Senate Judiciary

AI recap

Transcript

you you you you we call this meeting to order we could lower the volume a little bit if we got any senators here to run Senate bills we got anybody here to run bills y'all have hesitated too long 1895 that sounds like a TV series House bill 1895 thank you Mr. Chair this is just about my apologies Clark Tucker Center District 14 House bill 1895 sponsored by Representative Dolby and myself this is a bill that affects corporate entities ability to have in-house counsel do work for them which is currently legal under Arkansas code and this just makes a tweak to that law where it extends the ability to do that to an affiliate so if you have two corporate entities that are closely related through means of control including a subsidiary a parent or that sort of thing then then you can have a lawyer you know do work for both at the same time under the under the code that's it questions from committee Okay. Are you concerned about this bill? Not that I'm aware of. Actually, I had a few lawyers reach out to me, actually, because they thought it might hurt lawyers' ability to get clients if you have one lawyer working for multiple entities. And I had another question about whether a lawyer for an insurance carrier could represent the insured. I don't believe that's true because we have law in the books where there's inherent conflict of interest. You can't represent the insurance carrier and the insured at the same time. And this doesn't change that. This only extends to corporate entities that have control over the other. So the conversations I have with the lawyers who reached out to me, their concerns were satisfied. So I'm not aware of anyone else who had a question or a concern about it. How long have we had it? We're only one lawyer. I don't know, Senator. Thank you. Senator Tucker, again, just one sentence. What does the bill do? And then why do we need it? It allows companies that are closely held together and related, either a parent, subsidiary, or sibling, to have one lawyer work for multiple entities at the same time. And it just allows those entities to do that work without having to go hire another lawyer. Okay. Hearing no other questions. There's no one here to testify for or against. Senator Tucker, would you, you are recognized to close for your bill? I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. I moved to pass. Second from Senator Stubblefield. Discussion, hearing none. All for the motion. Signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried. Senator Tucker, you have passed your bill. I'm Senator Tucker going to go ahead in this little wall and run House Bill 1964. Senator Stubblefield, if you'll take the chair. I need to testify for. You've got to copy the fact in 1964. Thank you. Senator Clark, if you'll recognize yourself, Alan Clark, State Senate District 7, and Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask Tiffany Wright, DCFS director to come to the table and help me with your approval. Okay. Mr. Wright, will you identify yourself for the record? Okay. Good morning. I'm Tiffany Wright. I'm the director for the Division of Children and Family Services. All right. You are recognized to present House Bill 1964. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The child welfare ombudsman comes from legislation that I ran to hopefully have someone, and I think there's two people now, who take my place at trying to get answers for families within the child welfare system or to advocate for them when things are not going right and with the system as big as ours is, if everybody is doing things right 99% of the time, there's still families and children that fall in the gap. All this does is at that time, we went around the world to try to find a place to put the ombudsman, and it varied between nobody wanting them, they didn't fit, and we did find a place. But now we have a better place under the inspector general, and we're just, all we're doing is moving the ombudsman from where it is over at UAMS to the inspector general's office, and everyone including UAMS is good with this. Be happy to take any questions. All right. Senator Tucker, you're recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I know what an ombudsman does generally, but I'm not sure I know what this ombudsman specifically does. Can you just educate me on that? Go ahead. So this child welfare ombudsman takes concerns or complaints related to child maltreatment reports, placement issues, court issues, just depends on what it might be a family is experiencing, and then they gather information related to that, ask DCFS questions, and then try to mitigate any concerns. Primarily DCFS. We have a person who gets all these complaints, a central person, and they work with the local teams across the state to figure out what is going on, and then we try to evaluate systems, changes, and improvements. Okay. I take it from that explanation. It's complaints about their dealings with DCFS that they're trying to get resolved. It's not just DCFS. It's anywhere within the child welfare system. They don't have the same independence that a state senator has. Totally. So it's citizens trying to get issues resolved with anyone in the ch... Okay, thank you. All right, Senator Rice, you're recognized for question. Senator Gilmour, you're recognized for question. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Clark on page... Hang on, I'm looking forward again. Here we go. Page 12. I'm just trying to make sure that this is ported language. We're not adding something new that didn't already exist. Line 15 where it says, Juvenile on buzzmen shall not have authority to colon, and then it lists one and two there. What line number? So on page 12, line 15, starting line 15. It looks like new language, but I don't know if it's just because we're porting language from one spot to another. Did you see that? I do. I'm reading it, Senator Gilmour. Yep. Looks like new language that came from the division of youth services for some reason. If Ms. Wright would like to speak to it. Yes, we're not moving just one on buzzmen. This bill moves both on buzzmen, the Juvenile Justice on Buzzmen and the Child Welfare on Buzzmen together to increase consistency and oversight. And I don't know about the Juvenile Justice on Buzzmen language, so I can't answer if that's new language or not. And Senator Gilmour, I don't know either. Well, and again, maybe it's fine. It concerns me when we're talking about on buzzmen. It looks like it has been removed on pages 2 through 6 and rewritten as you suggested might have happened. Okay. You said pages, what again? 2 through 6. 2 through 6. Okay, I'm looking. In line 33. Yep. But I'm looking for the language that specifically speaks to that on page 12. Yeah, me too. And I don't see it. Again, I don't necessarily think there's any, you know... Well, I'm not as trusting actually as you, Senator Gilmour, but this bill's supposed to be about moving the two to the Inspector General. I would just want to know if it's... Yeah, I'm trying to get the supported language. Senator Gilmour, not so much because you questioned it because you raised a question in my mind. Yeah. I'd like to pull this bill down and get somebody in here that knows preferably this morning. Okay. Thank you, Senator. All right, thank you. Okay. Next up is Representative Tosh. Representative Tosh, if you would identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Representative Dwight Tosh, District 38. Representative Tosh, you are recognized to present House Bill 1875. