Committee debates changing 'victim' to 'protected party' and confidentiality rules for protection orders

The House Judiciary Committee discussed Senate Bill 23-26, a measure to make state law on restraining orders and domestic violence protection orders consistent with the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The bill would limit public access to certain records and would change statutory references from “victim” to “protected party” in multiple places.

Chairman Clamine summarized the sponsor’s proposal and said the amendment would replace “victim” with “protected party” where appropriate to reflect that more than one individual (for example, a parent and children) may be protected under a single petition. He cited VAWA language and said the change was intended to prevent public disclosure that could reveal the identity or location of a protected person.

Representatives asked for clarification about the scope of confidentiality and practical effects. Representative Vetter asked whether confidentiality would impede law-enforcement or employers from learning about an order; Clamine noted the bill would permit the court to allow individuals with a “proper interest” to be present at hearings and that judges could permit disclosure to those the court determines need the information. Representative Vetter also asked whether the bill should use the statutory term “exempt” instead of “confidential” to allow controlled disclosure; the committee agreed to have Legislative Council align language with federal law.

Representative Wolf moved to amend the bill by replacing “victim” with “protected party” in multiple locations; Representative Schneider seconded. During the review, the committee asked Legislative Council to make the precise substitution and to ensure the state statute matches federal requirements. Representative Wolf withdrew the motion pending Legislative Council review; the committee did not take a final vote on the bill or on the substitution.

Committee discussion emphasized that the proposed change would redact identifying information (name and address) for the person seeking protection while allowing the order against an alleged perpetrator to be visible to the public. Chairman Clamine read quoted federal language that would be mirrored in state law: courts “shall not make available publicly on the Internet any information regarding the registration, filing of a petition for or issuance of a protection order… if such publication would be likely to publicly reveal the identity or location of the party protected under such order.”

The committee withdrew the amendment request for Legislative Council to review and return revised language; no vote recommending the bill was recorded during this meeting.