 Okay, so for the record Bryn here from Legislative Council, I was I was gonna start by saying that I know that there are There are other proposals from the interested parties and I'm aware of those and I'm also aware that they are not in agreement There is no consensus between the parties so rather than try and put all of the suggestions in a draft I just put in the draft with the committee had discussed and agreed on the last time we talked about this So and let and let the interested parties talk about what they would like to see Don't think the committee agreed on them, but no, right? And that's why that's why I have them all in brackets to indicate that these are all decisions that need to be made by the committee One point one. Yeah, so section one is is a maintenance portion of the maintenance statute And the only change here is to page two. This is the list of things that the court Can consider and making a maintenance award And subsection six here provides that one of the things the court should consider is the ability of the spouse From whom maintenance is being sought to meet his or her reasonable needs And we've just added the phrase at the standard of living established during the civil marriage It means that the court has to consider The standard of living not only for the spouse who is seeking maintenance But also whether or not the spouse that would be paying the maintenance could also maintain his or her standard of living Established during the marriage. So that other piece about the spouse is just Part of the statute that you don't have here The other part say that again the part the in the other draft there was The piece that spoke to the the payee That's that yeah, that's that wasn't taken out It's still there and I think that the idea was to add Some add that phrase so it would also be a consideration taken for the spouse who is would be paying So section two is the statute that relates to a modification of a maintenance award I'm sorry, Brenda before you go on so this Subsection guidelines. Yeah, the guidelines are still there. Is that as we updated? Yep That's how the they were changed last year. Do those sunset. They do and this bill repeals the sunset There's due to sunset in July of 2021 and one of the things this draft does is to repeal that repeal So make them permanent Repeals the sunset yes So section 2 changes the modification statute in a couple ways it we add there online 11 and 12 We add the words rehabilitative rehabilitative or long-term maintenance To make it clear that both rehabilitative or long-term maintenance can be subject to a modification order not not just the rehabilitative maintenance and then the last New sentence there provides that the marriage of the recipient here We've got different things in brackets because we've got some decisions to make I heard the heard some members of the committee talking about wanting to have a provision that remarriage would result in An end to the maintenance award So we've got the remarriage of the recipient shall result in either a downward modification or an end to The non-compensatory aspect of the maintenance award We didn't talk about the compensatory aspect of long-term maintenance in the committee, but currently compensatory component of those Permanent maintenance awards are typically not subject to downward modification Unless the pay or spouse can Demonstrate that he or she is no longer receiving the benefit of The other spouses staying at home and I can talk about compensatory maintenance. Yeah Sure, so Some permanent or now we're referring to it as long-term maintenance Awards have a compensatory component And that compensatory component of the award Reflects sort of the contract that's made during the marriage that one I get a certain amount from the insurance company That's not compensatory I stayed home. I stayed home And I work as a nurse So what's the difference between this and you know where you win a The court has determined That you deserve x amount of dollars Say it's a hundred thousand dollars and then they all only placed on top of that. Is that what they're doing? I think that the maintenance is separate The compensatory aspect is always a part of permanent maintenance permanent maintenance isn't always it doesn't always have a compensatory component But all compensatory components components of maintenance are a part of a permanent maintenance award Am I not Well, if I can I can talk about what it is designed to Compensate that might help Yeah I think it would I don't know why we would ever interfere with what was awarded as an amount of compensatory Why would we interfere with that? That was an award that was made at a time of Of a divorce so explain why we should interfere with that That's why I added it because What the what this last sentence of the bill would do is say Upon remarriage Ends but typically the compensatory aspect of maintenance wouldn't end without an additional showing So that's why I put plopped this in there to make sure that the committee Could decide whether or not I also wanted the compensatory What is an example of a compensatory award so come from yeah, so The court will typically state What portion of a maintenance award is a compensatory portion and because the compensatory proportion is designed To compensate the recipient spouse for his or her contributions during the marriage So for example like a you know typical way that this would work is that one spouse agrees to Stay home and take care of the household and raise the kids and the other spouse agrees to go out and into the workforce and and Raise or you know earn money for the family So the idea is that that spouse who stays home and works They are also increasing the other spouse's future earning capacity by staying home because they are freeing up that other spouse to Devote time to their career and enhance their career and that spouse will receive the benefit of that Along into the future So that award is sort of in the court has described a compensatory aspect of award of an award Is an attempt to continue to enforce that bargain that was made during the marriage Because the payor spouse is going to continue to receive the benefit of the other spouse's Work in by an increase during capacity over the years So look I would I may be helpful to talk about how the court currently deals with You know the the choices are for the committee though Why would we We got until nine o'clock I could be too much For the record Brian Greer some chief superior judge going directly to that last issue on remarriage Our suggestion is Simple and that is it should not be an automatic reduction or an automatic Modification but it could be an additional factor for the court to consider Modification in other words right now the standard is A real substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances that is long-standing statutory framework was substantive Case law to support it you could add in remarriage as another basis to consider modification Without making remarriage itself either an automatic termination or modification But the court could consider it as a reason to modify And we're making very simple from our perspective And I think address some of the concerns of the committee members The other thing I would suggest that it's not in here now is that If you adopt a provision that's going to make remarriage or reconsideration it has to be prospective only In other words only for cases filed after the date You could make it january 1st of this year or july 1st But it can't we cannot use that as a basis to go back And look at cases that were decided on completely other factors and considerations so it can only be prospective Thank you I'm martin Feldman. I was a member of the spousal support task force and I also represent Vermont alimony reform and I just wanted to bring up a couple of points here First of all, it looks like on page 3 line 10. There was a typo and Line 10 should say 20 plus years. I think it said zero plus years I think you have a different bill Right so page 3 It's in the guidelines of the new version on the guidelines Oh A new version this morning, okay So this would be on page 3 Line 6 The zero plus should say 20 plus Not zero So there's a typo there. All right, so um Our group Strongly feels that when we talk about standard of living Um We are willing to say that it's important for all the different parties for the families of vermont to include that in the statute The way it is now, but we want to also add a clause to that Uh, that just simply says understanding that the standard of living of both parties will be impacted by the divorce proceedings So that there's a fairness in there to say that That that the uh That the court understands that standard of living is impacted by divorce and that should be in the statute somewhere So that's considered um The other thing that's important to us is