Date: 04/16/2015

Final
BILL SUMMARY for SB15-129

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Adopt amendment L.014 (Attachment I). The motion p
Adopt amendment L.015 (Attachment J). The motion w
Postpone Senate Bill 15-129 indefinitely. The moti
Refer Senate Bill 15-129, as amended, to the Commi		Pass Without Objection

PASS
FAIL



06:30 PM

The committee recessed.


06:41 PM -- SB15-129

The committee returned to order. Representative Kagan, prime sponsor, presented Senate Bill 15-129, concerning preserving the parent-child relationship in domestic relations actions. Committee members received some written testimony on the bill (Attachment G). Representative Kagan explained the effect of the bill, and discussed its merits. Representative Kagan responded to questions regarding the bill's impact on shared and joint child custody, and the fiscal impact of the bill.

15HouseJud0416AttachG.pdf15HouseJud0416AttachG.pdf

07:00 PM

Representative Kagan responded to questions regarding the bill's treatment of parenting time recommendations by child and family investigators. Discussion returned to the fiscal impact of the bill. Representative Kagan responded to questions regarding current court practice for awarding parenting time by percentage for child custody cases, and the court presumption in these cases.


07:10 PM

The following persons testified regarding SB 15-129:

07:11 PM -- Ms. Brenda Storey, representing FLS, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Storey discussed the parenting time presumption under the bill, and the effect of this presumption in an abusive relationship. Ms. Storey discussed the importance of expert opinion on parenting time under current law, and the fiscal impact of the bill. Ms. Storey suggested that a study on the issue may provide clarity. Ms. Storey responded to questions regarding why a presumption of an equitable parenting time split between parents is not in the best interests of the child. Discussion ensued regarding the effect of the bill.


07:22 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the potential impact of the bill on litigation trends, and the manner in which the bill will change the allocation of parenting time from the current methods for determining parenting time. Ms. Storey responded to questions regarding the court's consideration of certain factors already in law under the bill when determining parenting time, and the potential effect of the bill on actual court behavior. Ms. Storey responded to questions regarding the effect of the bill on the observance of the Uniform Marital and Divorce Act.

07:37 PM -- Ms. Kimberley Bindig and Ms. Ashley Arons, representing themselves, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Bindig recounted her abusive relationship and resulting divorce, and the impact of the shared parenting arrangement on their child. She urged that domestic violence be considered in child custody cases.

07:42 PM -- Ms. Jennifer Eyl, representing the Rocky Mountain Children's Law Center, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Eyl explained why an equal parenting time schedule might not be appropriate in custody cases, and recounted some cases she had contact with in which equal parenting was ordered. Ms. Eyl discussed the court's required considerations under current law, and responded to questions regarding Ms. Bindig's case.

07:48 PM -- Ms. Lindsay Bruner, representing Family Tree, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Bruner described what often happens in dissolution cases involving domestic violence, the power that abusers often have over their spouses, and the impact of these situations on children.

07:52 PM -- Mr. Bill Fyfe, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Fyfe cited statistics regarding the number of divorce cases that result in contested litigation, and explained why the bill will not assist in these situations. Mr. Fyfe explained why the bill will not help parents who feel alienated by custody cases. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for parents to quarrel over court fact-finding, as required by the bill. Mr. Fyfe responded to questions regarding laws similar to SB 15-129 in other states.

08:00 PM -- Mr. Kevin Albert, representing himself, testified in opposition to SB 15-129. Mr. Albert explained that the bill puts parental rights ahead of the rights of children, and discussed the impression the bill sends to parents involved in child custody cases. Mr. Albert explained why different children require different parenting arrangements. Mr. Albert responded to questions regarding difficulties that some children may experience when changing households, and accounting for issues such as this by experts involved in custody cases.

08:05 PM -- Mr. Arnold Swartz, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Swartz discussed changes in parental presumption over time, and stated that a presumption in favor of equal parenting time is no better than other presumptions. Mr. Swartz rebutted the notion that the bill will reduce litigation, and addressed questions raised during earlier testimony. Mr. Swartz responded to questions regarding his opinion of the current system of allocating parenting time, and advice he might dispense to his mediation clients if the bill were to pass. Mr. Swartz responded to questions regarding how courts handle accusations of domestic violence in child custody cases in the absence of findings of fact, and the potential impact of the bill on litigation rates. Discussion ensued regarding the assumptions and impressions that the bill creates as compared to the actual language of the bill.


08:16 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the legal weight of a presumption.

