Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate splits on custody reform as substitute language advances after procedural division
Summary
A long debate over custody statute reform (Senate Bill 122) produced competing substitutes (including a '50/50 cookie cutter' option and a restored third substitute). After a procedural division and disputed ruling, the Senate adopted the second substitute and circled the bill for further work.
Senate Bill 122, a package of custody statute changes that would alter presumptions and provide cookie-cutter schedules for certain custody splits, drew prolonged debate on the Senate floor Feb. 19.
Sponsor Senator Weiler (introducing the revised substitute) said his third substitute restores much original statutory language while keeping a rebuttable presumption aimed at balancing parental participation. Senator Wyler offered a competing second substitute that would create an explicit 50/50 visitation statute in situations where parents can cooperate and live within a reasonable distance.
Floor proponents and opponents exchanged views rooted in family-law practice and child-welfare concerns. Wyler, who described years of family-law practice, said 50/50 arrangements work in cases where parents can cooperate and live reasonably close, but warned such a presumption is not appropriate for all families. Opponents warned that a statutory presumption tilted to 50/50 could create cases where a judge is deprived of discretion in complex, high-conflict situations, and some members said they preferred a substitute that preserved judicial discretion and the best-interest standard.
Procedurally, the Senate debated the motion to adopt Wyler’s second substitute, then called a division to resolve a contested voice vote. The initial division tally was reported as failing to reach the constitutional majority; senators then cited rules (SR 4-6-107) that a majority of those present suffices for substitution and the chair reversed the ruling to record that the second substitute passed. The body then circled the second substitute for further work.
What happens next: the second substitute was adopted in the floor action and the bill was circled on third reading, signaling additional negotiation and potential future amendments. Sponsors said they would continue work with leadership and stakeholders.
Votes and formal action: The motion to substitute was taken to division; the chair initially announced the substitute failed to reach a constitutional majority but later reversed that finding after consulting rules and the substitute was adopted on the floor. The transcript records the procedural dispute and final substitution.