um The subject of remarriage of the recipient vermont is Right now the only state in our region and one of only two or three states in the country that doesn't terminate automatically remarriage upon divorce and The emma that doesn't terminate alimony upon remarriage and All the all the states around us new hampshire of massachusetts new york have done this The reason they've done this is because it's fair Uh, the federal government in terms of dealing with um, self-security terminates Uh, if if there's remarriage, it's the same thing So I think vermont should be doing that too And also very importantly, we talk about these terms Compensatory, we talk about rehabilitative and we talk about long term I think and our group thinks that these need to be defined in the statute that um that the um The law needs to state what these terms mean And if the law doesn't state what these terms mean and they're wrapped up in case law It just adds to litigation and legal fees and disagreements in the future So that's it The new hampshire law doesn't even have standard of living in all right, right We're just saying that uh, that that's something that we think is important to include that clause to help define it Appreciate that Thank you. I'm kerry brown the executive director of the It's okay executive director vermont commission on women Um, I have a document that i'm referring to that I have sent to the committee So you can read the whole thing, but um, just a couple of points We want to talk about the um addition of the standard of living at the time of marriage Does seem to be a move in the direction of more greater equity So we appreciate that we have a suggestion that I shared with the committee for Possibly slightly clearer wording that really makes it absolutely clear. This is applying to both parties Which is um, one of our primary interests The subject of compensatory maintenance comes up in a couple of different ways in here. Um, But it's it's already There is already a standard by which compensatory maintenance can be modified and the the uh, The obliged your spouse has to show that they no longer able to reach the benefits of the bargain It was made during the marriage and so if somebody, you know Becomes paralyzed and can't practice their profession that the bargain of the marriage helps them prepare for that sort of thing So there is already a safeguard in there and so it's it's important to um Whatever changes you make make sure that they're not sweeping up compensatory maintenance into the The modification process that already exists for other kinds of maintenance So you don't want to lower that standard or change it because it's a very particular kind of payment and the It needs to be treated in a different way So just be asked to be careful about that and then the the section about terminating upon retirement of the payee um A couple of that's not in here. Oh, I'm sorry The um remarriage right right. Sorry. You took the retirement the remarriage of the payee So this is something that's also already addressed in in the law that Remarrying can be a real substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances That can it can be grounds for downward modification already And additionally within case law, there's also consideration of the pay or Remarrying and the impact that has on their ability to pay and that can be considered as a real substantial Unanticipated change in circumstances as well. And so the current law that as the courts have interpreted it had treats Both parties Equitably it looks at the remarriage of the pay or the remarriage of the payee and it doesn't Automatically make a decision because there's so many variations on what can happen So many situations where a remarriage may or may not impact somebody's financial situation in different ways So we have people who don't co-mingle their finances people who where one spouse works and one doesn't There's just a range of possibilities that the court has already recognized And has been able to take into consideration. So I don't think this is necessary Just wondering how you felt about the judge's suggestion that Instead of it being an automatic Downgrade or and that it be added as a factor to real and substantial changes I think it already is i'm not an attorney So I would defer to the judge on that but I it has been used Already to demonstrate that the real change in circumstances. So i'm not convinced that it's necessary But I would certainly feel a lot better about that than about just having an automatic action Additionally, this only addresses the remarriage of the recipient spouse And it doesn't address the remarriage of the paying spouse, which is completely unequitable And I don't know why we would want to build in that level of inequity to a law So to make a change that increases the inequity Seems concerning to me. Well, the the judge's suggestion. I think would apply. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. All right. Thank you very much And I have less than two minutes Sorry, of course sounds with the romont bar association I did send out the newest version to the dba connect community and Penny benelli who specified here before is the chair of that section. She wasn't able to be here Or she'd planned to send in written comments, but it's my understanding. She hasn't yet and I wasn't able to reach her this morning but The consensus is that the The family law section much prefers this more recent version than the previous one They consider it fair to look at the standard of living and if it's not possible to maintain The same standard of living it's fair for the parties to share Share it fairly in the benefits and burdens of the new arrangement which I think this covers Since judge berson's comments came last evening, I have not had a chance to hear back from one, but my strong assumption is that they would very much agree with judge berson's Comments regarding the remarriage and this browns comments regarding the remarriage factor And they would Uniformly appreciate the option to testify. I know that time is very limited here But if it passes over to the house, then they would anticipate the opportunity and Okay I think the suggestion on line nine page two Is there a reasonable needs at the standard of living style? I don't think you need to because it's already on line six Well, it could make somebody feel better. Well, it was very different language There wasn't this at all and added So we're out of here line the 10 Line nine. Yeah at the end of the of after the word meet Suggesting was to add from The condition I remember to have the word both No, she had a whole Yeah, I had all her paragraph of it. I can read it to you if you like I I think that it it addresses the to pay her On line six and I mean the payee The person that's getting it online six and the person who's paying it online 10. I mean, they're both in there I don't Yes Line six line six says Established the standard of living established during the civil marriage for them. Kerry said because I didn't know it was I did send it to you Yesterday Forward Okay That whole subsection would read the ability of the spouse from who maintenance is sought To meet both his or her reasonable needs And those of the spouse seeking maintenance at the standard of living established during the marriage That's pretty clear. Yeah It's okay. I still think it is addressed on line six, but I'm fine The next issue is what we do at the bottom of the page. Obviously the technical amendment on line six Should be 20 years. Thank you for catching that. Thank you for repealing them That's for repealing or repealing Called out on page four. I think everybody agrees with that Is So then we come down to what do we do on lines 13 to 15 And I judge Gerson, I I kind of agree with him, but that's an easy fix The problem I have is can't be just perspective. It sounds fully unfair to people that have I mean it's sort of like now Everybody's going to be in one world and all the new poor suckers that were there beforehand Don't get the chance and I realize it might create a problem for the quarter They still go via the other route of significant Marriage isn't considered. Yeah, it still has all those possibilities. I think it's kind of unfair to People that it's sort of like if we were offering good time to offenders And you're already in jail And should you get it along with everybody else or should you be just the new people? Well, what are we doing with life without parole? It's not retroactive. That's what I'm saying. We made a good time retroactive But but the fairness thing I I take the judge's point about so I was making a point you made a point Yes, there's one for each of us. Okay yours is bigger because you're the chair Just to clarify What what I would say is the the judge from the beginning of this discussion focused on finality and making sure that we don't upset all