Judiciary Committee votes do-pass on Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act; creates subcommittee to study related criminal bill

The Judiciary Committee recommended a do-pass for Senate Bill 2126, the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act, during its meeting. Representative Vedder moved the recommendation and Representative Schneider seconded; the motion carried following a roll call vote.

The bill covers civil remedies to prevent child abduction and would allow petitioning a court for orders aimed at preventing removal or continued detention of a child. Committee members said the Uniform Act (SB2126) addresses many issues that also appear on the criminal side in a separate bill under consideration.

Committee members discussed whether language creating a prima facie rebuttable presumption is appropriate when a child is removed and detained out of state or within the state. Committee chair explained that current law treats removal out of state and detention more than 72 hours as prima facie evidence of intent and that the new language extends a similar presumption to in-state removals. The chair provided a handout on the meaning of “prima facie,” noting it creates a rebuttable presumption that the defendant may try to overcome by showing an alternative explanation (for example, weather preventing return).

Representative Schneider urged caution about moving family-law disputes into criminal law, saying, “Just this whole bill is problematic to me... criminalizing it just adds a layer that I think is is just going to make it, more vengeful and, more difficult.” Schneider said the civil remedies in the Uniform Act already address many custody disputes and warned that adding criminal penalties could worsen already fraught family situations.

Committee members also examined a related criminal bill (referred to in the hearing as 02/1986) that would add within-state removal provisions and a separate subsection addressing false reporting. Members flagged two issues: (1) the proposed penalty structure described as a multi-step series of infractions and misdemeanors (first and second offenses as infractions, third a class B misdemeanor, fourth a class A misdemeanor) and (2) a conflict between the proposed false-reporting language and an existing statute, section 12.1‑11‑03, which currently treats false reporting to law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor. One member said the proposed scheme effectively gives four “strikes” before the most serious classification, and questioned whether that matched the bill’s intent.

Several members suggested amending the criminal bill to remove law enforcement officers from the new false-reporting provision and instead limit that subsection to reports to the Department of Health and Human Services, to avoid forcing officers to categorize incidents at the scene. Representative Vedder agreed to draft amendments addressing language and penalty levels. Because questions remained, the committee established a subcommittee to take further testimony and draft amendments to the criminal bill; Representative Vedder was appointed chair. The subcommittee membership includes Representatives Wolff and Schneider and other volunteers and is expected to report back to the committee.

The committee’s do-pass recommendation for SB2126 passed on a roll call; the committee then selected Representative Schneider as bill carrier for the measure.