Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Family Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs Family Preservation and Accountability Act to expand sentencing options for caregivers
Summary
The House Committee on Families and Children recommended the Family Preservation and Accountability Act (committee substitute to House Bill 291), which would let felony defendants ask a judge to consider their status as a caregiver and permit courts to impose noncustodial sentences that keep primary caregivers with their children.
The House Committee on Families and Children voted to recommend a committee substitute to House Bill 291, titled the Family Preservation and Accountability Act, by a recorded 13–0 vote.
Representative Wilson, sponsor of the substitute, said the measure lets a criminal defendant move the court to determine whether they are a caregiver and, if so, gives judges additional alternatives at sentencing such as probation with family services, counseling or other community-based programs. Wilson and supporters framed the bill as a way to preserve family unity and reduce the harms of parental incarceration while protecting child safety and public safety.
Witnesses who testified in support included Amanda Hall of Dream.org, who described long-term personal harm from parental incarceration; Courtney Downs of Kentucky Youth Advocates, who cited data on the number of children affected by parental incarceration; Scott West, a criminal-defense attorney, who said the bill is designed not to supplant judicial discretion but to add a tool judges can use at sentencing. Kentucky Free presented a fiscal analysis estimating direct incarceration-cost savings and potential broader economic effects.
Judge Patricia Sumi testified as an opposing witness with concerns about procedural and definitional matters. Sumi, a general-jurisdiction circuit judge, said judges already receive family information in pre-sentence reports and cautioned that making a written factual finding about caregiving status could require evidentiary hearings and risk conflict with family-court determinations. Sponsors said the committee substitute addressed several judicial concerns, including clarifying that the determination under the substitute would not be binding in family court and that judges would still retain discretion.
After debate and comments from committee members and witnesses, the chair called the roll and reported the committee approved the substitute 13–0 with a favorable recommendation.