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee members, this bill is a deal with the interlock system, but before I tell you what the bill does, let me just briefly explain what it does not do. Currently here in the state of Arkansas, if you're convicted of a DWI, then the court will give you the option. Well, they don't really give you an option. Driver's license are suspended for six months. The House Bill 1875, sorry representative talks, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Your driver's license are suspended for six months. Once your driver's license are suspended, you have the option whether to just accept that and go on and for six months not drive an automobile. However, if you choose and you want to be able to drive, then you can have an interlock system installed in your vehicle and that's the current law. We're not changing any of that. What we are changing is that six months, if you choose to have the interlock system in your vehicle for the first four months of the six months, if you attempt to start that vehicle and you go over the limit that's calibrated into that machine by the health department, there is no violations that occur. What we're changing is is in the last 60 days while that interlock system is on your vehicle during that six months for the last 60 days, if you attempt to start that vehicle and you go over the limit that's calibrated by the state of Arkansas, then that's going to count against you and then that interlock system will be extended for an additional 60 days. What we're looking for here, I did not put a criminal charge into this bill and I've been asked that question. I just didn't feel like what I was looking for here was to get these individuals back before judge and back into the court and back into the system. What I was trying to accomplish with this bill is a behavioral change and so we give them the first four months and we don't charge them or count any violations against them but after four months if they're still attempting to start that vehicle and they're over the limit what they need to be before that vehicle will start, that's a pretty good indicator that at the end of that six months we're going to have someone back on the highway drinking and driving. So we're just trying to get their attention during that last 60 days trying to set, establish a behavioral change. 35 states have already adopted this legislation. We passed it out of the judiciary on the house in with all yes votes, it passed the house floor with all yes votes and this bill is supported by the National Traffic Safety Council. Mad testified for this bill during the house judiciary. It's supported by the district courts, by the circuit courts, by all law enforcement officers. Each agency here in the state is just no known. Opposition to this bill and I truly believe this is a good bill, a bill that we need to try to like said change the behavior and keep people from driving under the influence of alcohol and with that Mr. Chair I'd be happy to take any questions. Representative Tosh, it sounds like you have struck about as good a balance as I've seen a bill coming through here this session. Questions from the committee? The we have some folks to testify for and against. We will start with the against. Nope, wrong bill. We've only got one to speak for. Don't kill the bill. OK, Teresa Brewer, blue, I'm sorry. You'll identify yourself for the record. Yes, I'm Teresa Belu. I'm representing mothers against drunk driving as I'm a volunteer and on the regional board working on policy. And I certainly don't want to do anything to kill the bill or the fine job that that representative Tosh who I knew first is Captain Tosh with the Arkansas State Police. I would just say this to you all. Remember this? I go to the doctor. I'm old and now they give me three words to remember. So here's a word I'd like you to remember and it is. Well, it's two words, 12 million when I first came to work with mothers against drunk driving. My first day on the job, I was told that in two days we had a press event with the attorney general and there was a lot of work to be done. And so I hit the ground running and while I was up here in the rotunda of my first press conference, we were working on lowering the AC from point one to point eight. And I asked a legislator what their position was. And he said to me, it's never enough for you people. And I remember saying to him, if it's never enough, it's because it's always too many, especially when it's preventable. We have researched. There's all kinds of things we could say, but we know that compliance based interlock already implemented in other states reduces recidivism. And remember that number 12 million? The industry reports 12 million times someone got behind the wheel of the car, tried to start it, and they were over the limit. So those are 12 million trips that didn't happen. We know that 36 people every day die in impaired driving prevention crashes. This is a tool that we need. The legislature, you all have been great to give us strong DWI rules through the years. This is something that we can do to add to our effectiveness. So I would appreciate your support for this. Appreciate Representative Tosh and all the hard work. This is a bipartisan issue. We can all get on board for this. It looks like y'all have done excellent work that is a great catch. That if you are, if the device is having to keep you from stopping the car in that last two months, you still have a problem and continue it for another two months and another two months without criminal charges. I think you couldn't have cut the balance, made it any closer to what it ought to be. So we'll commend you. Any questions for the witness from committee, Senator Stollfield? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Brewer, I was going to vote for this bill until you said you knew Representative Tosh. So. Well, politics makes for a strange bad feeling. That's a true stuff. OK. For the record, I have never been a bed fellow with Representative Tosh. That's just, I'm going to stop talking now. Now I'm really glad you came to the table. Julie, noted. Sometime ask me about how Representative Tosh saved my life one time. I'm not asking anything about Representative Tosh ever again. OK. That's a great bill. He's turning off my mic. Any other questions from committee for this witness? Hearing none, then we appreciate you being here, Ms. Blue. Representative Tosh, would you like to close? Would you close for your bill? Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I appreciate. Thank you for being here. And I appreciate a good vote. And I'm close with my bill. Do pass from Senator Ross. Second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed? Of all the legislation, we passed this session from Republicans who came saying we had too many laws. This is one of the most worthy ones, in my opinion, Representative Tosh. Your bill has passed. Thank you. That means a lot, Tosh. OK, I saw two senators enter the room. I only see one now, and he's leaving. Do you have a Senate bill? That was your bill. I take all my compliments back. I take all my compliments back. Back to the committee. Oh, Senator Hester, do you have a Senate bill? No. Not yet? OK. You have a House bill? OK. Senator Tucker, what? Senate Resolution 65. OK. Where will we find the resolution? Senator Tucker, would you identify yourself for the record? Clark Tucker, Senator District 14. Senate Resolution 65 has an amendment. Senator Tucker, would you like to explain the amendment? It just clarifies a couple of facts mentioned in the resolution and makes them more accurate. OK. Motion to adopt the amendment? Yeah, move to adopt. Motion from Senator Tucker. Second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion to signify by saying aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Senate Resolution 65 is amended. Senator Tucker, you are recognized to present Senate Resolution 65. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Special thanks to Senator Gilmour for cosponsoring this. Just to make sure this point is clear, this is a resolution only. This is not a bill. But it's in support of a program called Justice Counts, which as you can see, when the bill starts, it's led by the US Department of Justice. And this is a program that helps state policymakers make more informed criminal justice policy decisions at the state level. Justice counts, they just need some affirmative act from a state government to be invited to participate. They don't need a law. This resolution will qualify as their invitation. It doesn't give them the authority to do anything that we don't want them to do. They'll just come in. They have resources to help gather data so that we can make more informed decisions on criminal justice policy. They'll work with us. They'll work with state agencies and just offer to help. If the agency doesn't want their help, then they won't get any. But if the agency does want their help, then the Justice Counts folks will be happy to help as much as they can to help us gather data to make it more accurate, more consistent so we can make more informed decisions as state policymakers. That's the point of the resolution. Questions from committee? Senator Rice. Senator Tucker, was this needed more because the policies of the previous Department of Justice that many of us had great concerns with and are you thinking the new one that we don't know about yet? My understanding is this policy is part of the Department of Justice regardless of who the president is. I believe it's been there for several administrations, including the previous Trump administration. Do you think it should be helpful? I do think it will be helpful, yes, sir. Thank you. Other questions from committee? Hearing none. No testimony for or against. Senator Tucker, you are recognized to close for Senate resolution 65. I appreciate y'all's time and I would appreciate a good vote. I move to pass. Motion from Senator Tucker as amended. Second from Senator Gilmour. