Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate whether alleged crimes in custody cases belong in criminal court or family court
Summary
HB1687 would bar family-division judges from making criminal determinations and emphasize criminal adjudication in district/superior courts; testimony and judicial counsel clarified there are existing jurisdictional lines but acknowledged practical overlaps and concerns about evidence standards in family hearings.
Representative David Love presented HB1687 to make explicit that criminal determinations, judgments and penalties belong in criminal court rather than being decided in family-division proceedings. He framed the bill as a response to cases where alleged criminal acts in family disputes — including assault or child abuse — are effectively handled in family hearings without the procedural protections of criminal court.
The hearing generated extensive debate. Representative Sher and others noted the existing real-world overlaps: family division judges are circuit-court judges who sometimes preside in district court for misdemeanors, and family hearings can trigger referrals to prosecutors. Lauren Warner, deputy general counsel for the judicial branch, explained that criminal matters (stalking, domestic-violence criminal charges) are generally handled by district court and that family division practice already excludes criminal adjudication other than contempt.
Witnesses and advocates described cases in which family-court testimony and protective orders intersect with criminal investigations. Critics argued the family division’s more flexible evidentiary practices can risk moving what should be criminal inquiries into a civil context; proponents said clarifying jurisdiction would protect due process and ensure criminal charges are subject to appropriate evidentiary standards. Several speakers emphasized that contempt (both civil and criminal forms) and protective orders remain enforcement tools and that procedural lines can be unclear in smaller jurisdictions where one judge hears many case types.
What's next: The committee heard substantial testimony from judges, legal counsel and victims’ advocates and may revise the bill’s language to avoid unintended consequences and to coordinate more clearly with district- and superior-court processes.
