REQUESTING A STUDY OF WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR YOUTH.

What are we hearing? Yes. House Concurrent Resolution 1010. House Concurrent Resolution 1010. If you would both identify yourself for the record, I'll say that again, House Concurrent Resolution 1010 should be at the very back of your package to end of House bills. Again, would y'all recognize yourself, identify yourself for the record? Good morning, committee and Mr. Chair. Senator Scott, District 12. Good morning. State Representative Terry Shepherd, District 79. Okay. Representative, Senator, you are recognized but first award of caution representative. You realize by putting Senator Scott on your resolution that she's, so far she has a perfect record in here but she's never come in here herself. I'm not sure how the committee may react to that. Well, I'm hoping that that street will continue to go. You are recognized for that House Concurrent Resolution 1010. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and gentlemen, I won't take up too much of your time this morning. During the 86th General Assembly, Senate Resolution 31 was filed and Senate Resolution 31 was filed to study Arkansas's juvenile justice system and out of that grew a political will to reform. We made a lot of great progress in the state, a lot of the practices and systems that are in place today are a result of that. However, there's starting to be a rise in juvenile commitment for nonviolent offenses. And so I filed this so that we can one, remain committed to juveniles in Arkansas and then to study if there's something that's driving that and if there's something that we can do as the legislature to help. Senator Gilmour, you were recognized for a question. Thank you. I don't want to cut in too soon if Senator Scott had anything she wanted to add as part of the presentation. You don't have to. I just didn't want to take that from you. I know that she presented last week in front of Agent Children on another bill and a group of juvenile judges were there and they really like this Judge Brasswell from Conway and others thought that this would be some stuff that they can work with her on. And so I know that they were very supportive and I thought people like that who are hands on the ground, boots on the ground, trying to make progress on juvenile efforts in Arkansas was good for her bill. And so I just wanted to add that. Thank you. Question now? Question, Senator Gilmour. All right. Thank you. So I just, I want your thoughts as to how you envision this going because, and again, I think I support what you're doing here. I think it's a good idea. But I chair the Senate Interim Committee on Children and Youth. So I guess I'm trying to figure out what's expected as a result of this. What do you envision happening here? So what a great question, Senator, and thank you. What I envision happening is what happened prior, is the organizations coming together and identifying is there something that is driving juvenile incarceration rates, specifically as it relates to nonviolent minor offenses. And if there is something that's driving that, what can we do to minimize that? I'm sure you're aware and I'm glad to know you chair that committee. Children in Arkansas face higher rates of trauma than any other child in the nation. I'm sure you're aware of that. So what DYS is seeing and what they have reported here is that right now Caucasian girls are increasingly being the ones that are being committed to DYS. So at the end of the day, what I envision happening with this is, we look at other alternatives. Let me give you another example. When Senate Resolution 31 was filed, they were able to get the money, to get the commitment down. When they got the commitment down, Senator Gilmour, the monies that they saved by not incarcerating youth, they put those monies into the community. We don't have, which you probably are aware of, we do not have substance abuse beds for juvenile in the state. We only have one sex offender bed for juveniles in the state. So the resources for judges are very limited at the moment. So hopefully as an outcome, we can look at, how can the state put more dollars in community-based program instead of incarceration? Follow up, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And so just to point out, I think Judge Brown and Pine Bluff has a very successful juvenile program that he's doing. Great outcomes. I think a model for what should be probably across the country. I don't know if you know Judge Ernest Brown, but doing good work there. So I'll point to that. I guess what I'm trying to ascertain with this is the expectation to the committee. Is this something that we will just bring people in to testify and hear? I'm trying to get an idea of how much work is expected. What is expected, the legislative intent, if you will, from both of you as the sponsors, so that we have an idea from what the expectation for the committee is. Yes, sir. We will bring individuals in to testify in regards to what are some of the driving forces behind it. And I will be willing to commit to you, Senator. I want to be actively involved in this. I am a correctional auditor. So I'm very familiar with, you know, conditions of confinement and the impact that there has. So I'll be very actively committed with this process the entire time. Okay. Thank you. Senator Ross, you recognize? Thank you all for being here today. You mentioned a couple of times this goal of this would be why is there a rise in the number of young people? Is that correct? Yes, sir. I don't need a study to tell me that. Studies can help, but it is a lack of parenting. It