Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes parent-time enforcement bill giving judges new remedies
Summary
The House passed House Bill 37, which outlines remedies judges may impose for substantial noncompliance with court-ordered parent time, including makeup time, compensatory service, and fees; the bill lists custody factors and excludes gender as a consideration.
Representative Farrin, the sponsor of House Bill 37, told colleagues the bill was designed to give judges clearer guidelines and additional remedies to enforce court-ordered parent time, including ordering legal fees, makeup time, 10 hours of compensatory service and permanent injunctions on a first finding of substantial noncompliance. He said the bill also authorizes, at a judge's discretion, mediation, workshops, classes or temporary custody changes and allows stiffer penalties — up to 10 days in jail and doubled compensatory service — for subsequent findings.
Why it matters: Supporters said the bill fills a gap that leaves parents repeatedly returning to court without meaningful enforcement and argued the changes would protect children's continuing relationships with both parents. Opponents and questioners pressed the sponsor on vague standards and implementation details: Representative Hope asked what the term 'significantly' means and whether 'preponderance of evidence' was defined for the court; the sponsor repeatedly responded that those matters are for judicial interpretation.
Key details: The sponsor cited lines in the bill establishing what a judge 'shall' order on a first finding (fees, makeup parent time, compensatory service, injunction) and what the judge 'may' impose (mediation, counseling, workshops, temporary custody changes). The bill enumerates factors a court should consider when deciding custody and explicitly prohibits considering the parent's gender.
Fiscal note and debate: The bill carried a fiscal note of $93,000, which the sponsor said was a prorated estimate based on an earlier pilot program; he had requested the analyst's assumptions. Members supporting the bill referenced an extensive interim study and constituents' experiences; Representative Farrin summarized the bill's purpose: "This is about the rights of the children to have an ongoing relationship with both parents." Critics warned the legislation leaves discretion broad and may not solve enforcement in every case.
Vote and next steps: The House voted to pass HB 37 as amended; the Clerk recorded 65 yes votes and 5 no votes. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for further action.
