Senate Judiciary committee to treat H 222 subdivision J alleged violations as civil contempt under Family Court Rule 16

Senate Judiciary Committee members instructed staff to revise language in H 222 so that alleged violations in subdivision J would be enforced through civil contempt proceedings under Family Court Rule 16 rather than as a criminal offense.

Committee members said the change reflects the majority’s current preference after hearing testimony and allows the Legislature to revisit the issue next year if enforcement under the civil standard proves inadequate. "The defendant may be subject ... to civil contempt proceedings as set forth in Family Court Rule 16," one committee member said during the exchange.

Why it matters: The committee’s requested change would shift enforcement of the bill’s subdivision J from criminal penalties to a civil contempt mechanism used in family court, changing how alleged noncompliance would be handled procedurally and by which court rules. Committee members emphasized that this is a legislative drafting decision at the committee stage, not a final enactment; they repeatedly said the body could return to criminal penalties in the next legislative session if needed.

During the discussion, one participant clarified that the committee intended to preserve civil contempt (not to create a separate civil-penalty scheme). A committee staff member said they would "undo the amendment" that had been proposed earlier and add clarifying language referencing Family Court Rule 16 to the bill text. Staff also said they would circulate the revised language to editors for review and attempt to provide the amendment back to the committee the same morning for a possible vote.

No formal motion or recorded vote appears in the transcript. The action recorded in the meeting was directional: staff were asked to prepare and circulate revised bill language and to make the technical edits (including placement of the Family Court Rule 16 reference immediately after the civil contempt language). Committee members noted that the change is small in drafting terms but important for focusing enforcement under existing family court procedures.

Public identification and attributions: during the exchange one participant identified herself as Carol Hansen of the HRH Channel. The transcript contains no formal roll-call, motion, or vote on the change; the committee discussion ended with staff agreeing to return a revised draft for possible consideration later the same day.

What’s next: Staff committed to circulate the revised language to committee editors and to email the change to the committee contact (identified in the discussion as Will). Committee members said they would consider a vote if the language could be provided that morning. The committee also noted the option to revisit criminal penalties in a future session if civil contempt enforcement did not achieve the desired results.

Ending note: The exchange focused narrowly on enforcement mechanics for subdivision J of H 222 and on adding the Family Court Rule 16 reference; no final committee action on the bill was recorded in the provided transcript.