08:17 PM -- Dr. Kathleen McNamara, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Dr. McNamara discussed the impact of the presumption created by the bill, and evidence about presumptions and best interests of children. She discussed the parent focus of time sharing presumptions in custody cases, and stakeholder input on the bill. Dr. McNamara responded to questions regarding the literature on shared parental duties.

08:24 PM -- Mr. Ron Litvak, representing the Colorado Bar Association and the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Litvak discussed laws on parenting time in other states. Mr. Litvak responded to questions regarding the creation of a presumption for the courts by the bill. Mr. Litvak addressed a question posed earlier about the court's determination of domestic abuse in the absence of evidence.

08:33 PM -- Ms. Abby Adam, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Adam discussed her child custody case, which involves abusive behavior on the part of the father. She discussed the impact of the parenting arrangement on the child, and questioned what might happen in her situation should the bill pass.

08:37 PM -- Ms. Kristen Martin, representing her son, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Martin discussed her divorce and resulting child custody case, which involved abuse on the part of the husband. She discussed the impact of the situation on her child, and her attempts to get authorities involved in the case.

08:42 PM -- Ms. Teralyn Jensen, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Jensen discussed the impact that an equal shared parenting time order has had on her child, and explained that the child needs stability. Ms. Jensen discussed her child's therapy as a result of an equal parenting time arrangement, and explained that the bill is not in the best interests of children. Ms. Jensen responded to questions regarding how the equal parenting arrangement was determined in her child's case.

08:46 PM -- Ms. Rachel Catt, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Catt raised concerns about the message sent by the bill by changing certain language in law, and the creation of a presumption by the bill. Ms. Catt discussed assumptions made about the amount of parenting time awarded to fathers, and the current practices of courts in awarding parenting time. Ms. Catt explained why the bill will drive increased litigation rates. Ms. Catt responded to questions regarding the potential for the bill to result in requests for modifications to current parenting plans. Discussion ensued regarding the impact of the bill on litigation rates.

08:52 PM -- Mr. Chris Basler, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Basler discussed differences in needs among children, and explained that parenting arrangements must be made on a child-specific basis without presumptions. Mr. Basler explained why creating a presumption of equal parenting time clouds the input of professionals working on custody cases.

08:56 PM -- Mr. Victor Reyes, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Reyes addressed questions raised earlier about the specific language of the bill and its practical effect when interpreted by the courts. Mr. Reyes responded to questions regarding a passage in the bill pertaining to requirements of reports issued by child and family investigators in custody cases. Mr. Reyes responded to questions regarding how a court treats allegations of domestic violence in a custody case in the absence of fact-finding.


09:09 PM

Mr. Reyes responded to questions regarding how a judge might interpret the term "significant" as compared to "substantial," and the propriety of existing statute governing child custody cases.

09:12 PM -- Ms. Annette Storey, representing Parents United for Change, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Storey read the testimony of a child involved in a custody case. Ms. Storey discussed the weight the opinions of children carry in child custody cases.

09:17 PM -- Ms. Maralee McLean, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill Ms. McLean discussed the abuse her child suffered as a result of a custody arrangement, and cited statistics concerning the awarding of custody. She explained that domestic violence is often not properly taken into account in child custody cases. Ms. McLean cited her own divorce case as evidence of this phenomenon.

09:21 PM -- Ms. Barbara Shindell, representing herself, testified in opposition to SB 15-129. Ms. Shindell discussed parenting plans for infants and toddlers in custody cases, and the parenting recommendations for these children. She explained that equal shared custody of these children is not appropriate.

09:25 PM -- Ms. Rachel Tuttle, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Tuttle read the testimony of a victim of domestic violence whose children were subject to a shared custody arrangement.

09:29 PM -- Ms. Karen Moldovan, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Moldovan read a letter from a woman whose son's child custody arrangement put the child in some inappropriate situations.

09:34 PM -- Ms. Roberta Fulton, representing herself, testified in opposition to SB 15-129. Ms. Fulton explained that the "best interests of the child" standard in current law works, and related her story of an abusive domestic relationship that ended in divorce and shared custody. Ms. Fulton responded to questions regarding her suggestions on the bill.

09:38 PM -- Ms. Adorie Blair, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Blair discussed cases that she has seen as a child and family investigator involving child abuse from a custodial parent. She also discussed potential legislation for consideration in 2016.

