Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Custody Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to revise child custody law; fiscal note raises training and code-placement questions
Summary
Senate Bill 318 would revise child custody law and require domestic-violence–related education for judges and standing masters; the committee heard the fiscal note and identified technical concerns about code placement and fiscal assumptions and elected to hold the bill for further work.
The Senate Finance and Claims Committee heard testimony on a bill that would revise child custody law and require additional domestic violence education for district court judges and standing masters.
Senate Bill 318 seeks to add training requirements and to bring greater attention to prior abuse and related issues within district court custody proceedings. Sponsor testimony characterized the proposal as intended to ensure judges receive appropriate instruction on domestic violence when adjudicating custody disputes.
The committee reviewed the bill’s fiscal note with Kathy Penny, finance director for the Judicial Branch, who told senators the largest fiscal driver is training. The fiscal note assumes an average of five new judges or standing masters per year would require a 20‑hour orientation related to the bill’s requirements. Penny said the branch split the 15‑hour child‑custody training into pieces over two years and assumed roughly five new judges per year would need the additional 20‑hour orientation that the bill would require.
Committee members raised two recurring concerns in the fiscal note: who bears training costs (the fiscal note flags counties as possibly incurring additional expense) and whether the bill places “judge” definitions in the correct statutory section. Senator Lehi and other members noted the bill’s current cross‑references appear to target courts of limited jurisdiction rather than district courts; the sponsor agreed to examine that issue and said he would work with committee staff on an amendment if needed.
Several senators questioned the frequency and scope of the training. The sponsor and witnesses said the proposal is meant to build domestic‑violence awareness into the existing judicial continuing education structure rather than to create unusually burdensome new travel or leave requirements for judges. Senators and staff also discussed alignment with continuing legal education requirements and the practical effect on judicial workloads.
After discussion the sponsor asked the committee to retain the bill in committee while staff and the sponsor resolve technical code‑placement and fiscal questions. The committee did not take a final vote on SB 318 at the hearing.
