Contentious hearing on 3‑strikes custody bill: supporters cite parental alienation, opponents warn of chilling effects on reports and child safety

The House Judiciary Committee heard lengthy and often emotional testimony on Senate Bill 2,186, which would create escalating penalties for parents who remove or withhold children in violation of custody decrees (including intrastate removals) and impose penalties for knowingly false reports to law enforcement or the Department of Health and Human Services.

Supporters described the bill as a needed deterrent to parental alienation and custodial interference that, they said, can inflict lasting harm on children. "Parental alienation is a form of severe child abuse with lifelong consequences," testified Todd Peterson of West Fargo, describing cases where parents were effectively denied contact with their children for months. Robert Garza, who testified as the bill’s author, said the bill balances warnings for first-time offenders with escalating consequences for repeat violators.

Multiple family members told personal stories of prolonged separations and false child‑welfare reports. Dorothy Kuester of Williston described a multi‑month separation of grandchildren following unsubstantiated allegations and said investigators ultimately closed the CPS file as unconfirmed; she urged the legislature to give law enforcement clearer tools to protect children.

Opponents, including human service zone directors and law‑enforcement representatives, raised procedural and safety concerns. Kim Jacobson, director of Agassiz Valley Human Service Zone and president of the North Dakota Human Service Zone Directors Association, said the bill risks putting law enforcement and courts in the role of discerning parental intent and could deter good‑faith reports of suspected abuse: "When we ask people to report child abuse and neglect, it goes to our centralized intake unit. . . . If the concerns being reported don't meet the legal definition based on that initial report they are screened out," Jacobson said, adding that only about 5 to 7 percent of reports meet the legal definition of maltreatment after assessment.

The Chiefs of Police Association also opposed the bill. Stephanie Ingebretsen testified that the association is concerned about creating a criminal offense that duplicates existing contempt and false‑report statutes and about placing law enforcement in the middle of highly fact‑specific family disputes.

Committee members pressed both sides on implementation details: how intent would be proved, whether the measure could inadvertently deter reporting, and how the bill would treat teenagers who refuse parenting time. Supporters argued current civil processes are slow and leave children without contact for months while parents wait for court dates; opponents said civil contempt proceedings and existing false‑statement statutes already provide remedies and that criminalization could backfire.

The committee took testimony but did not vote on the bill during the hearing. The written and oral record contains detailed personal accounts, policy arguments from both sides and suggestions for narrowing or clarifying the draft language to reduce unintended consequences.