09:42 PM -- Ms. Maha Kamal, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Kamal discussed the reputation of some of the previous witnesses within the family law community, and suggested that the bill be laid over for further consideration by stakeholders. Ms. Kamal suggested that additional factors do not need to be introduced into the child custody process, and explained how the bill would affect litigation on family matters. Ms. Kamal explained how the bill may lead to a reduction in child support payments, and discussed the potential impact of the bill on litigation rates. Ms. Kamal responded to questions regarding her legal practice, and her position on the current parental custody process. Ms. Kamal responded to questions regarding the vote on the bill in the Senate.

09:48 PM -- Ms. Katie King, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. King explained that the bill shifts the focus of custody cases to the interests of the parent rather than the child, and discussed her own divorce and child custody case.

09:52 PM -- Ms. Angela Mattson, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Mattson discussed the impact of custody cases on children with special needs, and the divorce and child custody case in which she is currently involved. Ms. Mattson discussed certain factors that should be considered in child custody cases.

09:58 PM -- Ms. Lydia Waligorski, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Waligorski explained how victims of domestic violence may be affected by the bill, and the merits of the current system of allocating parenting time. Ms. Waligorski discussed legislation considered in other states similar to SB 15-129, and cited an earlier effort to create an equal parenting time presumption. Ms. Waligorski discussed the treatment of the bill by the Senate. Discussion ensued regarding how the bill was amended in the Senate.

10:03 PM -- Ms. Tara Koumantakis, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Koumantakis explained how the bill will result in increased litigation, and how the bill will impact the behavior of victims of domestic violence.

10:07 PM -- Ms. Angie Layton, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Layton provided background on input provided during the drafting and amending of the bill, discussing its path in the Senate. Ms. Layton discussed the positions of those parties who oppose the bill, and certain family cases that she has litigated. Ms. Layton discussed the importance of quantity of time spent with a child to proper parenting, and the posed a hypothetical parenting time arrangement under current law. Ms. Layton responded to questions regarding the effect of the bill on courtroom procedure.


10:18 PM

Discussion ensued regarding fact-finding requirements for custody cases under current law. Ms. Layton noted some support for the bill, and responded to questions regarding a potential conflict between the current standard of "best interests of the child" and the substantially equal time standard in the bill. Discussion ensued regarding the conflict of parental rights and the best interests of the child, based on a hypothetical situation. Discussion followed regarding a comparison between division of parenting time and division of assets during divorce proceedings.


10:31 PM

Discussion continued regarding a comparison between marital property and the parenting time, and the potential impact of the bill on child support orders. Representative Kagan read a statement in support of the bill.

10:37 PM -- Mr. Carl Roberts, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Roberts explained how the bill makes the best interests of the child paramount in custody cases, and discussed the importance of shared time to the well-being of a child. Mr. Roberts explained why the bill does not lead to more child custody on the part of abusive parents. Mr. Roberts discussed the potential impact of the bill on rates of litigation, and cited some literature on shared parenting. Mr. Roberts responded to questions regarding findings of fact in alleged abusive situations during custody cases. Discussion ensued regarding the balancing of parental and children's rights. Mr. Roberts responded to questions regarding his assertion that state law does not recognize the importance of a two-parent relationship, and cited some statistics.


10:50 PM

Discussion continued regarding the law's recognition of the value of a two-parent relationship with a child.

10:52 PM -- Dr. Steven Newell, representing Children's Voices, testified in support of the bill. Dr. Newell discussed the importance of two parents to a healthy child, and his experiences with treating the offspring of broken families. He discussed problems associated with split families. Dr. Newell responded to questions regarding SB 15-129 being a potential solution to the problems he discussed.

11:02 PM -- Mr. John Buckley, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Buckley provided some background on legislation considered by the General Assembly in the area of parenting time, and rebutted the notion that the bill creates a presumption of equal parenting time. Mr. Buckley discussed bipartisan support for the bill in the Senate, and addressed the issue of domestic violence in custody cases. Mr. Buckley discussed the issue of removal in custody cases, and the three reasons why divorce matters are most often litigated. Mr. Buckley discussed divorce proceedings as a "business model." Mr. Buckley responded to questions regarding his assertion that the bill creates a presumption of equal parenting time, and explained how the bill may reduce litigation.


11:16 PM

Mr. Buckley responded to questions regarding requirements in the bill and in current law pertaining to findings of fact in child custody cases. Representative Kagan addressed the previous line of questioning. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for amending the bill to address certain concerns. Mr. Buckley responded to questions regarding how "substantially equal" could be interpreted by a court to allocate parental time on a 90-10 basis.