of the Established orders that are out there and I would hate to have one word being added In the wrong place at the wrong time produce that kind of Change so if this is prospective then we take the judge's suggestion I can look for I agree with your point We'll be respecting the judge there still has to be a demonstration that the remarriage Is going to rise to the level of a real substantial on the anticipated change in circumstances or has to be a case made And at this point to deny all of those people who have been suffering in coming to us Originally for why this problem has dealt with Just doesn't seem fair to me at all I understand it may be inconvenient to the court. There's possibly some cases that want to be looked at But there still has to be that balancing act Does it rise to the level of a real substantial unanticipated change in circumstances? But I think having that word remarriage is one of the criteria should be very clear And I think if I could just say one little thing about your comment about finality there My understanding is there really never is any finality is that there are changes to make 5 seconds All right, is there a general agreement at Brentwood and draft this? And at least three members of the committee to vote on Judge Gerson's The changes we've already talked to judge Gerson's accept a proposal Accept along it to be not just a perspective We'll look at the language and we can type it up. We'll look at the language if we get a chance Are you how is what's your availability? Can I hear for the rest of the morning? You're here for the rest of the morning? I'm worried we're doing an announcement next Actually we're doing a 303 Real brief first and then we'll open Could you, well maybe we could hold up expungement for five minutes at 9.30 and we can come back to this Could they give you enough time to read drafts? So is that a general consensus? I mean that Not why you should look at the draft before we Yes, do you mean is it a consensus to proceed that way or to vote? Yes To proceed that way to look at the draft that hopefully 9.30 And you know then go from there, but at least definitely have something to look at so we're taking Suggestions from all sides but The only chain of judgment suggestion is to make it is not to have a perspective To allow people to you know center practice going to say It's a factor. It's only a factor. It is not an internal name. Right. It's a factor to be considered If it opens a plug in I mean one brief on Brief on that judge your already passed. I know it is not a matter of inconvenience to the court Understand that the the award of alimony that may Be opened up by not making it perspective only May create an imbalance of of the entire Settlement or decision by the court because they were making assessment of division of property Physical assets in addition to alimony under certain criteria that exist at the time all these folks have had an opportunity to have their decisions reviewed Is this building I know work. That's why I want to keep We're getting a lot of here goes to the floor people can amend it and gets to the Or if they amend it they amend it When you know, you're certainly welcome. Obviously when you get to the other body And if they if they take it up, which is a huge if then Everything is reopened and starts all over again. I understand. I just wanted to committee. I understand for me It's the most important thing about Passing the bill right now is to make sure the guidelines they affect That we not sunset the guidelines The other parts are Would be helpful, but Quite frankly, I like the It's a prospective but we'll see what happens, but I wanted to ask another question You do that 9 30 Or we're going to it's not related to this thing. It's related to where is the statement in here that the That the remarriage I am Now she's going to add it to a different part. Oh, you're going to Be in that section the same section And the compensatory is going to be addressing that differently That's going away. That whole last sentence is going to go away And instead of the sentence Can we just look at please Can we just look at the redrap so I can take up 203? And if you want it, so that bill So that bill That's what we can ask What's 203? 203 is the one that only had one vote And whose vote was that? That's the chair. Oh listen Senator Sears the same thing happened to me yesterday committee four people Against me and I said they should beware because there might be an amendment on the floor Thank you all we'll be back at 9 30 Okay, could you um Whatever you want My baseball coach called me michael barry because that's how I read my name So you have a shirt with michael barry Yeah, let me know I'll get back to her. Is that about to know? Yeah, she's been out so I think she's going to want it Thank you Well You know you really do have I think when we went over this bill the one place we saw where ramon was way out of line was What maybe you could speak to that or you have a witness here It's just me I'm happy to say I know where he is David mcconnberg here on behalf of the ramon association for mcconnberg. Yeah, that's my yeah So I think the idea I mean we you know, I know that you heard from chris manley and art wolf in terms of Inflation the medical inflation has been and it makes sense that these auto Minimums have not been adjusted since 1998 when the legislature acted on this And have not kept up with inflationary pressures and the real impact on Folks is those that are are injured and there's insufficient coverage for them When we dealt with this issue now, I wasn't here, but my understanding when we dealt with this issue 1998 and Subsequently An area where and I know that there's been some concern about the impact of Of the original proposal, which is the doubling of the limits both the the primary and the underinsured But one area of potential compromise and we'd be we obviously would support The bill as introduced and would encourage you to support that but if you wanted to take some action There wasn't sufficient votes on this committee. One idea would be um to double the Under insured piece and My understanding I don't want to speak for the industry, but that's Far less impactful in terms of rates and I just want to say something about rates every time We want to do anything related to protecting brahmaners We hear from the industry that well the rates are going to go up the rates are going to go up. We never hear um, you know, there's this sort of sacrosanct idea that like Well, we can't touch profits. We can't touch the profits of liberty mutual or state farm or any of these other multinational multi-billion dollar corporations We always have to pass it along to The consumer and I just don't buy that as a as an argument. So By the way, I just don't mean to blame our insurance company today that's before yesterday that Now I'm going to be restricted to a six month insurance policy rather than a year of policy, which is obviously the Maybe I'm a risk So I don't know if it's talking daycare or what I'd like an amendment to this that requires them if you've been out of your policy, you shouldn't be able to be Pushed into a six month policy That's bs The insurance industry really needs to wait You know, I said our call that the military industrial something complex I think it's the insurance pharmaceutical complex that rules us now I'll certainly be looking for another insurer, but I I think that's How to you know a contract with insurance agency for a year Policy and all of a sudden you're a six month. That's like you're high risk Because you had an accident. I don't have an accident. I took my wife off the insurance. You can't even drive. So They shouldn't they should be looking at my record not hurt. Absolutely I mean That seems to make sense consumer protection I mean the the the The idea about premiums going up sort of rings hall for me My understanding is that main has double our limits and a lower premium. So it's To add itself to injury. There's still a lot of my house and my Umbrella policy to remain So as What in the spirit of compromise, I think we would be I mean, we would be given that we it's been 1998 Since 1998 that we did anything related to these limits Even having something on the underinsured Would be helpful I think so Yeah, I guess if we could mr. Chairman Jamie feo with perma paper on behalf of american property casualty insurance association Not sure what I would comment on I can remind the committee about the concerns with the original bill I'm not aware. I wasn't aware until I just heard it now about Doubling the the uninsured motor provisions. So I don't know what sort of impact that might have on On policies on rates on the public as you know Vermont requires individuals to maintain automobile insurance our position from the beginning was that The data shows that the injury claims Do not rise above Vermont's