Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB05-1171 (Testimony)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes:
Action Taken:
Move Amendment L.001 (Attachment A). The motion w
Move Amendment L.002 (Attachment B). Following di
Move Amendment L.003 (Attachment C). The motion c		TIE
TIE
PASS


01:35 PM -- House Bill 05-1171 (Testimony)

The committee came to order. The chairman asked witnesses to limit their testimony and refrain from reading it. Representative Jahn, the prime sponsor of HB 05-1171, Concerning the Appointment of Individuals by the Court in Domestic Relations Proceedings to Assist in the Resolution of Issues Related to Children, described the current practice of courts appointing parent coordinators in domestic relations proceedings and summarized the bill's provisions.

The following people testified on the bill:

01:41 PM -- Ms. Sue Waters, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She described how a parent coordinator assists the parties in post-decree proceedings.

01:42 PM -- Ms. Beth Hensun, representing the Family Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association, spoke in support of the bill. She reiterated the bill's provisions. She described the duties of parent coordinators in domestic relations proceedings as well as the powers not extended to them under the bill. Committee members were provided with Amendments L.001 (Attachment A), L.002 (Attachment B), and L.003 (Attachment C). The chairman granted permission for persons to speak about amendments before they were formally moved by the committee (see below for action by the committee). Ms. Hensun responded to questions from the committee regarding the qualifications of parent coordinators and the term "arbitrator." The bill sponsor clarified that both parties must agree to the appointment of a parent coordinator.

01:58 PM -- Magistrate Diane Dupree, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She described the court's current practices with regard to parenting coordinators, spoke to the decision-maker provision in the bill, described typical decision-making disputes in cases she hears (attending a banquet, paying for a recital, picking up the child from practice, cutting hair, getting a tattoo, discipline, etc.). She answered questions from the committee regarding what would happen in cases where the parents refused to agree to something, and the types of court decisions influenced by guardian ad litems versus parent coordinators.

02:13 PM -- Ms. Joan Havens, representing herself, spoke in opposition to the bill. She described her experience in the 18th Judicial District with guardian ad litems and parenting coordinators. She expressed concern that the parents involved in the process cannot pursue a civil lawsuit against a decision-maker under the bill's provisions, and was also concerned with the way in which court fees are split.

02:20 PM -- Mr. Michael Pagnozzi, representing himself, voiced his concerns with the immunity provision for decision-makers. He questioned whether it was necessary to standardize the courts' use of parenting coordinators through legislation, and suggested an evaluation of the special advocate system was in order. Representative Jahn noted that an amendment would remove the immunity provision and stated that legislation on this issue was requested by consumers and the courts in order to provide clarification.

02:26 PM -- Ms. Cheryl Burnsite, representing herself, spoke against the bill. She discussed her concerns, including the immunity provision for decision-makers and the lack of binding conflict of interest provisions or disclosure provisions regarding prior contact with a parent coordinator or decision-maker. She responded to questions from the committee.

02:30 PM -- Ms. Judy Schure, representing herself, expressed concern about the lack of accountability/checks and balances in the system (e.g., oversight of appointment of parent coordinators). She listed lines and sections of the bill to which she was particularly opposed.

02:34 PM -- Mr. Mike Baran, representing himself, spoke against the bill and provided the committee with a packet on court-appointed helpers (Attachment D).

02:40 PM -- Ms. Teresa Spahn, representing herself, spoke in favor of the bill and addressed issues raised in prior testimony. She described how the bill came forward and noted that it did not stem from a lawsuit.


02:45 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments.
BILL:HB05-1171
TIME: 02:46:23 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Move Amendment L.001 (Attachment A). The motion was withdrawn following discussion.
SECONDED:Decker
VOTE
Boyd
Brophy
Decker
Harvey
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Judd
Kerr
McGihon
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE
BILL:HB05-1171
TIME: 02:49:36 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Move Amendment L.002 (Attachment B). Following discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:Decker
VOTE
Boyd
Brophy
Decker
Harvey
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Judd
Kerr
McGihon
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE
BILL:HB05-1171
TIME: 02:51:09 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Move Amendment L.003 (Attachment C). The motion carried on a vote of 9-1-1.
SECONDED:Boyd
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
Yes
Decker
Yes
Harvey
Yes
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
Yes
McGihon
No
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 1 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS



02:55 PM

Ms. Julie Pelegrin, Office of Legislative Legal Services, explained Amendment L.001, which creates language to conform with HB 05-1172 based on whether either or both of the bills pass. The chairman announced that HB 05-1171 would lay over until later in the calendar.