11:29 PM -- Mr. Michael Hering, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Hering explained that the family court system is not working, and discussed the attendant cultural impact. Mr. Hering discussed the family court system as an industry, and noted trends in the fiscal impact of this industry. Mr. Hering cited statistics concerning the lack of one parent in a household. Mr. Hering discussed the merits of creating a standard of substantially equal parenting time. Mr. Hering responded to questions regarding his assertion that the family court system is a "racket."

11:35 PM -- Mr. Roy Shull, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Shull discussed a situation in his family where a father was precluded from having custody of his child, and the impact a divorce had on his own upbringing and well being.

11:39 PM -- Mr. Jason Frazier, representing Faulty Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Frazier discussed the suffering that results from not passing laws that protect children, and the impact the bill may have on his shared parenting arrangement. Mr. Frazier explained that divorce has changed.

11:42 PM -- Ms. Halena Topa, representing herself, testified in support of SB 15-129. Ms. Topa discussed her own divorce proceeding under which she lost custody of her child, and discussed the benefits of creating a presumption of parental time equality through SB 15-129. Ms. Topa distributed some written testimony (Attachment H).

15HouseJud0416AttachH.pdf15HouseJud0416AttachH.pdf

11:45 PM -- Ms. Debbie Caroll, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Caroll discussed the unpredictability of family court, and the constitutional rights of parents that are abridged by courts. Ms. Caroll discussed the benefits of establishing an equal parenting standard, and the arbitrariness of the court. Ms. Caroll discussed the work of certain organizations to help parents gain their constitutional rights.

11:50 PM -- Mr. Sachchit Pandey, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Pandey discussed problems he experienced in family court, and the basis for his problems in court. Mr. Pandey discussed his efforts to take action against some sitting judges, and the court's duty to consider the safety of children in custody proceedings. Mr. Pandey returned to discussing his plight. Mr. Pandey responded to questions regarding his separation from his child.

11:56 PM -- Mr. Frank Schiavone, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Schiavone discussed his treatment by the court and associated professionals in his divorce and custody proceedings, and the resulting lack of parenting time. Mr. Schiavone discussed the merits of the legislation. Mr. Schiavone responded to questions regarding his child visitation arrangements, and the reasons behind the arrangements. Mr. Schiavone noted the financial incentives inherent to the family court system.

12:03 AM -- Ms. Buffy Bruns, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Bruns discussed her subjection to domestic violence, and the process by which the court system may be used by a parent to corrupt the custodial process. Ms. Bruns returned to discussing the domestic abuse to which she has been subjected, and the subsequent loss of contact with her child. She explained why the bill is necessary.


12:09 AM

Representative Kagan explained the effect of amendment L.014 (Attachment I).

15HouseJud0416AttachI.pdf15HouseJud0416AttachI.pdf
BILL:SB15-129
TIME: 12:09:42 AM
MOVED:Kagan
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.014 (Attachment I). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Court
VOTE
Buckner
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Pettersen
Salazar
Van Winkle
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


12:11 AM

Discussion ensued regarding the merits of amendment L.015 (Attachment J).

15HouseJud0416AttachJ.pdf15HouseJud0416AttachJ.pdf
BILL:SB15-129
TIME: 12:11:46 AM
MOVED:Court
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.015 (Attachment J). The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:Kagan
VOTE
Buckner
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Pettersen
Salazar
Van Winkle
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:


12:14 AM

The committee recessed.


12:15 AM

The committee returned to order. Representative Kagan provided closing remarks in support of the bill. Various committee members provided their positions on the bill.
BILL:SB15-129
TIME: 12:17:04 AM
MOVED:Kagan
MOTION:Refer Senate Bill 15-129, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion failed on a vote of 4-9.
SECONDED:Lundeen
VOTE
Buckner
No
Carver
No
Court
No
Dore
No
Foote
No
Lawrence
No
Lundeen
Yes
Pettersen
No
Salazar
No
Van Winkle
Yes
Willett
Yes
Lee
No
Kagan
Yes
YES: 4 NO: 9 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


12:28 AM
BILL:SB15-129
TIME: 12:28:51 AM
MOVED:Dore
MOTION:Postpone Senate Bill 15-129 indefinitely. The motion passed on a vote of 9-4.
SECONDED:Lawrence
VOTE
Buckner
Yes
Carver
Yes
Court
Yes
Dore
Yes
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
Yes
Lundeen
No
Pettersen
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Van Winkle
No
Willett
No
Lee
Yes
Kagan
No
Final YES: 9 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS



12:29 AM

The committee adjourned.