minimum limits. So there doesn't seem to be a Public policy reason to increase those limits when we're requiring folks to maintain automobile insurance You also heard from not only me, but the department of financial regulation on a survey they had done that shows that Approximately 10 or so over monitors are at the minimum limits. So they're trying hard to maintain automobile insurance Raising it without specific sort of public policy need doesn't make sense to apc I to require folks to have more when they don't need it And it's our assumption that those at the minimum limits are most least able to afford such an increase So and that increase was was sizable anywhere from 10 and I think the department Had some information that showed much higher Numbers 10 on the policy. So Not sure what the uninsured motorist Rational is I would have to refresh my memory, but I believe when it was last adjusted That the uninsured motorist policy limits track With your bi limits at a certain point So if you're at 100 300 you're under ensure you are Ui limits also track with that, but I subject to confirmation I can You know verify that but I guess my point is that those already go up as your policy limits go up So I'm not sure again what the purpose or rationale would be to Increase the ui. I'm limits at this point What do you what goes that last thing? The the I'd have to look at the ui Uninsured motors and undersured motorist limits track policies as they have higher limits. So 5100 100 300 the ui.m. Will match those bi limits as you go up So that provides more coverage more potential average recourse obviously for injured parties But they don't you know They're at the minimum now for those after very minimum And so the the proposal here as I understand is to Require a higher minimum for the uninsured. That's what I heard. Okay. I don't did you hear you double the ui. I am yes Again, not sure the impact of that or what the policy reason to do so would be On what Is that any original bill I'm just trying to find Section three is the ui. I am limits So that would This draft has introduced Section three Does double those covers, but they seem higher than what people are saying Thank you. Thank you Would you ever know Yeah, I'm not sure Right now for uninsured and underinsured it's a similar Threshold for property damage of $10,000, which is the same as liability 10,000 for both Okay, I think what you've heard from david nickenberg was Not property damage, but bodily injury. So his proposal was related to uninsured underinsured bodily injury increasing I think doubling So if you look at section three again, this is not doesn't feel a property damage You actually don't see the property damage in this subsection c Which starts on line 19 But the proposal is to increase from 50,000 to 100,000. So these are higher generally than the liability Um Policies Uh for one person injured And then increasing from doubling from 100 to 200,000 for two or more persons killed or injured I believe that is the proposal and then I think what jamie fem was talking about you can see if you read on In that section if the limits of liability coverage in the policy are greater than what is required Um, then your uninsured underture would would track that right? So if you decided to go more than the statutory minimum your uninsured and undertured Would track that With the one exception it says if you continue reading on line Three so your uninsured underture goes up Um, shall be the same Unless the policy holder otherwise directs. So there is some flexibility So so that means the The uninsured model shall be the same So under current law You are required to have liability in the amount of 25,000 Uh per person Or 50,000 for all Persons in one accident Um, but some people have more right? So if you had more for your liability coverage Your uninsured and underinsured Coverage would also track that and go up If it was a you know above the statutory minimums for underture underture unless you directed otherwise Which is the current way That's the current way it works and that Is not being proposed to change. Um, so it's all it's going to depend on the individual policy holder if they have greater coverage That's my understanding So I think your right center here is the if you know, I think the current proposal is basically to an section three And and for for the effective date and this does not again, uh touch the the property Damage which is Remains $10,000 to right now and this time as they have a note here from something Right now Vermont uninsured motors rating is 6.8 47th lowest in the country It's actually a very small portion of sure is probably this policy As I looked at mine Forgotten those $800 if I was doing a year I don't know I figure it out now that it's gonna be six months. So But that is a personal So the proposal is to just do Section three the uninsured nothing else right now. I'm a 50,000 people driving with I'll just find the license Chances I'm okay with this Well, it might take it away Because I don't know I don't think you'll ever hear the answer because insurance companies can do just anything they please Well the department of financial regulation does regulate they do regulate it, but they can increase your rates I don't disagree. It's just that Say they can do anything. Wow. Yes I'm a little testy today I got rolled by my committee yesterday and today I'm having Anyway, but you've gotten your happy Oh Build Yeah, I don't have the exact number I can try to find that but I know that the last time we looked at this And the reason that they're different now is that the under insured piece the ui animal limits that are in there The I remember that the conversation that we had the impact was far less than Um, than just the other line I just want to say one thing here Gaffney says we should do a study before we go to this We're surprised Gaffney Only department says we should do a study before we do this There's not a third vote. I don't want to go forward I didn't mean to dump on insurance company No, I mean I did mean to dump on insurance company Notice I'm still here And remember the center just the just the ui am that's your own insurance making up the difference for the lack of So somebody only has 25,000 insurance That's going to be your own insurance taking it or they don't have it at all your own insurance kicking in Likely Those 50,000 are unlike most of them are unlikely to have insurance And if they're driving and you Others who might be likely be under insured, but again I look at the policies That would be what I would like to get a third vote We don't get a third vote Jamie at the risk of stepping into it further. Mr. Chairman just to Remind the committee, you know, this would double the Required minimum. So this isn't sort of any sort of flexibility the way the company would have this doubles that portion Regardless of what the portion or percentage of the overall premium is it will cover that portion of the agreement and again We have not heard the public policy reasons I thought when I had the Quote-unquote compromise described to me. I I thought it was not Taking out sections and leaving one section at the original numbers, but that the numbers had been The midpoint had been reached on the numbers On the spirit of compromise I would suggest that we do everything you don't mind doing a redraft of this bill back tomorrow morning at What time do we have open tomorrow? Is this wednesday Would you be back here in 10 15 and 10 at 10 15 tomorrow And we'll schedule this from 10 15 to 10 30 tomorrow Please and then we just make a decision based upon our redraft So at least we're looking at what the proposal is In the meantime just section three. Yeah just section three is just break all of just section three and four Actually So just Just those sections In the meantime if jamey wants to find out what this might cost the average for monitor And if david wants to find out In Paris anything happens So you've got five minutes It was your pitch and everybody else wants to speak in two minutes And then we'll make a decision and we have three votes It passes out of the committee but has two votes. It doesn't I'm not going to ask the vote about negatively So we'll just decide whether we've got three votes or not obviously right now Two of us are okay with this Three of us are undecided or I've already decided no That fair assessment Yeah, I'm still undecided Okay, three undecided two decided so All right, so the morning committee we're in here from legislative council Here with draft 2.1 of s99 Um, this is a clean draft for you to vote on so there's no highlight here, but if you look at page two Um subdivision six that uh, we've now taken the suggestion from the commission on women To make it clear that that standard of living applies to both spouses Um that the court has to consider the standard of living for both spouses It