Date: 01/19/2006
Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB06-1110
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
| Votes: View--> | Action Taken: |
| <none> | <none> |
01:54 PM -- House Bill 06-1110
Representative Clapp, prime sponsor, discussed HB 06-1110. She explained that, under the provisions of the bill, courts would be able to encourage but could not require parents who are involved in a divorce or separation to attend parenting education classes. The bill also requires that medical or mental health data obtained as part of a proceeding for the allocation of parental responsibilities be kept confidential, unless the court is requested and grants a motion to open the data for public inspection. She explained that the legislature never intended to require minor children to participate in education classes or to make sensitive information public to anyone who wants to see it, both of which have occurred. Committee members were provided with a letter from Mr. Robert Grossaint regarding his experience with a mandated divorce counseling class in Adams County (Attachment B). Representative Clapp distributed Amendments L.001 (Attachment C), L.002 (Attachment D), L.003 (Attachment E), L.004 (Attachment F), and L.005 (Attachment G). She explained how the education programs are also being used as a stall tactic in divorce proceedings. Some committee members expressed concern that the bill eliminates the court's ability to ever order participation in the education classes, and discussion ensued regarding this issue.
The following people testified on the bill:
02:10 PM -- Ms. Marie Moses, representing the Family Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association, spoke against the bill. She spoke to her experience as an attorney and explained why the education programs are an important part of divorce or separation proceedings for her clients. She indicated that, as presently written, the statutes are not intended to mandate participation in such programs. In response to questions, she explained how the classes began from pilot programs and that each judicial district decides on the classes it will use. She was unaware of any follow-up studies that quantify the effectiveness of the programs, but indicated that her clients have told her how they have implemented some of the techniques learned in the class. She indicated that the classes are probably most beneficial at the onset of a divorce or separation proceeding, but are also useful after a court issues its final order. She stated that she reads the bill to prohibit a judge from ever ordering someone to participate in the parenting education classes.
02:22 PM -- Ms. Nancy Osborn Nicholas, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, spoke in favor of the bill's provision to keep medical and mental health records confidential. She indicated that while she supports the concept of the education classes and finds them useful for parties who are separating, she has concerns with the bill's language concerning the classes. She explained how the education classes can help a victim of domestic violence. She stated that she has been told that some victims end up attending classes with the other party, and that some had even been required to attend the same class. In response to questions, Ms. Nicholas clarified that there is a choice of dates on which to attend classes, and that a person can find out who will be in their class. Representative Clapp clarified that parties cannot always find out who will be attending a class that they are considering attending, citing complaints from persons in Arapahoe and Jefferson counties. Several committee members expressed concern that an abuser could use the information to locate and potentially harm the victim. Other members noted that it is difficult to require the separation of the parties in education classes in rural areas.
02:37 PM
The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments. The chairman noted that all five amendments add language to the same place in the bill (page 2, line 13). The bill was laid over to a future date so that the amendments could be re-drafted.