is a lack of understanding actions have consequences. It is a false reality that we're teaching kids about life and dollars only is not going to fix the problem. Would you agree with any of that? Well, in reference to this resolution, Senator, kids that are committing nonviolent, offensive, minor infractions are being subjected to maximum level of security for juvenile. So that's what this is trying to address. Those kids who do not necessarily need to be a maximum level, what are our alternatives? That's what this is addressing. Right now, it's set about $127,000 per year per year annually. And so my goal is to try and see how can we save the state and taxpayers dollars by not incarcerating youth that do not necessarily need that level of residential confinement in addition to being able to better serve them in their communities. And I think that's a worthy goal. But I know this, and I say this about adults too. What goes through our juvenile system normally is not the consequences of what the actions were. It's less because there's plea bargaining. The system's overloaded. They don't want to put more in there than they have to. And I know what six decades ago my parents would have done to me if I'd done a fraction of what's happening today that these kids are getting assistance. These kids are living in a world that's very complicated, I agree. And I'm not against your resolution in sense. But I don't want us just to bypass the fact we've got to teach kids do right. We've got to teach kids do not push the envelope. You're going to be held responsible. And there's consequences comes in their lifetimes of consequences if they go down the wrong road sometimes. And I agree with you, Senator. Senator, I do. I totally agree with you. And it's unfortunate that some children are born into families that, you know, they don't necessarily have control over that. And they do get in trouble. But I think, Senator, for some youth, if we can better serve them in the community instead of locking them in a maximum level of security, if that's an option, then if we can utilize that. I agree with you on that. Thank you. Yes, sir. Senator Tucker, you recognize? Thank you, Chair. I appreciate all the discussion because we should work on this. And it's good to understand what the work will entail. But just to kind of bring us back on what we're voting on today, my understanding is we're voting on identifying this as a goal. We're stating as a legislative body that our goal is to take a good look at this and to study it. We're not actually changing any juvenile justice laws. They're saying what we have to do. We're just saying this is something worth looking at. And we need to study it. That basically is what we're voting on today, right? Absolutely. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Representative. Senator Johnson? Senator Gilmour, while you're looking at this, if you'll give me one for 30 days, I'll take it. Other questions from committee? Would the committee remind me, so I don't have to ask the parliamentarian, what power does a resolution have? Thank you for that description, Senator Johnson. I am correct that it has no legal authority, right? It's a tentative purpose. Representative Senator, I like the resolution. I like the title. And I like most ideas within. I have a problem with lines 30 and 31. That was always in the detail. Details, a study is required for the retention of independent expert consultants. I always cringe when we go to spend big money to have people come in here and tell us. Now, the people you have listed on the second page, I'm in complete agreement with. I have a problem with saying that we're looking to retain consultants. I also have a problem with not a huge problem, but page 2 lines 5 and 6, it's well meaning there's a pressing need to develop a juvenile justice reform plan. And I agree with that. I agree with the need and I agree with having hearings and having people testify. But it says no later than 12 months. Let me go to the practical side of that. When we leave here in a week, if we get out of here in a week, through the end of May, you're going to have a hard time getting a committee to meet. Once we're out, we kind of have an aversion to meetings for a while. That's just how the legislature reacts. June is very difficult because half your people are on vacation, half will show up. July is completely, can't happen because everybody is going to conferences and we're not meeting. So you don't get started to August. I said, oh, let's say you don't get started to August. 12 months from now puts us dead in the middle of fiscal session. So it's just while it's well meaning to say we won't do it in 12 months. It's for a committee, for a legislative committee to meet and do serious work, it takes longer. The whole interim period is the more likely. So again, I'm just, the wording is there and we pass it or fail it. And so again, because I don't disagree at all with the need to develop a juvenile justice reform. Anything we can do to better serve kids, anything that we can do. I have been a member of children. You probably, I think the only committee I have been on continuously since I've been here. And so I very much applaud what you're trying to do. And I'm not saying that those things, since it doesn't have any binding power, but I want to be on the record today in this committee that I'm not for hiring a consultant. I could be convinced. But every time we do that we spend lots of money and generally don't see much results. And the fact that I think it's impossible to do it in 12 months. But beyond that, the whole theory behind your resolution, I'm