doesn't It says both his or her reasonable needs and those of the spouse seeking maintenance at the standard of living It doesn't address the standard of living for the person who's paying I think that it no from who maintenance saw and But that's Both his or her reasonable needs And those of the spouse seeking maintenance at the standard of living. Yes. So it's both of them. No Oh, that's how I read it Okay So so the first spouse is the one from who maintenance is soft. Yeah, and the second one is the spouse seeking maintenance. So Just let me understand this then the way I read this is it says that they Ability of the spouse from who maintenance sought to meet both Both his or her reasonable needs and those of the spouse seeking maintenance at the standard of living From who maintenance is Okay, I I don't Yes I want to make make it very clear that the The standard of living of the pay or is also taken into consideration That was my main concern and I don't think this does it because it says both his or her reasonable needs and the Person seeking the maintenance at their standard of living. It doesn't say anything Am I wrong about that? But what would happen if you said at the standard of living established by both America Better I like Original one better the first time because I don't think this does it I don't it clearly says The standard of living for the person seeking maintenance. It doesn't say anything about the standard of living for the person paying Which was the cold point of the whole thing Thank you Am I wrong without that I I see I see what you're saying. I do I do see how um, you could read it either way So i'm just thinking about how to rephrase that Okay Yeah I can do that. I think I think some rearranging words will make it Okay, we'll make it so then the next change is on Page three bottom of the page that's a new sentence That the court may consider the remarriage of either party as a factor in whether there has been a showing of a real substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances And am I Is that um currently the case So this says that they may consider it can they consider they can consider it now So this doesn't really change it I think it changes the statute but it codifies what is happening in practice To make it because I think that was part of the discussion was what it needs to be clearer in statute what the court will consider I did and and my apologies for the typo this has not seen the benefit of our editors So it will before you You went the sign on the door Um they do matter So so it's no longer the case then now for me to be clear Is that a remarriage? Doesn't cut you off But I thought there could have been a separate statement with regard to the compensatory peace You know, that's I thought that the committee wanted to leave the compensatory piece alone Yes, I mean I I want that to be So that would remain exist how it was currently It's an existing case. Yeah, okay. Yep. Okay I mean, this is pretty light here instead of saying consider it You know, we really want it. I thought you're not you really Yeah, I'd rather say have it be stronger and I would maybe say shall consider Or um, I mean I would like to say that it ends but I realize that that's not gonna I could go for that if you say shall consider and it's retrospective then I really do think you're looking for additional Oh, I'm not saying does this have well, this goes back. It's not judge graces If you wanted it to be only prospective you would have to specify that in the effect of the Oh christ, I don't want that being retro Oh, I do want this being retro. No I know that but on this issue. Yeah People should be able to bring it up because some judges take it into account and some don't and well, how about so Somebody's got a had a divorce 20 years ago And now this judge got to look back at those 20 intervening years between then and now Retroactively In terms of in terms of the may consider the remarriage I Rather this thing just went forward I can also look forward if it goes forward, but if it's retrospective, I can't you can't You cannot I I just think that You know, why don't we get something that we can all vote on and get it through Because it doesn't do anything Certainly, but I mean it doesn't if we had if we said it ends in marriage But the fact that people come in and complain doesn't mean that we're obligated to retroactively change There's a ton of things to complain about I'm just explaining where I I mean if somebody is happy They got remarried and they're not going to file If it's retroactive they still have to file Um, a court, uh, whatever you file to have it reconsidered So some people may and some people may not some people may say it's not worth it I'm not going to do it and some people may say, you know, my spouse got remarried and is now making a fortune and I Live in a an eight-byte cabin And we did hear that from actually we heard that particular story from a woman Who's there's many of her stories. That's for sure Spout her spouse and me and if we put But anyway, so I think Because it's retrospective It should only be made I have a few with me if How about the court make it retroactive I said I'm happy to leave it at may If if it's retroactive because then Okay, yeah, I mean it instead of saying shall because May I guess we don't ever say I just I just let me you get married you're out except for the compensatory piece. That's how I've been doing Just if you get remarried it ends it ends except for the compensatory piece Well, I would go with that If I had no one else would I could do that Okay Oh, I'm a Participate in this conversation. Did you hear her proposal? It ends at except for the compensatory piece on remarriage I can't go for that Except even with except for the compensatory piece, which well, I don't like the end piece The automatic ending and and the retrospective piece that's that would be Further away from what I mean again The committee should work its will but that's just right so when the next draft will provide the um Maintenance ends upon remarriage except for the compensatory aspect of a maintenance award And would you like that to be prospective only or Why would that lose it on the floor any more than Making it prospective All right, all right propose something else here. No, no That's good Prospective only All of the changes are in yellow highlight I put brackets around the things that the committee still needs to make a decision about So if we start on page 10, that's the first Yellow highlight. So this is right. This is oh, sorry great So this is qualifying predicate misdemeanors and possession of controlled substances offenses. So this would Make the that five-year waiting period apply as the committee decided yesterday And then throughout we've changed that successfully completed the terms and conditions of the sentence for the conviction to satisfy the judgment Bottom of the page we put restitution ordered by the court paid in full back in That had been struck by that was the proposal was to strike it in the last version you saw So If you turn to page 11, this is the procedure for the court Ceiling rather than expunging these types of convictions so we've left in that That proposal by legal aid that the court can seal instead of expunge if ceiling butter serves the interests of justice and the petitioner O's restitution at the time of the filing of the petition to expunge Um, I I'm not sure if I thought that the committee expressed agreement and not yesterday, um, but I'm not sure Okay Okay Five Okay, so we'll move on To bottom of page 11. These are qualifying predicate misdemeanors. So we've returned to five years the waiting period is five years from The satisfaction of the judgment That's what you agreed to yesterday Anywhere you did not have an agreement I put brackets. So if you turn to page 12 All of it all restitution. Yeah, well, I thought you'd I I wasn't On board with that other members of the committee were I think the chair directed that brim Put it in on the strength of what seemed to be a 401 So I'm I'm going to vote for the bill anyway new restitution's in there I just think it replicates the problem we saw with surcharges So to to leave the restitution has to be paid That's yeah, yeah, and I I I agree with you that I would rather have it not That's why I meant that I Okay, there are generally agreement amongst at least three of us to make restitution be required I agree make restitution be required And I'll vote for it, but I would hope that maybe in the house Good deal, that's what I did with that. Okay. You all agree on satisfying the direction Yes Okay, so bottom of page 12. We're still in the qualifying predicate misdemeanor section So this is the provision that says a criminal history record can be sealed Or that is sealed is eligible for expungement The original proposal said five years after the date that this the