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion signified by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried. You have passed Senate resolution 65. Senator Tucker. House Bill 1931. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Gilmour, District One. So this is the companion bill to Senate Bill 590. We've already heard this bill in this committee and on the floor and it's already down to the house but this is just the house companion bill that. So have you take questions? If there are any. Questions from committee? Hearing none. No one to testify for or against. Senator Gilmour, you close for your bill. I'm closed, make a motion to pass. Motion to pass from Senator Gilmour. A reluctant second from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion signified by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmour. You have passed House Bill 1931. I am going to ask Senator Stoufflefield to come take over the chair again and we're gonna try to run House Bill 1964 again. Thank you. Senator Clark, if you go in and identify yourself and your guests. State Center, State Center, Allen Clark, District 7. Tiffany Wright, Director for the Division of Children and Family Services. Aren't you recognized? House Bill 1964, we presented earlier. We're moving the child welfare ombudsman and evidently the juvenile ombudsman to the office of the Inspector General where they belong. We've got answers for Senator Gilmour and myself and everything's fine. We're happy to take any questions. All right, committee, any questions? Yeah, and just Gilmour. Yeah, because I raised the question, I just want to clear it up. It is Porter's language, I'm good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, any other questions from committee? Anyone in the audience who wish to speak for or against the bill? All right, seeing none, you want to close for your bill, Senator Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am closed, I appreciate a good vote and I'll make a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass by Senator Rice, second by Senator Gilmour. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. All opposed? The bill passes to Senator Clark. Thank you. Well, it's been nice to ask for this. Thank you. We got any other bills? There we go, Representative Mix is here. What bill, Representative Mix? I'll have to compare them in 1529 to 1877. House Bill 1529, committee. Okay. House Bill 1529, representative, would you and your guests identify yourselves for the record? Yes, Representative Steven Mix, District 42. Good morning, Justin Brasher, Senior Assistant Attorney General with the Arkansas AG's office. Thank you, committee and Mr. Chairman. So, the idea for this bill for me came from an AI conference that I attended this summer. They told us a story of, I guess it happened in Connecticut where boyfriend, girlfriend were in a relationship. Oh, I'm sorry. Make sure I'm not blowing you out here. Boyfriend, girlfriend were in a relationship. The relationship broke up. The boyfriend took her picture, put it on an illicit photo, spread it all over the school and basically destroyed her life. There were no laws in place that deal with that situation in Connecticut. As you know, these are emerging technologies. And so what this bill would do is it would put protections against that kind of thing in place from here in Arkansas. As I got this bill worked up, I sent it over to the AG's office, come to find out this was a priority bill for them. This is something that they wanted to have in place in the state too. So I work with them on this bill. And basically what the bill does is it would make it illegal in Arkansas for you to take the picture of a known identifiable person put it in an illicit photo and either create it or and or distribute it. If you do that, the penalty is the first time it's gonna be a class A misdemeanor. So if you're just a stupid kid, you do this. We're gonna slap you on the wrist real hard and let you know that was stupid. We're not gonna tolerate that here in Arkansas. After that first go around, if you do it again, it's gonna become a class D felony. So in a nutshell, that's what the bill does. If Mr. Berchere has any words that you'd like to add to it, then I will turn it over. Thank you, Representative Meeks. I'm not blowing everybody out here. Am I, we're good? Okay. Yes, this is the Attorney General's office. We support this bill when we saw that Representative Meeks had filed it. We had already been working on a couple things in this area and so reached out and worked on the language so that it's constitutional. Cause this is an area where there's a lot of constitutional law, a lot of case law regarding this sort of activity, particularly when it comes to adults and how it coincides with free speech. So what we've done is very intentionally taken a lot of language from the federal code that has been upheld and has not been found to be unconstitutional, worked with it. There's some case law, a case called Ashcroft. We've made sure that it fits with that case as well. And so the language, both the identifiable as well as the language that is on lines 10 to 14 of page two is specific where it says such as an ordinary person viewing the deep fake visual material will conclude that the depiction is of the identifiable person in sexual contact or other things is specific so that we are not, it's not overbroad in getting things that would then be considered speech. The other thing to be considered here is that oftentimes adult pornography is definitely viewed differently in the law than child sexual abuse material. However, when consent is taken out of the picture which is what's happened here when someone who has not consented to have their picture put in these sort of either images or videos then we're in a different area than consensual adult pornography. So the last part is we deal with this. Our people are investigators deal with this issue. They deal with what they call them sex distortion cases and those are situations where it might be a boyfriend, girlfriend, it might be some other situation. It might even be someone who they've never met online. They get a picture of them. They put that in something like this in a deep fake sort of situation or run it through some sort of AI and then come back and say give me money or I'm spreading this around. So this would criminalize both that possession and that distribution and the possession element is also because there's a lack of consent or comfortable with the constitutionality of the possession element as well. Happy to take any questions. Senator McKee, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Meeks for bringing this bill. I think it's a very good idea and very much needed. There's no concern with the Attorney General's office that this could encumber anything like parity or anything like that where folks is intent, part of the process. So a couple of things. First is, again, it needs to be in a state of nudity or engaging in sexual contact. So that's the first part of this. But second is, if you look at the, it does need to be distributed and so because of those two things, we're not concerned about it affecting any sort of parity or anything like that. Thank you. Other questions from committee? The, what is the penalty for a class A misdemeanor and for a class D felony? Oh boy, I have to pull this off the top of my head. I do the, one of the prosecutors could one of y'all answer that real quickly? Okay, thank you. The answer was one year and $4,500 fine for a class A misdemeanor and up to six years and a $10,000 fine for a class D felony. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, Jeff Rosenzweig is signed up to speak against. Mr. Rosenzweig, if you will identify yourself for the record. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas, Associated Criminal Defense Lawyers. You're not, we're not arguing about the distribution aspect. The attorney general was probably correct with regard to distribution. However, this is phrased in the disjunctive creation or distribution. And the, in other words, the mere creation without any distribution, without any other attempt to give it to anyone, display it to anyone would be a crime. That is going to be way overbroad in violation of First Amendment, in violation of the Ashcroft decision to which Mr. Brescher referred. Ashcroft decision talked about creation of things overbroad, overbred because some things may be artistic. Now, obvious, and as Senator McKee noted, there's no exception for parody. In other words, if I were or someone were to sit at one's computer and create an image of, let's say Donald Trump having some sort of sexual activity and just put it on his office wall to laugh at or whatever, somebody comes in, sees that, that's a crime under this law. That is way overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. And extortion, of course, which is obviously a form of communication is, that's a crime, we already know that, that's already against the law. But I would suggest very strongly that if this bill is going to be held to be constitutional, you take out the words creation and penalize only distribution. Questions from committee? And Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this would be the proper time to respond to that, but we do have a response once the committee finishes with their questions. Yeah, proper time will be closing unless somebody asks you a question while they're asking him a question. Question from committee? Senator Stubblefield. Mr. Rosenzweig, are you referring to the line on number 18, second page? Line 18. The word says unlawful creation or distribution. Okay, unlawful creation. It says unlawful, of course, the title of it is unlawful creation or distribution. Okay, and then if you look at line, line eight, for instance, knowingly creates or distributes. In other words, it's a crime merely to knowingly create. I can create something that is a parody that no one else would see that I don't tend for anyone else to see and put it on my office wall. And if someone comes in, let's say a policeman comes in or a sheriff comes in to serve a subpoena on me to come to court for something, he sees that he can arrest me for committing a crime under this, under this proposition here. That the, I am confident that a court would hold that the mere creation without any distribution or threat to distribute and just for simple possession of it, particularly in a political parody context, is going to be held woefully overbroad and we'll bring the whole statute down. Could AI be used in this situation? Yeah, AI could be used in it. The issue is not how it's created. The fact is the simple fact of creation without any distribution or threat of distribution of it and is would be, is a crime under this and that is going to clearly violate the First Amendment. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Rosenzweiger. The representative makes you recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, colleagues. So obviously I don't pretend to be an attorney, I'm not an attorney, technology is my area of expertise, which is why I brought this, but just a couple of responses there. So first off, I know that Clarence Thomas, when he was on, or he still is on the Supreme Court, but many decades ago, when they first started establishing the case law that they're kind of using as a guide for this, he said at that time that as this technology develops that they're gonna have to come back and look at these issues and to further flesh them out. And so I think that with the passage of these bills that that is gonna take place. Secondly, just from a practical standpoint, if someone were to do this and take my image and create one of these in one of these compromising, I say that that is an invasion of my privacy. Would any of you be okay if a pervert took a picture of your wife or daughter and created that and put that on their computer and say that's okay protected speech? I don't. So I understand the concern, but I think we need to send a clear, loud message that it's not okay by any means, whether I'm just sitting in my basement and my underwear creating these pictures of, I'll just leave it at that. I think we need to get this done with that. I'll turn it over to. The only thing I'll add is just that in speaking to the parody element, lines 10 through 14 on page two, make it clear that it needs to be sexually explicit conduct that such as an ordinary person viewing that visual material would conclude the depiction is of the person engaging in sexual contact or sexual intercourse. And that's taken straight from the federal code. And the idea is again that this is not a parody. You look and you think it's the real thing. That's why the definition is written that way. And that's supposed to work at the federal level as well. Will the committee? Motion to pass from Center Stovefield. Second from Center Dees. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion, signify by saying aye. All opposed, motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Meeks. You have passed your bill. I am going to interrupt you before you present the next one and let Center Dees present a bill so he can get back out of here. All right, we'll slide out of the way. Oh, okay. Got her down. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. State Senator Tyler Dees, District 35. We are looking at House Bill 1921. House Bill 1921. And I'll start to describe while y'all are pulling that up that this has been a noncontroversial bill. And in fact, I know we're different bodies, but 97 to zero in the House. But what this bill does is it makes it more efficient on the foster care situation around training. And so especially around relatives when they're wanting to be foster parents. So it helps reduce the number of total hours and in no way changes the training or the curriculum or substance dealing with DCFS. But it just, it makes it more efficient for the families so that it really encourages foster care and makes it easier for families. And if you look at states nearby, we are some of the highest hours required on some of the training. And so this really encourages and helps foster care to be easier and more approachable. So that, happy to take any questions. Questions from committee? Center D's. Good job. The hearing no questions, there's no one to testify for against. Center D's, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed and make a motion to pass. Motion to pass, second from Center Stubblefield. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion, signify by saying aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Center D's. You have passed House Bill 1921. Representative Meeks, you are recognized and representative Moore, we realize you are here. We have an amendment for this, Mr. Chairman. Okay, and what bill number is it? It is House Bill 1877. House Bill 1877, and we'll pass out the amendment. Representative Meeks, are you ready to present the amendment? Yes, Mr. Chairman. So this is an idea that came to us from industry. So this bill is gonna be related to the AI creation of child pornography, basically in a nutshell. What this amendment does is it allows companies that are developing AI image tools. It allows them to do red hat testing to try to prevent their AI tool from creating these. And so that's what the amendment does. So I hope that makes sense. I can go into it in further detail if needed, but in a nutshell, that's what it does. Is there a motion to adopt? Motion to adopt from Senator Gilmour. Second from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion, signify by saying aye. All opposed? Most carried. Amendment is adopted. Thank you, committee. Representative Meeks, you are recognized to present House Bill 1877 as amended. All right, thank you, committee. Again, this is a bill that I've been working with the Attorney General's office. This is currently in place in 37 other states. Arkansas would be number 38 upon approval. What this bill does in a nutshell, like I said, is it makes it illegal for AI-generated child pornography and has the same language in there about it has to be indistinguishable from a real child. If you're familiar with how these models work, they're actually, when they create these images of fake children, they're actually using the photos of real children in their creation. And so in a nutshell, that's what this, again, this does. It just outlaws the creation of AI-generated child pornography. Questions from committee? Questions from committee? Hearing no questions from committee. There's no one to sign up to speak for or against. Will of the, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, colleagues, I'm closed and I would just ask that you would support us in our efforts to put these protections in place for our children and what that would appreciate a good vote. Will of the committee? Motion due passed from Senator McKee, second as amended, second from Senator Gilmour. All, any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed, motion carried. Congratulations representative, it makes you have passed your bill as amended. Representative Moore. What bill, representative? House bill 1433, would you identify yourself for the record? Kendra Moore, state representative, district 23. Representative Moore, you are recognized to present House bill 1433. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House bill 1433 simply adds that a law enforcement officer who is serving in order of protection for domestic violence checks for those active warrants before serving that order of protection. The purpose, excuse me, the purpose of this edition is to promote officer, community and court safety. We vetted this bill through the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Judicial Council, the Arkansas Police Chiefs Association and the Arkansas Sheriffs Association. And with that, I'll try to answer any questions. Questions from committee? Hearing no questions from committee. We have Brian Vendiver to speak against. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brian Vendiver, on behalf of Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality. I want to commend Representative Moore on her bill, and this amended version is much better than the original version we spoke against in the House. And I appreciate her listening to her bill and the fact that it's not the original version of the original version that we spoke against in the House. And I appreciate her listening to our concerns in the House and amending it, but we still have concerns. And I'd like to try to explain those. What this bill does is it conflates criminal law and civil law. An order of protection is basically an injunction in civil family court. And what this would do is it would require a check from law enforcement before serving that civil order of protection to see if there is a criminal arrest warrant. I guess our concern is why are we singling out this type of civil order and only checking for criminal warrants in those civil cases and not other civil cases where injunctions are awarded? I think that creates a problem with these types of cases and order of protection cases because what it does, we know that these orders of protection are already weaponized in a sense by petitioners, lawyers. It further incentivizes that weaponization of an order of protection to use it as an offensive sword. Finally, what we would say is this bill does nothing to require a check for criminal arrest warrants on the petitioner. It only requires a check for criminal arrest warrants on the respondent. So hypothetically, the petitioner seeking the order of protection could have an arrest warrant for armed robbery. The respondent could have a arrest warrant for failure to appear in traffic court. And this requires only a check for the arrest warrant of the respondent. And I think that's a gross unfairness in how the order of protection law should be applied and our organization is opposed to this bill for those reasons. Questions from committee? Mr. Vendiver, when the order of protection is originally served, is there a hearing after that? Yes, Your Honor, there is generally a hearing after the order of protection is served. But by then, if someone has also been served an arrest warrant, then whoever is arrested is going to be in jail. That's my point though, is that at this point is still contested while the way I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer, if a judge has heard enough evidence that they believe there may be a need, but then a respondent appears in court and can I say oftentimes that, order is not continued? I think often many times the order is rescinded, not continued, whether that's a lack of evidence or false allegations, we know that's a problem in our system, false allegations being filed for orders of protections. And so when you have those scenarios and you're requiring law enforcement to then out of their ordinary systems, their ordinary course of doing business of serving criminal arrest warrants, you're mandating, they check that and then serve that criminal arrest warrant in conjunction with a civil order of protection, I think that creates problems, not only for the respondent of the order of protection, but also from a criminal due process standpoint, I think that's creating problems for those criminal defendants. Questions, Senator Gilmour? And I'll show you the same respect that Mr. Vannevar did, sir, in calling you your honor. So thank you. It happens a lot in here, no problem. He's very judicial. Well, I have a habit of 25 years of law practice, so I extend that courtesy to anyone. Again, no point made other than we like to mess with the chair. So speaking back to you said, when the petitioner, there's no warrant check on the petitioner. I guess maybe you can elaborate on the relevance of that, because again, if this is an order of protection, typically there's a reason for that. To the chair's point, a judge would have to agree with that. There being a need for this order of protection. So again, what would we say if there's an active warrant against the petitioner, then what, we don't need the order of protection? We don't, there should be two order of protection served. I guess I'm just trying to figure out the relevance of you stating that. And maybe you can help me. Sure, I'll try to explain. I'm not saying that there may not need to be a basis for the order of protection. What I'm saying is that there's a level of unfairness when we're requiring the law enforcement system to only require a check for a criminal arrest warrant on one of the two parties involved in that civil litigation. If you have someone initiating the civil case, the petitioner asking for an order of protection and now we're requiring that law enforcement only do a check for criminal arrest warrants on the respondent. Again, like in my hypothetical, you very well could have a situation where both parties have criminal arrest warrants and the petitioner's criminal arrest warrant may be much more severe, but we're not asking law enforcement to do a check on the petitioner. It's just the respondent. And we know from the statistics that orders of protection are disproportionately filed against men in this state and in the nation. And so this will have a disparate impact, no doubt, on men. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, Mr. Vandenberg, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No one signed up to speak for or against, representative Moore, you are recognized close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is simply just a protection. Again, this is in order to protect the officer, the community and the court with this law. We are not mandating that arrest happen. This is only an active warrant check and leaving it to the officer's discretion. And again, just promoting safety in the courtroom. And with that, I appreciate a good vote. Will of the committee, motion to pass from Senator Gilmour, second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, representative, you have passed House Bill 1433. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, Senator to present a Senate bill. You go to the top of the list. What bills, Senator Hester? Senate bill 441. Senate bill 441. Would you identify yourself with a record? State Senator Bart Hester, district 33 members. We've had a lot of debate on this. It's the Junk Lawsuit Prevention Act. Visited with some members since the committee and I'm still happy to answer any questions. I think we're quite familiar with it. Okay, questions from committee? Senator Tucker has a question when he gets back to his seat. Is it the same bill or has that been? The exact same bill. All right, thank you. It did have an amendment last time and if it passes today, it will be as amended. Other questions from the committee? Hearing none, there's no one to testify for against. Senator Hester, you're recognized closed for your bill. Senator Zied, I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from Senator Gilmour. Second from Senator Johnson. Discussion, Senator Tucker? I'll be brief. I don't want to rehash everything. Just the two quick points. I understand what Senator Hester's trying to do. I don't think we should interfere with ongoing litigation, which this bill definitively would do. And this bill also prevents people who have been injured from seeking recovery for that injury. So I think I'll be opposing it for those two reasons. Thank you. Okay, and let me say that that was do pass as amended. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Congratulations, Senator Hester. Your bill has passed. Roll call. Roll call. Calls for from Senator Stubblefield. What? Yes. Senator Stubblefield? No. Senator Stubblefield, no. Senator Rice? Senator Rice, no. Senator Johnson? Senator Johnson, yes. Senator Tucker? Senator Tucker, no. Senator Gilmour? Senator Gilmour, yes. Senator McKee? Senator McKee, yes. Senator Deese? Senator Deese, yes. Chair votes aye. Okay. Bill passes by a vote of five to three. We got anyone here to representative? Bill number? House Bill 1764, Mr. Chair. Committee House Bill 1764. Representative, would you identify yourself for the record? Yes, sir. Kinden Underwood, State Representative, District 16. Representative Underwood, you are recognized to present House Bill 1764. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the committee's time. I recognized when I was here earlier this week, I took a simple bill and overcomplicated it and did not do a very good job. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the committee's time. I recognized when I was here earlier this week, and did not do a very good job presenting it. So I thought I'd come back and try to do a little better. So this bill is not changing anything in our current law as it relates to violations of order of protection. We already have certain standards when you have repeat offenders. The only thing this bill is doing is clarifying that if you are a repeat offender in another state and you come here, you're going to be treated exactly the same as if you had repeat convictions in our state. So it's just a clarification because we don't want to give a pass to individuals that are coming from other states over individuals who are in Arkansas. Questions from committee? Senator Stubblebill. Representative Underwood, you're basically saying that you can just accumulate these regardless of your location where if you committed them in another state, then they accumulate to Arkansas. So please correct me if I'm not answering your question. The way the statute reads currently, it says under this section, so it's only referring to convictions that occur within the state of Arkansas. So if you happen to get multiple convictions in another state and then you come to Arkansas, you could arguably say that they didn't occur under the section, under the code in Arkansas and so therefore they're not used, they can't be used for enhancement, just the same as we would an Arkansas conviction. Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes sense. Thank you for the question. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no one to testify for against. Representative Underwood, you are recognized close for your bill. I really appreciate the committee's time and hearing this again and I'm close for my bill. Motion to pass from Senator Gilmour, second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations. Representative Underwood, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Appreciate you. Who have we got up next? Senator Scott, it's so good to see you in Senate Judiciary. Have you got a bill to run? Representative is running a resolution and you're on the resolution or you're just here for moral support? They can't be both because the second one was just. Representative, you are recognized. 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 I don't know this is representative Hudson's bill if someone approached if you don't know that's fine yeah because the joint custody law is fairly new and was passed because there was not only a feeling it was factual that the with many of our judges that one gender had an advantage over the other gender when it came to custody and we had judges testify against joint custody and one said that there were no judges like that and then the very next breath said but the ones that are like that are retiring so of course both couldn't be true the and as and you know who carried that bill I did and I find it interesting that I haven't seen this bill with the need to make changes to the joint custody law until now you have any idea of why I wouldn't have seen it before no sir a couple things to your one point I'm also not the senate sponsor this bill and I just became engaged on this really in the last I would say 24 to 36 hours the last 24 to 36 hours have kind of run together say with precision with precision when I first became engaged on this and so you know when I did I probably should have brought it to you Mr. chair at that time and I'm sorry that I did not do that but my involvement fingers at you but you understand my point I do I do and I you and I have a difference of opinion on the joint custody law which is fine I totally respect your position I think the presumption of joint custody for both parents is a good thing you know my concern which I stated at the time to you was about the fact that the presumption could only be overcome with clear and convincing evidence which every judge applies differently and so I think there's a lack of consistency of the application in courts across Arkansas and I personally I'm certain there are people who have benefited from that law since its passage in 2021 I personally know people who have suffered because of it because they've stayed in marriages with an abusive parent because they feared they would not be able to overcome that presumption in a divorce proceeding and their children would be with the abusive parent outside of their presence half the time and they did not want to subject their children to that and I don't want to re-litigate that this is not attempting to re-litigate that the presumption of joint custody from the bill in 2021 it's a really narrow exemption that if the judge who's conducting the who would be making that determination anyway about whether the presumption has been overcome by clear and convincing evidence if the same judge determines that one of the parents has engaged in domestic abuse it shifts the burden back to the parent who has been found to have been abusive and I think that's appropriate if the judge who's making your custody determination finds you have abused your kids then the burden of proof should shift back to you that you shouldn't be able to have access to your kids and we have any judges to testify on this? not that I'm aware of I know Representative Hudson did put language in here at the request of the judicial counsel there goes back to my first question where it came from that may be the case I don't know the