for. Other questions from committee? Wouldn't you agree, since I didn't, wouldn't you agree that those present some problems? I do. I do. And several things that you stated I agree with and I respect. And also Senator Tucker, I'm not trying to change any laws. I'm trying to get the conversation started and see what we can do. And I do want it to be thorough and detailed. During the 86th General Assembly, when it was thorough and it was detailed, the state did a wonderful job of reform. So I'm not trying, however much time it takes for me to work with the committee on this process. I'm willing to do it. I would rather that you fix the couple things that I mentioned. Having said that, I don't know that it keeps anyone else from voting for it. And I don't know you're fixing it causes anyone to vote for it. Okay. So any other questions from committee? Senator Clark, we are in agreement with the fee part and it's not expending money to bring independent experts in. So I wanted to be on record for saying that as well. If that would help us with the process of trying to get this through. I don't know that she has a lot of time to make any amendments to get back to the other end of the chamber. And I know her heart and where she's trying to know. I'm just trying to read the committee. Senator Gilmour. Yeah. And I mean, again, I think I can, I don't want to speak for my house chair, even though we have a very good relationship and she's a very good house member. I can speak for myself. I want to be very careful about how we use our money and who we, you know, who would, who would even do this work. I think we have a lot of folks in the state that are resident experts. I mentioned Judge Ernest Brown, who is, I think tremendous in his work of what he's done with the GBI and the program in Pine Bluff that has seen real work or real outcomes. So with that, I'm in agreement with the chair. I'm not going to let perfect be in me the good. So I'm for the bill and I would make a motion at the proper time to do pass on this. But I just, again, I think we're all in agreement what the expectation is and all of that. So thank you. And I would also add, I think you've got a great list of people there and it's, and it doesn't say just those people. There's other people like the prosecutors because we want to hear, we want to hear all sides of this. So would you like any other questions? Would you like to close for your resolution? I would just like to close by saying thank you all for, for hearing us today and I'm closed. Okay. Will of the committee. Motion to pass for Senator Gilmour, second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion. Signified by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations. Representative, you have passed your bill even with the dead weight you're carrying with you. Thank you, Senator. Senator Tucker. What's the, what's the bill number? Okay, okay. Okay. 1848. There are two amendments and a handout. Could I have a copy of the handout? I have not seen that. Yes, we will get you a copy of the handout, Senator Tucker. Thank you. I don't know what that is. I'm just saying it's not from me. I don't know who it's from. Senator Tucker, have you identified yourself for the record? Senator Tucker, Senator Disher, 14. Senator Gilmour. And not that I don't have confidence in the good counselor there. These amendments don't conflict in any way, do they? No, sir. Okay. Well, then I would make a motion to, do we need to adopt them individually? I can wait individually. Would Senator Tucker like to present the amendments? Sure. First amendment just deletes lines 31 through 33 on page two. So with that, I'll move to adopt. Senate amendment one. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve the amendment. Any discussion? All for the motion to signify by saying aye. All against. Motion carried. Senate amendment one is adopted to house bill 1848. Would you like to present the second amendment? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll get into it when I get into the bill, but this is a bill about custody with people who have found to be domestic abusers and there needs to be a finding on the merits in court. We had a question about what type of court that hearing would be in, and so on page one, line 31, after merits as language, as part of a custody proceeding in a domestic relations court. It's part of the custody proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. So it just clarifies that. And with that, I'll move to adopt. Senate amendment two, and I appreciate a good vote. Motion to adopt. Second. Second from Senator Gilmour. Any discussion? No. All opposed. Congratulations. You have passed your amendment, perhaps with one vote. Thank you. Thank you, members, and I appreciate your patience. I've been waiting on just on the second amendment. That's why I've held off this morning for that one. And BLR did great to get it to me when they did, which I'm grateful for. As you all know, this bill in 2021 creates a presumption of joint custody in the case of divorce. It has to be overcome by clearing convincing evidence. What this bill says is that if you're found by court, by the same court that which the second amendment clarifies the same court that's conducting the custody proceeding, they have a hearing on the merits and find by a preponderance of the evidence that someone has engaged in domestic abuse. Then there's a presumption that it's in the best interest of the child for the child not to be placed in the sole custody or care of the person who has engaged in the domestic abuse. The subdivision 4 on page 2 on 19 is kind of the process for how a