the ceiling order is issued If the person doesn't commit any subsequent offense legal aid proposed six years rather than five years So that's a decision point for the committee I think that their proposal was to change it to six throughout there's for example Because and other portions of the statute, it's a 10-year waiting period and they've dropped it to six So I believe that they wanted consistency And does this replace 10? No, this replaces five, but For example, the next portion of the statute is qualifying felony property offenses and the waiting period there for expungement is After sealing is 10 years in the original proposal and they propose dropping it to six So I'm making a conjecture that the reason they're proposing six years is for consistency All right, so what are we going with? I just think in this we have five I have a question on 13 where it says two years after the day Yeah, so this is the on page 13 all of this bracketed yellow or gray is Also, the legal aid proposal to add additional time frames that would apply Depending on what type of subsequent offense the petitioner committed so It strikes all that highlight except for Subs three there is different. That is the option for a hearingless grant of the petition if the respondent stipulates So next Substantive decision-making point that you need to look at is on page 15. So now we're in qualifying felony property offenses And selling dispensing or transporting regulated substances So the proposal from legal aid was to drop the waiting period from 10 to five years for Ceiling for a petition to seal A lot of these people just right be right back in the business 10 years is a long time Five years is a long time It was an hour for some people It's after they satisfied. Yeah. Yeah, it's after What do we do for misdemeanors Five, I believe I think you have treat different types of misdemeanors differently. I haven't memorized these yet five years for Five years Should be 10 if we're doing five misdemeanor drug Eight something like that. This is not just drugs. It's not just drugs. I know but I'm trying to but it is includes drugs Yes, yes, so I think it should be I would say a would be reasonable Because the evidence is that after seven years You're no more likely to commit a crime than the average person How long does it take to complete to satisfy a judgment? It could take two years three years Whatever it takes So it depends on the sentence obviously, but also it depends on the individual, but I think eight years is Probably if seven is what the studies all show right, but you it takes you I could go to seven But if we do in five on misdemeanors, we ought to at least have a little more on film Yeah Each good all right So next change is on page 16 This would be the waiting period to expunge that sealed offense. We're still talking about felony property crimes and drug charges So the proposal from legal aid was to drop that waiting period to six years from 10 years from the date that the Petition or from the date that the record was sealed So original proposal from the sentencing commission was 10 years legal aid proposes dropping it to six This is prop felony level property crimes same set of crimes Okay, and then the next bracketed set of language again is that those different Should we take that out? I'm assuming the committee wants to take that out. Okay. So next is page 17. These are qualifying felonies so The original proposal from the sentencing commission was that seven year or 15 years had passed From the date of the satisfaction of the judgment to seal those records And legal aid proposed dropping that to seven years Of course, they were on the commission, right? Yeah They're just giving us all the proper while their proposal putting them in here So we can't have seven if we had seven for the Other ones, right? So this should be a little bit higher It should really can could be 10 Okay, so bottom of page 17 We're still in these qualifying felony offenses The original proposal from the sentencing commission was that these can only be sealed and aren't eligible for expungement And the proposal from legal aid was that they would be eligible for expungement Only if the respondents stipulated to that expungement of the record If you do if you don't do anything bad it's 10 years if you do something bad is 10 years If you if you I read this to be if you go three years without a new crime you commit a new crime Now you gotta wait 10 years in the time that the new crime To satisfy the judgment of the old crime And you might also be at the point where you can get the new So do we want to make a decision there about whether or not to use record I see what happens here the state's attorney's office is very very busy. They say, okay, go ahead. I I think geez Why don't you leave that bracket and I'd love to hear from the Sir What do you think Could we check with John Campbell before we decide on this Whether they're okay with it just this one Bob page 17. Yeah, is the attorney general okay with it? Yeah If the state's attorney's okay Let's hear from all states attorneys There seem to be Me that that's where you could Well, the state's attorney's got the yeah, let's check with them. Yeah, we'll check with the state's attorneys Okay, so we'll leave that bracketed for now Okay, why 19? Oh, and this is the provision that if the if the respondent stipulates Um, then they the court can hold can grant the petition without a year Yes Again the old issue of surcharges so now in one of your other bill as you've said we can waive surcharges But it's based on inability for hearing but this seems to allow for hearing even if the parties agree that the case should be Sealed we still have to decide whether they have to pay surcharges in order to get it. Yeah, so Just want the committee Okay, we got in Okay, so I'll move to page 18. We're in the these are this is the section of law that deals with sealing of juvenile records and it would allow sealing of records of Crimes that were convicted by a person who was under the age of 25 at the time There's agreement on that I think And then what we left bracketed there on lines 12 and 13 were the provision that the court can order the sealing of those records If the person has not been convicted of a listed crime for 10 years prior to the application so under existing law Right big 12 is encompassing those listed crimes. Where are you now? I'm on page 18 lines 12 and 13 Okay, so all right. When you finish that can we go back to line six? Yeah, yeah Do you want to talk about the age? I want to talk about the age. We decided 22 I think the proposal from legal aid was 28 and existing law was 21 So the second part there that where the committee needs to make a decision is that under current law The person can't have been convicted of a listed crime after that Original crime that they're seeking a ceiling for And this would provide that you can't commit a listed crime within 10 years prior to the date that you're filing for the ceiling To seal your human heart Not seal the listed crime, right, right But there's a big problem with this state attorneys or the Attorney general of the court can talk to us about it tomorrow Okay So the next can we move on? You ready? So the next section where there's a change is section six. This is the um marijuana penalties So the only change made to this section is on page 22. Remember we talked about that one for we were talking about So it was just meant to be 1.4 ounces and we're going to talk about This bill changing the word marijuana mechanic. It's on the back. I don't know about that So I think um Eric had called me yesterday about you were putting something in the statutory revision Right, you're putting it in the miscellaneous. Well, that's right. Yeah, I'm sorry. Well, right, and I would say don't Change it individually and other things would like and do it holistically because of all the definitions so You can throw that statutory revision and any bills you want but don't change Individually the statutes because we have to do it Thank you So nice. Okay. So we're now on page page 20 support section six Where are we? Well that's section six and I and the only change to this section is in on page 22 when we're talking about Knowing an unlawful possession of eight ounces of marijuana or 1.4 ounces of hashish That's the correct amount. Yes on that and So the next change is on page 23 section seven. This is the expungement of marijuana criminal history records and the Maybe one more minute here This is the last this is the last section So the change here is to provide that the court shall order the expungement of criminal history records of violations of that Statute that occurred prior to july 1st of 2020 and that change was Intended to make it clear that we're only talking about criminal history records based on those violations and no other That wouldn't apply And then the