answer to that because that's very important and this had it had this been presented been presented and we had had weeks to discuss it perhaps I would have agreed with the language otherwise when we were presenting the bill back then it would have been seen as a hostile amendment fair enough so we have a need for all kinds of new language that we didn't have a need for then judicial counsel didn't present any of that and I want to be sure that we stay let me tell you I have heard about the cases where right things were done and should have been done where people thought that because one gender was no longer considered superior to raise the kids and have most custody that how this bill was bad most of those cases I have actually heard I'm not a judge most of those cases I've actually heard but where's the abuse because that's what the joint custody bill is you have to present the evidence of abuse and often as you before these things get heated it's all kinds of things and I deal with this more in DCFS than I do I really don't deal with custody cases all in DCFS I deal with it because it bleeds over because all of a sudden a father who has not been accused of anything for years is all of a sudden guilty of the worst kind of sexual abuse and I have a always have questions when that comes up as to if he was sexually abusing the kids all this time why wouldn't we have said anything why does it just come out now because I find that almost criminal that you allowed the law sort of finds one parent at least negligent if they allowed sexual abuse of their children and didn't do anything about it is that Senator I think you know my opinion is if you're a victim of abuse and severe abuse for me to pass judgment on how you handle the situation over a period of time and you've been conditioned where you have Stockholm syndrome or whatever the case might be would I like to have seen something different sure but I think that's easy for me to say when I wasn't in that situation and if someone does eventually come forward and say I've had enough I'm not putting up with this anymore then with that person at that time even if from the outside looking in we would have liked to have seen something done sooner and because of that belief we take these things very seriously at the same time it often once the courts have heard everything we're making charges of abuse where there was no abuse to get a leg up in custody hearings and although it's against the law it appears some attorneys actually coach it what is the penalty for those who claim it and it didn't happen it would be the same penalty for any other type of litigation proceeding first of all anytime you make a representation to a court or in a court you're under penalty of perjury and if you say anything that's false then that's a crime in Arkansas those are for the parties for the attorneys on top of that we have a rule of civil procedure rule 11 that we have to have a reasonable basis in law in fact for everything we present to a court and if we don't have a reasonable basis in law in fact for what we present to a court then there can be disciplinary proceedings issued against the attorney who violates that standard so that would be the case in this setting and every other litigation setting and in reality when are either of those things happening? it's rare I'll grant you that other questions Senator Deese thank you Mr. Chair and Senator Tucker you had mentioned some of this earlier I received a letter from a lawyer that primarily practices and family law and they may or may not have testified on the house side but they sent me some notes that I would love your thoughts on for this as well and it was something to the tune of concerns around 1848 would circumvent the joint custody law from the 2021 law that we just referenced earlier and then concerns around what's best interest of the child to be in custody or care and then finally can we just take those one at a time? I'm not sure I'm going to remember all of them let me go to this because this is the one I had the most concern it was in their experience they described that in every divorce case that there's accusations thrown at the other party and there was concern I believe in my layman's term that this bill would create it by just allegation alone that there could be a decision made without proof of evidence of abuse and the difference between abuse and violence and I think control I'm going to get to what's terminology control course of control so in your opinion when you hear me describe the concerns from this family lawyer is this bill going to make it easier for just allegations alone to be a determining factor on custody or is there still going to have to be evidence presented for abuse I don't know if I made that clear or not you made it very clear and I'm really glad you asked that question because I want the answer to be equally clear before I answer the course of control language I don't know I'm not an expert on all the domestic violence bills coming through but the course of control language is in another bill it's not in this bill the course of control language so for what that's worth what your other question about whether this would empower allegations to affect custody I think is in line with a question Senator Clark was asking and in line with the first point your constituent made about whether this would circumvent the custody law that we passed in 2021 and the answer is absolutely not because this is actually establishing and this I think goes if anything I think in a way this is consistent with what we passed in 2021 because Senator Clark's goal was allegations I mean I don't want to speak for Senator Clark my understanding of one of Senator Clark's goals is allegations are not enough you need to have proof right I would align with that and and Senator Clark can and should correct me if I've misstated that but what this is established a proceeding where you have to establish proof in front of a court at a court proceeding and you have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence which is the same standard in any civil court and then if you prove it by a preponderance of the evidence it doesn't mean the parent can't respond it just means the burden of at the beginning the burden of proof is on the parent who's making the allegation but they have to satisfy that burden they can't make the allegation and that be the end of it they have to satisfy that burden of proof and what this bill is saying is once you have satisfied that burden of proof to your judge's satisfaction then the burden of proof shifts to the person who the court has found with evidence has abused the children thank you other questions from the committee we have Brian Vendiver to testify against thank you Mr. Chair Brian Vendiver on behalf of Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality and I want to start by saying that this absolutely has everything to do with Act 604 and the rebuttable presumption of joint custody that has been passed by Senator Clark Representative Gasway and others worked so very hard to pass four years ago we were very much a part of that process and I'd like to share just quickly what we've heard since the passage of that act what we've heard since the passage of that act that it has been a very good change in the law that it has worked as we had anticipated that it has reduced litigation in custody cases and made the process much more fair for all parents we have heard that it has focused the litigation on the cases that truly need to be litigated in family court and that comes from not only litigants but lawyers and judges as well in fact in discussing amendments on this very bill 1848 which the predecessor of it was 1434 and I'll speak to that in a moment but in discussions with Representative Hudson who was one of the most vocal opponents of Act 604 she went to the well to speak against it four years ago and she admitted in discussions that yes that act has actually worked and she sees that now and so and I would also say that Judge Amy Johnson Moore Plaskey County circuit judge who helped work on this bill also has said openly that Act 604 is a good act and is working well in family court what this bill does and our concerns with it are a couple as has been discussed