Date: 03/15/2012
Final
BILL SUMMARY for SB12-056
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
| Votes: View--> | Action Taken: |
| <none> | <none> |
01:38 PM -- Senate Bill 12-056
Representative Holbert, sponsor, presented Senate Bill 12-056 concerning judicial appointments in domestic relations cases involving children. The reengrossed bill requires the following court appointees in domestic relations cases involving children to disclose within 10 days of their appointment any familial, financial, or social relationship with the child, either party, the attorneys of record, or the judge:
• child and family investigators;
• child's legal representatives;
• parental responsibilities evaluators;
• parenting coordinators; and
• parental decision-makers.
If a relationship is disclosed, the court may terminate the appointment and reappoint the position. Any party to the case may object within 10 days following the disclosure based upon the information provided. The bill also requires the court to consider claims of domestic violence by one of the parties, rather than documented evidence of domestic violence, when considering the parties' ability to engage in parent coordination prior to appointing a parenting coordinator. In addition, the bill allows the court to order one or more of the parties to place a deposit towards the costs of an evaluation of the allocation of parental responsibilities and to allocate the total costs to one or both parties upon completion of the evaluation.
Representative Holbert responded to questions from the committee and distributed prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment C). He discussed the amendment at length.
01:58 PM -- Amy Miller, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Miller spoke about the stakeholder meetings that led to the drafting of amendment L.004. She discussed the use of parenting coordinators in domestic relations cases and pointed out that the court will still have the discretion to appoint a parenting coordinator. She responded to questions from the committee about the potential effects of the amended bill. She stressed the importance of neutrality for child and family investigators and parenting coordinators.
02:08 PM
The committee discussed whether it is necessary for potential parenting coordinators or child and family investigators to disclose the nature of their relationship with any of the parties to the case.
02:19 PM -- Jeremy Ramp, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Ramp addressed the disclosure issue previously discussed by the committee and stated that the Bar Association is in strong support of the language on page 1, line 20 of amendment L.004. He indicated that the language in the amendment maintains the status quo. Mr. Ramp responded to questions from the committee.
02:26 PM -- Maralee McLean and Dawn Canfield, representing themselves, testified in support of the bill. Ms. McLean spoke about her background in the area of child protection. She expressed her opinion that parenting coordinators and parental responsibilities evaluators are not being held accountable, which endangers children. She responded to questions from the committee. Ms. Canfield declined to speak.
02:39 PM -- Kevin Albert, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Albert spoke about his background as a child and family investigator and a parental responsibilities evaluator. He expressed his opinion that this type of work is very difficult and the people who do it should be trusted to do their job. He responded to questions from the committee about the costs for various court appointees in domestic relations cases involving children. Mr. Albert discussed the process of providing an evaluation in a domestic relations case.
02:59 PM
The committee continued to question Mr. Albert.
03:00 PM -- Jeff Clayton, representing the Colorado Judicial Branch, took a neutral position on the bill and the amendment. Mr. Clayton spoke about recent reforms made in the Judicial Branch to address complaints made against court appointees in domestic relations cases. He responded to questions from the committee about the differences between child and family investigators and parental responsibilities evaluators. Chad Edinger, also representing the Judicial Branch, responded to questions from the committee about a new complaint process for child and family investigators.
03:12 PM -- John Jarvis, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Jarvis provided details of his domestic relations case and expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome of that case. He responded to questions from the committee.
03:22 PM -- Christine McMahon, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. McMahon spoke about a documentary she produced about protective parents and abused children. She discussed her personal experience in a domestic relations case.
03:28 PM -- Bill Fyfe, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Fyfe expressed his opinion that the current system works well and should not be changed. He indicated that the pool of people who act as court appointees in domestic relations cases is fairly small. He explained the process he follows when conducting a parental responsibilities evaluation. He discussed the fees and costs associated with such evaluations.
03:34 PM -- Carl Roberts, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Roberts expressed concern about child and family investigators who call themselves parental responsibilities evaluators in order to avoid the restrictions of a Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Directive on child and family investigators. He provided details about his personal domestic relations case. He responded to questions from the committee.
03:39 PM -- Sheryle Hutter, representing the Equal Justice Foundation, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Hutter raised concerns about language being stricken from current law on page 7, lines 8 and 9 of the bill.
03:42 PM -- Chris Neuhart, representing himself, testified in support of the bill and the amendment. Mr. Neuhart expressed at length his concerns with the domestic relations system in Colorado.
03:47 PM -- Judy Schure, representing herself, testified in support of the bill, but in opposition to lines 21 and 23 of amendment L.004. Ms. Schure distributed a handout (Attachment D) and discussed the information in the handout. She responded to questions from the committee about "the hired gun" concept related to parenting evaluation.
03:53 PM -- Dirk Durdy, representing himself, testified in support of the bill.
03:57 PM -- Janice Whitaker, representing Parents United for Change, testified in support of the bill.
04:02 PM -- Amy Stavans, representing Parents United for Change, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Stavans provided details of her domestic relations case, along with a handout about a particular parental responsibilities evaluator (Attachment E). She expressed her dissatisfaction with the current system and stated her opinion that it directly harmed her family.
04:06 PM -- Dr. Catherine Keske Hoag, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Dr. Keske Hoag provided the committee with copies of her sworn affidavit about an incident she witnessed (Attachment F) and read from the affidavit. She stressed the importance of disclosures. She responded to questions from the committee.
04:12 PM
Representative Gardner laid over action on the bill to follow Senate Bill 12-131.