last decision that the committee needs to make Is on page 26 about the effective dates Based on the memo from the judiciary I suggest that we make an effective joint And that we add an appropriation One million Well, I think it was a little more than a million dollars Yeah Does terry want to update her a memo for you would you be satisfied with Whatever we put in the appropriations committee to take out Part of the regular button, so it really doesn't matter My proposal for 47 dollars 47 dollars Just to have an amount that is of close appropriations One million seventy five thousand dollars one zero seven five zero zero zero That's what uh, if effective date is not postponed We do not know whether we'll be able to comply with the proposed legislation is introduced But in order to try to comply request additional f y 21 for appropriation and one million 75 thousand dollars in respect to the fund that legislation is introduced Over and above the f y 21 budget request that's already been submitted to each of the appropriations committee Thank you very much. We will not be micro managing the judiciary We do that For those of you who didn't see the letter to the senator white you may read the first Sometimes we can put things on a better weight for weight With that We'll pick it up tomorrow morning. We scheduled that Where Good morning morning. Thank you for having me. I'm very appreciative of your interest in Um anything that might help vulnerable immigrant children Um, I will tell you a little bit about myself. I'll just be brief Um, I work at vermont law school. I teach immigration law there and I run the immigration clinic At the law school and your name and my name is erin Jacobson um, I I think the best role I can play here this morning is to explain a little bit about Exactly what special immigrant juvenile status is because it's kind of a confusing and unique statutory immigration scheme um, and then why it is that We need a bill Regarding what otherwise might be seen as a federal immigration program And then of course if anyone has any questions That's what i'm here for So special immigrant juvenile status or sijs or sij Or as I like to call it sig just because it's a mouthful Sidge is an immigration program created by congress to protect immigrant youth who have been abused Abandoned or neglected by one or both parents Um, and it was specifically written in um and its origin in 1990 to protect those kids who were deemed eligible for long-term foster care it's since been expanded to include any child who might need protection because of abuse abandonment or neglect By one or both parents not just those kids in in state custody um The way that the statutory scheme works is that the the federal law requires Juveniles to start in state court by requesting special findings And then once the child obtains those findings submitting them with their petition for special immigrant juvenile status So it's kind of a unique statute that way in that it it operates on this two-part system That starts with the state courts and the reason congress did it that way Is because it felt that it's the state courts that really have the most expertise in making Determinations about well-being care and custody of children And then also because as I mentioned when the bill was first when the statute was first passed It was really about kids in foster care So it only makes sense that the evidence that the child needs about the abuse abandonment or neglect Comes from the state courts So once the child makes these findings then they can apply for the status It's really still up to the federal government up to the immigration agency about whether to grant that status So there is no immigration Related decision being made by the state courts. It's just the state courts provide this evidence that supports the petition The special findings that the child needs are pretty much threefold and they are Layed out in the bill I believe right they're delineated beginning at line 20 on page three so It's that the child is either dependent on the court Or Is in the care and custody of the state. That's the first finding The second finding is that reunification With the child's parent or both parents is not viable because of abandonment of use or neglect Sure On b so I can give you a recent example from a case. I had That where the children actually entered the united states with both parents and then very soon thereafter the dad just abandoned the entire family The kids and and never Responded to any kind of correspondence And never provided the family with any support whatsoever Obviously No, because that child probably upon adoption becomes a us citizen or or gets the status of the adoptive family Right, so it's kids who yeah Yes, some might enter unlawfully unaccompanied by anybody Some might come with other family members escaping violence in their home countries or their own family situations Right, thank you. So the status does It's its purpose is to protect these children from deportation Where very likely they would be going back to the very abusive situation that the the statute was written to protect them from But it could be they they don't necessarily have to be here illegally I mean it could be it could be that's right people who came legally But now have abandoned or abused or whatever the child correct. Maybe they yes, maybe they came Um With a family member who then is found not to be able to take care of them and their status would have relied on that parent That they can no longer live with Just ask one question. You're giving the example Yes, but where you we're giving it with regard to b The room to take reunification of the child with one Or both of the child's parents was determined to not be viable So if if you still if this person father of them and the family so the child still has one parent So that gets them in because they only one parent left apparently if they're not really they've got one parent so Correct, they still can come under this they might be able to yes If if it if the court finds that the child was abandoned abused or neglected by the other parent So in this context The example i'm talking about we went to the family court on a parentage The mom needed an order Saying recognizing that she was the sole custodial parent And she also didn't have any status legal immigration status. So she Was vulnerable to deportation And then the question became what about these children? And so because the dad had abandoned the family we were able to Ask a state court for findings related to Their abandonment by dad but So the state court just found that there was abandonment or neglect or abuse That's all they do is they they find that they don't have anything to do with immigration at all They just find that and then and then that This language comes from the federal government, right? Correct. I mean we can't change This language because it's it is the requirements of the federal government then then they go Then that gives them the ability to apply for the status at the federal government And then the federal government decides whether they're going to give them the status or not It's not it's like applying for Parole you're not there just because you can apply for it doesn't mean you're going to get it That is all absolutely correct And then I mean the state court also does have to find that third part that it's not in the children's best interest Yes, right to be returned to their home country But these are all best interest determinations that our state courts make on a regular basis for other children too Yes, correct. And that is exactly what congress Why congress devised this program to start with the state court findings Right Very good of them to do it that way. They don't usually they don't usually act in such a manner as to give states Well, and that's I know I shouldn't have said that maybe but Well, no, I mean I I understand why you would be saying that the trump administration right now Isn't a big fan of the The sij law as written and sometimes Where states are are providing protection for these kids. There is some pushback And to that and you know, this bill might need a little bit of procedural tweaking But to your point, this is the language that comes right out of federal statute that the statutory scheme Requires These juveniles to obtain from a state court I will say that in the example I just gave we had a really hard time with the state court judge Understanding that he had the authority to issue these findings And so actually we appealed that to the vermont supreme court Where we won unanimously and so primarily this bill is intended to codify What is already in state law through the vermont supreme court The reason we want a codification of that is because it's just less squishy than case law and also because us cis the immigration agency Wants to see that these findings are coming from