there are exceptions to what we did in Act 604 exceptions to the presumption of joint custody one is if you have evidence by clear and convincing that it's not in the best interest exception another exception is if one of the presumptions that was already in the code applies and there were two one is at issue here the domestic violence or domestic abuse exception that exception was in the code prior to Act 604 we work with Representative Hudson on changing what used to be 1434 and a lot of the amendments were made that we suggested and we appreciate the good work that she did on that to make it more palatable however there are still problems number one going to the definition of domestic abuse what this does is it copies and paste the definition of domestic abuse from the different code section that Senator Clark referred to which is the domestic violence act that was adopted in 1991 that act was adopted for a different purpose particularly for orders of protection and domestic abuse situations and under that code section originally it was limited to physical and sexual abuse what we'll see in another bill that there are some who want to expand that definition of abuse and what we had an objection to was that copy that cross reference to that section so we asked that the actual language be included in this bill to limit it just to physical abuse and sexual abuse the problem is it still changes the language of the custody code because the exception in the custody code talks about domestic violence and I think there's always been a question of is that something different than domestic abuse and we would say that yes this does it expands that definition from domestic violence to domestic abuse and creates more opportunities for this exception to apply than would have existed before this bill in other words it creates a bigger window a bigger opportunity for those who wish to claim domestic abuse under the custody code section and use that to their advantage and now to senator Clark's question of who's behind this bill I think I can answer that and that's the Arkansas coalition against domestic violence the courts did not this is not part of judicial council's bill package this is not brought formally on behalf of AOC or the judges it's my understanding that this was drafted and promoted by the Arkansas coalition against domestic violence with which judge Amy Moore has worked and she and I again work together on making this better but as I said there's still problems with that definition let me go to a second and more problematic problem we work successfully with representative Hudson in the House side on 1434 the predecessor to this bill to remove specific language and the phrase is or care in the bill and it's on page 2 let me get my lines of there it is so 1848 page 2 if you look at line 9 and line 17 so what we have in this version of the bill is a phrase custody or care and we had worked specifically to eliminate that phrase or care because that phrase doesn't make sense in the code this section of the code specifically relates to custody and having that phrase or care in there is nonsensical that's what the next section of the code deals with that begins on line 19 and so I don't know if that's a Scrivener's error or something else but that's a problem that we noted with 1434 it was corrected in the House side and now with this new bill it has reappeared so that's another problem that we see we just had the opportunity to digest the amendments from this morning and that cures one of another problem that we had with the domestic intervention program that's now been deleted from this bill so we're happy with that amendment but I would just end with we worked very hard four years ago to pass what we can do and what many others say is one of the most monumental and positive changes in family law in our state's history and it has overwhelmingly worked very well and we are very much opposed to any opening of reducing the effect of Act 604 and we think that the way that this bill is written unfortunately does that make sense questions from committee hearing none thank you for your testimony we have one more signed up to testify Gina and Delacato to testify against good morning chair my comments we're going to be about would you identify yourself with the record I'm sorry my name is Gina and Delacato and I'm with Arkansas advocates for family quality and my comments we're going to be in regard to the domestic violence intervention programs which I was able to talk to the sponsors about and they had them ended out so that's what the handout was for and so my testimony on that is not necessary at this point all right thank you there is no one else testify for against center Tucker you're recognized close for the bill thank you Mr. Chair and the engagement and participation of Mr. Vandiver everyone in the process the process is better when there are more people engaged when they're being thoughtful so I just want to say that a couple of procedural things while they were testifying Mr. Chair I did receive a text and Mr. Vandiver said this but in no uncertain terms this is not a judicial council bill I don't know if the Arkansas Coalition against domestic violence brought it to representative Hudson I do believe they support it I don't know where it originated so just clarifying that as a final note I do want to say on the record not an excuse and I know you weren't digging at me Mr. Chair but I still not an excuse but an explanation as soon as I became engaged on this I should have come directly to you and I just want to say I'm sorry for not doing that I should have done that on the substance of the bill I do believe ultimately that this I agree with Mr. Vandiver and I don't want to put words in his mouth but I do think that there's a lack of clarity right now as to what qualifies in the code and I think this help clarifies what qualifies as domestic abuse for a judge to consider in a custody proceeding so when it boils down to it for your vote on this bill the question for you is if the judge in the custody proceeding has found with evidence that one of the parents has domestically abused the children should the burden of proof shift to that parent to demonstrate to the judge that they should have time with their time alone with their kid I believe the answer to that is yes that is in the best interest of the children I'm comfortable saying that across the board in every case and so that's why I am supportive of House Bill 1848 and I would appreciate a good vote on this bill as amended A motion from Senator Tucker, a second from Senator Deese I'm sorry Gilmore Senator Deese would have had a hard time making that second wouldn't he The discussion Senator Tucker I would have not been at all surprised if somebody had approached me with any legislation especially major legislation to say hey here's some after it's been in practice for a while here's some changes that we think ought to be made and I think you know as most other people know that I am reasonable enough to sit down and find out that indeed there are improvements that can be made when that isn't the way it happens you have to be suspicious not only of motives but of the words no one including yourself has presented compelling evidence as to why we need a change and like I said I'd be glad to sit down and talk to judicial counsel to talk to whoever and if there are such changes that need to be made I'll be on board but not having had those conversations I have to see it as an attempt to subvert what was done and I would appreciate the committee voting no other discussion Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed no the bill has failed we got anything else up no one else has got a bill to present what we're going to do unless you tell me something different is we're going to recess rather than adjourn a recess upon the call of the chair it's not my intention if we come back this afternoon to hear anything controversial but don't anybody think that we want and therefore not be here so but you know that all kinds of things come up here in the last few days and so I want to leave the door open for somebody to get a bill through or just hear a bill that we can do that hearing no objection to that we are recessed upon the call of the chair