Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Floor fight over grandparent "rights" amendment forces SB 112 back to rules
Summary
A proposed grandparent-rights amendment to SB 112 produced heated debate on the Senate floor; senators warned of constitutional problems, the amendment briefly passed, and the legislature later struck the bill's enacting clause and sent SB 112 back to rules for further stakeholder work.
A contentious floor exchange on Jan. 30 over an amendment to Senate Bill 112 (child-protection amendments) exposed sharp disagreement about proposed grandparent rights language and the bill's readiness for final passage.
Senator Hickman introduced an amendment intended to expand grandparents' rights, including a provision that would restrict relocation of grandparents' grandchildren within a 50-mile radius and impose a substantial penalty on parents who relocated grandchildren. The amendment drew a mix of serious and sarcastic responses on the floor. Senator Bell warned the chamber that, "this, based on a very limited legal review, has a high likelihood of being found unconstitutional," and he said stakeholder groups who originally drafted the bill had fractured over the changes. Senator Hilliard, defending the amendment, said he wanted to put the idea on record for families and said, "I have an amendment there I wanted to carry for a number of years."
The exchange included varied reactions from colleagues who questioned the amendment's practicality and constitutionality. Some senators treated parts of the floor colloquy humorously, but several raised real legal and policy concerns, including the possibility of large fiscal implications mentioned in the debate and the lack of consensus from stakeholders and legal counsel.
After floor debate, the Senate recorded the adoption of amendment number 2 but then moved to strike the enacting clause of SB 112 as amended and send the bill back to rules for further work with stakeholders. Senator Bell stated the sponsor and stakeholders had agreed to continue work over the interim to address objectionable language.
The action reflects both the political pressure to address family law concerns and the legislative practice of returning complex, contested measures to committee when stakeholders and legal advisors do not agree on final text.
