found through an ex parte order. And if so, now that's again, that's automatically triggers the implication of this rebuttable presumption through an ex parte order and now the judge in the custody case automatically is going to have to examine, uh, whether that standard of abuse has been met by a preponderance of evidence. Um, I think. One final question that I have and how these presumptions operate. Is if The parent who is accused of abuse meets that burden, this newly created burden, the new standard that's, that's being proposed. Does that mean that then the judge reverts back to the presumption of joint custody or not. I think those are open questions that, that this bill creates and potentially complicates the issue more so. I think there are some things that are very good. about what this bill tries to accomplish, and I would like to work with the sponsor and advocates of this bill to revise it to make it better, but I think in its current language we have significant concerns about it. I'd be happy to take any questions. Seeing the questions from the committee, thank you for your testimony today, and we have one person, another person who signed up last person to speak for the bill, Beth Sanders, Miss Sanders, you're recognized to come to the end of the. Come to the end of the table, identify yourself and you recognize to speak for the bill. Oh Hello, can you hear me? I'm Beth Sanders. I'm the executive director of the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence. I have 20 years' experience in the field of domestic violence. I've spent the last 9 at coalition working with all of the domestic violence shelters statewide. I spent 11 years prior to that in a domestic violence emergency shelter program. I have worked with victims my entire life as I in fact am a childhood survivor of domestic violence. support this bill primarily because it is in the best interests of children in Arkansas. There are some procedural elements that have to be ironed out or worked out, but it is the duty of every adult in our state to work to protect children. There are loopholes in the current system that allow dangerous situations for children to be in. As someone who is a childhood survivor of domestic violence and works with a group we haven't heard from today, which is victims who work with this system in and out, in and out of court every single day, every single month in Arkansas, we owe it to them. Our state still ranks in the top 10 states for domestic violence. Domestic violence homicide. People are dying at an alarming rate in the state, something that we do must change if we keep doing what we've always done, we will always get what we've always had. And so I just speak to you in support of this bill and hope that everyone here will make decisions that impact the good of children in Arkansas. Thank you, Ms. Sanders. Are there any questions? Seeing the questions, thank you for your testimony today. Representative Hudson. You recognize to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you committee for the discussion today. Um, I, and I was telling Mr. Vandiver that I was taking notes because I think he made some really good points and on ways that we can improve this bill. The, the thing that I said when we started, um, the discussions I really wanted to center it on the best interests of children, um, and that's where I started, um, my opening, and that's where I'll close it. And uh there's no doubt in my mind that every member of this committee is committed to ensuring the best interests of the child. Nor that anybody that came and testified for and against the bill. I think that everyone remembers that. Um, with that said, um, Madam Chair, with your permission, I'd like to pull the bill down because um Judge Moore and I are speaking with Mr. Vandiver about some amendments that we would like to make before presenting it for a vote. Members, you've heard the request without objection will allow you to pull the bill down and get it worked on and bring it back. Uh, so thank you and thank you everyone who thank you Madam Chair and thank you committee. Uh, members, we have 3 more bills we're going to take them up because if we don't push through, but we're going to get you out in time to eat lunch, so don't worry about that. Uh, we're going to push through, we're gonna, uh, pick up with Representative Gonzalez, then represented Shepherd, and then representing Hudson because I know you have a one line bill that will take up at the very end, so and I'm going to ask my vice chair representative Underwood to moderate through this section of our agenda, soresentative Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Chair, now. Representative Jessica Gonzalez, District 89, uh, this is Jacob Hiatt sitting with me. So this bill. Very simple bill. I could call it a tech technical correction bill. There was a bill done done like this several years ago that uh that did this for ATVs, UTVs, on, on private property. They left out dirt bikes. When we got to looking into this, we also found out that dirt bikes were not defined in Arkansas law, but only definition for them we we could find, as was some kind of off-road motorcycle that was 50 cc or less, so we defined dirt bike and, uh, then adding protection for private property owners that allowed dirt bikes on their property for races and other purposes. So that's really all this all this bill does, and Mr. Hyatt here may want to say a few words on it as well as to the reason that this was brought about, if you wouldn't mind, uh, identifying yourself with the record, then you may you're recognized. Um, I'm Jacob Hyatt, um, from Plai County. Yeah, I just, like you said, I think it's probably more of an oversight in the past, but dirt bikes in Arkansas it's a thriving community there's lots of people that do ride, but there's no places to go. Mountain bikes, for example, there's plenty of places that have been built. Public land is being used to ride mountain bikes, but there's no public land being put in place for dirt bikes, so that leads all of us to ridden on private property and then that brings up the liability issue. The first question grasp and you say, hey, can we ride here? They always say, what's the liability? What's, what issues do I face if somebody gets hurt or something like that. So with the Act 794 he mentioned it had ATVs and UTVs that covered the liability, um, and then also earlier this year Act 100 covered a bunch of outdoor activities, kayaking. Rock climbing, aviation, cycling, everything but dirt biking and that kind of um I guess took care of the liability on all those things, so we're just asking to um get dirt bikes added to that, um, it's a huge economic boom. I'm president of the Arkansas Hair scramble series. Um, there's roughly 200 racers at an event, um, 300,400 spectators in some of these small towns, Arkansas, there's, you're talking about hotels, gas, dining, all a big boom on those weekends, so it's a good economy for the state. People from our state do come in for the event, so we'd just like to see more places to ride without the liabilities on the back end. Thank you for those comments. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, I do believe we have a couple of individuals that signed up to speak for the bill. We have Mr. Kroll. Am I saying that correctly? Mr. Chair, I think, I think they're OK to not speak on the bill as long as there's no more questions or committee doesn't need anything else, just in essence time like that. Uh, same with, uh, Mr. Doty. Is that the same? OK, thanks for that. Um, are you ready to close for Bill? I am closed. I make a motion to pass. we have a motion to pass on the floor. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing their discussion all in favor of the motion, say aye. I'll post, uh, I have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Next, we'll move to House Bill 1508. Representative Shepherd, are you prepared to I get. Shepherd, you recognize the Senkerville? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and I've asked Kevin Coon from the bureau, who's also our, I guess his title is code reviser for the state of Arkansas, uh, to join me as well, um, members House Bill 1508 is the recodification of Title 19 of the Arkansas Code, um, as you've become well aware through uh Representative Gasaway's efforts. We have a package of bills from the code revision commission that we work. in the interim, and then we bring to the legislature each session. Our legislative members of that commission include myself, Representative Gasaway, Senator Tucker, and Senator Bryant. And, uh, so this is along the lines of a technical correction, although in the interim, there was a recommendation that was brought to the code revision commission, I guess from the code revisor and from staff that we look at the recodification of Title 19, as we all know, as laws are passed, it's really kind of a patchwork of a number of different bills that ultimately come together to form uh Arkansas law and then they're organized by Tidal, I believe there's 29 titles, 28 titles in, in which are uh uh the sections, the larger sections of the Arkansas code. And so over time, uh, as things are passed, it can become a little more difficult to keep those things organized to hopefully help them to work together and for the public. and attorneys to be able to, to, uh, to be able to utilize the code in an efficient manner and for the law to be concise and clear to the public and so the the code revision commission uh put together a working group and I can share, uh just representatives of different entities that were part of that working group that included um a member of our commission, uh, a member of the interim legal counsel from the governor's office, the deputy deputy general counsel from the AG. ' s office, the director of the State Claims Commission, Deputy Legislative auditor, uh, a member of the auditor of state's office, a member of the treasurer's office, uh, someone from DFNA, an attorney from Arkansas Ethics Commission, a member from the Arkansas Bar Association, a member from the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, and then there was another alternate member from the treasurer's office and so they worked together over the past year to uh put together this. recodification in what you see before us in House Bill 1508, um, you know, the, the intent of this is to reorganize Title 19, uh, by using subtitles which allows the material to be kept together and for the the title also to be expanded as additional legislation is passed. It reorganizes the chapters we're dealing with state treasury funds because we were running out of numbers, um, which I'm not sure how you run out of numbers, but, uh, but that's. that's what it's, that's what we've been told. And then it also transfers certain material to other titles, other more appropriate titles in the Arkansas code. And of course, the intent just like a technical correction is that there are no substantive changes that are intended by this, and I believe there's language actually in the legislation that addresses that. It's not intended to be substantive. It's merely intended to be a reorganization and it's, I would say it's, it's to the extent it's technical, it's technical. in terms of the reorganization of the code, and I'll defer to, uh, Mr. Coon to give further comment. I don't have much to add. I think Representative Shepherd explained the bill very well. It's intended to be a technical recodification, just a reorganization of Title 19 as Representative Shepherd said, it's adding some subtitles. The way the number running out works is we have subchapters. They're limited to 99 numbers and so there's some instances where there's state treasury funds that are created when a subchapter, that subchapter is ran out of numbers, and we've had to start a new subchapter that's nonconsecutive to that. So it's a little confusing if you're flipping through. on 18 and you see trust funds created in one subchapter. The next subchapter goes to a different topic and then trust funds picked back up. So this bill just addresses that issue, resolves that it is able to keep all those state treasury funds together. Are there any questions from the committee? See, I don't believe we have anybody signed up to speak for or against representative Sheery ready to close for you, Bill. I'm close for the bill, and I would move to pass. We have a motion to pass this discussion on the motion. Seeing that on paper, please say aye. The eyes have it. Congratulations you Pastor Bill. Representative Hudson, are you prepared to run House Bill 1527. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ashley Hudson, uh, House District 75, uh, colleagues, this bill really is a simple fix to to a problem that was identified by a friend of mine. So as it stands right now, if, if your child receives a settlement, say, from an injury or, or something else, the court has to approve, um, what you do with that money that is, that is meant to be earmarked for your child from that settlement. Um, there is a list of mi s s ible investments already in code and Arkansas Brighter Future plans or the 529 plans are not included in that list, um, you know, one of the issues with that is that um you are deprived of putting your kids's money into an account that's got a decent interest bearing rate, um, and so I think that um I was told that the money that it is in my, my friend's child account is getting like 20 or 30 cents a month or something, while our brighter future plans are enjoying 7 to 8% interest on the annualized basis. So, um, again, there are several investments that that the court can approve for these and, uh, for these minor settlements. None of those goes away. This just adds the 529 plans as an option for the courts in situations with minor settlements. And with that, I'll take any questions. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, we do have a Miss Weiland that's signed up to speak for the bill. Um, are you prepared to close for bill? I am, I am closed for my bill and I would make a motion to pass and ask for a good vote, please. There's a motion to pass on the floor. Is there any discussion on the motion, uh, seeing no all in favor, please say aye. All opposed congratulations you've passed your bill. Uh, that's all we have on our agenda today. Um, I would remind you all that we have a special order for House Bill 1489 on Thursday, and Chairman Darby, do you have anything else? Um, we are adjourned. members whoops.