Committee hears bill to clarify how Protection from Abuse orders affect child-related orders

Senate Bill 135, which would amend procedure in the Protection from Abuse Act, was presented today to the Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee. The reviser told the committee the bill clarifies that orders affecting legal custody, parenting time and residency — and comparable orders under the Kansas Code for Care of Children, the Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code or guardianship proceedings — take precedence over or may be modified by Protection from Abuse (PFA) proceedings in specified circumstances.

Miss Scott, an attorney in the reviser’s office, briefed the committee that SB 135 amends KSA 60 31 0 7 (the procedure statute in the Protection from Abuse Act). The brief states the bill clarifies existing language about when a PFA order may modify prior orders and preserves a ‘‘good cause’’ standard for modification; it also retains language that immediate and present danger of abuse to a plaintiff or a minor child constitutes good cause.

Ronald W. Nelson, a member of the Family Law Advisory Committee to the Kansas Judicial Council and a family law attorney, testified as a proponent. Nelson said the Family Law Advisory Committee’s 2021–22 review of protection-from-abuse and protection-from-stalking statutes found the statutes confusing, in part because of prior consolidation and renumbering of family law statutes. Nelson characterized SB 135 as largely non-substantive and aimed at simplifying and clarifying statutory cross-references so courts, attorneys, self-represented litigants and the public can better understand the law. He identified one substantive clarification: the bill explicitly references guardianship orders so PFA relief can address abuse affecting adults under guardianship as well as traditional family-law custody issues.

Michelle McCormick, executive director of the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, testified in support. McCormick said advocates, attorneys and survivors frequently ask about the statute’s lack of clarity; clearer statutory language and forms help victims understand how PFA orders can affect children and other related proceedings. McCormick said respondents receive copies of petitions and orders and that the petition provides information about temporary changes a judge may make.

Committee members asked questions about the scope and practical effect of the bill. Senators and witnesses discussed whether a PFA temporary or final order can change child support or custody orders entered in other proceedings, how notice is provided to parties, and whether PFA matters are commonly heard in the same county or court as existing family-law cases. Nelson said while a PFA can technically modify orders from divorce, parentage, separate maintenance or guardianship proceedings — and might do so even if the family-law matter is in another county or state — such changes are rarely used in practice. Nelson described existing family-law and PFA forms and notice practices the Family Law Advisory Committee maintains and revises.

No committee vote was taken on SB 135 during the hearing. Supporters described the bill as a procedural clarification designed to reduce confusion and provide explicit reference to guardianship orders; advocates said the greater clarity will aid victims, attorneys and courts.