Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parental Loss Restitution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances parental-loss restitution bill after technical amendments
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend House Bill 1558 as amended, removing a contested new provision and adding language to clarify that insurance settlements count toward parental-loss restitution; the bill was presented as an implementation of Article I, Section 25 of the North Dakota Constitution.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to give House Bill 1558 a "do pass" recommendation after adopting amendments that remove a newly proposed provision and clarify that monetary or insurance settlements count toward parental-loss restitution.
The bill, described by members as a statutory implementation of Article I, Section 25 of the North Dakota Constitution, would authorize courts to order parental-loss restitution to support surviving children when a parent is killed in certain circumstances. Chairman Clamine said the measure is a way "to implement that part of the Constitution." (The chair's first reference to the constitutional provision came during committee discussion.)
Committee members agreed to three changes before the final recommendation. Representative Olson moved — and Representative Carls seconded — an omnibus amendment to: remove the bill's new section 1 that witnesses said duplicates existing law; add the words "or insurance" after "monetary" at two locations to make explicit that insurance settlements count; and replace lines 18–21 on page 3 with replacement language submitted in testimony from Judge Brady. That amendment passed on a roll-call vote the committee recorded as 13-0 with one member absent.
After discussion, Representative Wolfe moved a recommendation of "do pass as amended," seconded by Representative Vetter. Committee debate included concerns from Representative Henderson, who said, "I'm not so sure I'm supportive of this bill," and warned the change could create a series of narrowly tailored statutes for different circumstances. Representative Olson defended the bill as a way to ensure children who lose a parent as the result of criminal conduct receive financial support.
On the final roll call the committee recorded the recommendation as approved, 11 yes, 1 no and 2 absent. The committee then solicited a member to carry the bill to the next stage.
Key factual clarifications provided during the discussion: witnesses and members urged explicitly counting insurance settlements in the statutory definition of recoverable amounts; testimony from Travis Fink, attorney for the North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigence, argued the bill's original section 1 was unnecessary because similar remedies already exist under other law; and committee members noted the restitution envisioned resembles child-support style payments, discussed in committee as potentially continuing until age 18.
The committee's amendments do not change the bill's stated intent to provide a mechanism for courts to order restitution for surviving children; they are framed as technical clarifications and a deletion of language some legal reviewers said is duplicative. The measure will proceed as the committee carrier designates it.
Ending: The committee's recommendation now goes to the next House committee or floor process with the bill as amended. The committee recorded its votes and asked for a member to carry House Bill 1558 forward.