parent who's been found to have engaged in domestic abuse can get that parenting time back from the court. That's what the bill does. I think I understand we want parents to have time with their kids. We also want to protect kids from parents who abuse them. I think this helps us achieve that balance and that's what the bill does and I'm happy to take any questions. Questions, Senator McKee? Thank you Mr. Chair. On page 2 up at the top there the definition of domestic abuse line 2 says the infliction of fear or imminent physical harm. Right. Is there an old definition of domestic abuse that we can look at because the infliction of fear I'm not a lawyer but that seems really subjective. So this definition actually is copied and pasted from another section of Arkansas Code. It's the language is underlined in the bill because it's new in this section. But I can't tell you what year the other language was adopted but this is copied and pasted from another section of Arkansas Code. So this is being used in determining If you let me grab my computer I could tell you where the other code section is. What was the line number? Line number 2 up at the top. The reason I bring this up Senator Tucker is because I know that in divorce cases aggressive battles are going on. I haven't been through that thank God but I know that those can be very emotional and dramatic events for families and things are said and accusations are made. Mr. Vandenberg just helped me out here which I appreciate. The code section is 9-15-103 and it was adopted in 1991. Okay so what did that section of code deal with? Well, you'll have to give me a second on that. Sorry, thank you. It's just the definition section so I'm going to have to look to see what the context was. It's good that we have a lawyer on the committee. It is good. Once in a while they come in handy. I heard a proposal several years ago that if you serve a certain number of years in the General Assembly you should be granted a law license in the state of Arkansas. I think that's a really bad idea. Really bad. I think that could be a judge. Really bad idea. You don't have to be a lawyer to be a judge. That would really be a bad idea. That's a really good idea. That's awesome. You don't want to know my opinion on a lot of things. I'm still working here but Title IX of the code is the family law code title. This is in Chapter 15 which is the domestic abuse chapter of family law. That's already in the definition of domestic abuse. Yes, sir. Is there a reason it's not in this section already? Well, we are making new law with this because we're incorporating that notion into the custody setting where it's unless we pass this law it's not a part of the custody process right now. Explicitly. Presumably it's always the best interest of the child is always the paramount concern for the judge when awarding custody so the judge should be looking at it regardless but this explicitly puts it in a code that if you've been found guilty or I use that word guilty that's a criminal term but if you found by a judge of having engaged in a domestic abuse in a civil family court proceeding then there's a rebuttable presumption and that's, you know, fancy lawyer lingo for it's not automatic that you cannot have custody of your child. You can overcome the presumption by demonstrating to the court that you're a good parent or it was a one-time event or whatever the case might be on a case-by-case basis that you are entitled to have custody or care of your child. So obviously I want to protect the kids and make sure they're not putting homes with abusive people. I that just seems like really subjective language to me in a custody case specifically I wonder if there was a reason why that wasn't included originally. I just don't think it was contemplated. So you know, I'm not a I've handled a couple of divorces in my career okay but I'm not a this is not my area of specialty in the practice of law okay so I know enough to be dangerous but generally speaking if there's a serious custody issue like this or if there's an allegation of domestic abuse then the court appoints what's called an attorney ad litem which is a lawyer for the child because each of the parents gets to have their lawyers as they should but the attorney ad litem looks out specifically for the interest of the child which is also appropriate especially in cases where there might be an allegation of domestic abuse and the attorney ad litem whose sole interest is the interest of the child not just the paramount interest but the their sole interest they're the ones who kind of flesh this out who excuse me who fleshed this out the attorney ad litem who's been appointed by the court as a lawyer for the child so again I obviously wholeheartedly support each of the parents having their counsel their counsel is advocating for their client their counsel and that there may be a conflict of interest at times between the best interest of their client and the best interest of the child but the parents deserve to have their own lawyer there the attorney ad litem they're not looking out for the parents they're looking out only for the child or the children as the case may be and so they're the ones who are really having the direct conversations with the child about what's occurred the I have others in line but center Tucker who is behind the addition of all this language representative Hudson so far as I know no there's somebody back behind that I don't know if it's just representative Hudson she's not a judge or an attorney is she I may have misunderstood your question who's behind all the additional language here in house bill 1848