state courts Through a process where the judge is hearing A case related to care and custody of children and that and that the findings also are accompanied By a citation to state law. That's really what the federal agency wants now Okay So I don't if anyone else has any questions about how the federal statutory scheme works I'm happy to answer those but I do Right and that actually that's probably A section that Would need a little bit of tweaking Um It's the federal immigration section wasn't here would that be okay? Um Yes, I would say yes simply because Given the we haven't sold tomorrow To vote a bill out and If this needs tweaking, I would Suggest we delete this section and try to and then have them do it in my home Okay Yes, sir, I think the guardianship section that does Where these kids have not committed a crime And so they're in a special status And now you're 18 to 21. You're actually an adult under Law so right so the federal statutory scheme, um the federal statute immigration statute excuse me um Defines a child as anyone who is unmarried and under the age of 21 So technically this kind of protective status is available For children up to the age of 21 What states are trying to do is amend their statutes To make sure that all of these vulnerable kids don't age out of state court jurisdiction at the age of 18 And many states are doing it through their guardianship provisions That said the federal immigration agency doesn't like it at all And so that's particular section that um does start on page five might need a might need some more work. Yes I think I would be okay with that and you might hear from me again the other thing that's about to happen is that um The department of homeland security has said it it's going about to issue some regs Related to to s ij. And so it might be wise to know what those regs are in particular in relation to the over 18 Um situations and then go from there It's a little sad for those kids who might benefit from that Section now, but we don't want Yeah, yeah, I think that's really that's really good. Yeah striking Striking that for the next page On the next page six, what's the only thing on page six would say We'd strike all of section Okay Yeah section 30 99 it pertains to guardianships for over 18 It's still part of It's just We just Provide second for That's all About about the bill itself and this doesn't have to do with the special immigration status But there is a section here that makes immigration status of protected Category and I think that might raise some concerns Is that necessary for the special immigration status for kids that is not necessary for For special immigrant juvenile findings. No, that's a separate and Law Amendment that has nothing to do with special immigration status. I think that might raise some where where are you going? Bottom of two top Oh For one thing a lot of um immigration status related things falls under national Well, well, I'm suggesting that that might um raise some unnecessary Like this right this special status for juveniles seems very straightforward Following federal law doing what we have to do to protect the kids Yeah, I mean it can be debated some other time, but it isn't connected to this I'm not I'm certainly not opposed to any state protections for immigrants. Um, all I'm saying is it's separate and in addition to the Senator back Um good Can you just read you when did it start becoming an issue for The abandonment piece and it being considered to be People coming across the border now There's children who get into the country I know there was somebody comes in now illegally child comes in with some adult and then they're here But they they'll all qualify. Is that right? They should under the federal statute as written as written Assuming they they can Get the state court finding about abandonment abuse or neglect They still need to go before a state court that has jurisdiction over Determinations about care and custody of children. Um, they have to that's that's A threshold requirement And so I would guess it's some states it's going to be harder To do to get those findings in other states I think that's from different judges. I think that's true. Yes. Yes. Um Not The majority of states Are issuing these special findings with no problem. Maybe they're adding Statutory provisions or their supreme court holdings in those cases, but yes, some states make it harder than others Thank you for inviting me today. Thank you for what you're doing. Appreciate it. Do you want to Be great in some respects of these folks who were Going last I don't wait. What's your name Emily? Karen Aaron Aaron, sorry. Yes, that's okay. So Just um, so you're a professor at vermont law school and you're also a practicing attorney Yes, I work, um at the southwestern legal clinic, which is vermont law school's legal clinic Um, and I handle the immigration caseload there I should have added at the beginning that I Also Through that work because I do that work. I also contract with dcf To provide immigration representation for kids That caused a lot of promotion and then I know that with the underlying bill Mention that at the start When you say to provide The council or representation either either term is Against the bill as amended And I people that's always the case but people forget about it. So I know Yeah Good morning Just thought I'd get ready for what I want to go Yes, I've been here before on on other issues, but also whenever there is an immigration matter that's before the We support the the intent motive behind this bill and also support passage of it And And I agree with the suggestion today, which is to strike that section And then passage as as Aaron pointed out I just want to highlight that that recent administrative appellate decisions in the federal system as well as the Anticipation of changes in the regulations on this Status is in the works it happened in the late fall october or november and so To the extent that there is More possibilities of sort of procedural or some slate of not substantive amendments on the other side after crossover to this bill That I anticipate that that may be possible And the point being is that we certainly want to react in real time to anything that would be well-efficient right right and A little confusing for me is this deals with both the probate division And the family division and I'm always confused by that because Usually they don't work together Many times for example Grandparents will go to probate court to gain guardianship of their grandchild because of usually because of real and They never go to the family court and then they complain because they're not getting help from dcf And I say well you went to the wrong court And try to help them with that but In this case you're dealing with both courts I think I think the way that I read this bill currently it's focused on just the probate court Again caught fighting that supreme court decision that erin talked about earlier And as that case was presented in supreme court It was just an outer out arising out of probate court But as erin talked about the findings that the state court needs to find In order to qualify for the status and federal court rate the the custody and and a dependency the The viability of the unification back of the parent and the best interest of the child You know those are matters that are the bread and butter of the chins proceedings and family courts So from from our client's perspectives, of course the defender generals mandate not being in the probate court but in family courts As elsewhere across the country Sidge or siege potentially eligible children come to our radar because we're representing them in the chins proceedings And it is a natural place for those findings to come because it's of course consistent with what the family judge is doing there Right the best interests of the children They're deciding on on the dependency matters and the viability of unifying the parents So so even though this bill is just limited probate it absolutely has uh application in the family courts Again, this is part of that like After crossover is it possible to for for some suggested amendments? Um, you know that just want to give a heads up. We're absolutely supportive of passing it, but Anticipate changes Um, so this bill that has actually provided jurisdiction in the family court to provide these They just wanted to clarify that so such implies demanding the family court So they're gonna be working with them Okay, so in both of the statutory sections the one that deals with the family division and the one that The probate division they both have concurrent jurisdiction in this language. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thanks for clarifying You most likely go to the family court Or where do you start where do you start on the case? Where does it start generally? I think I think it would start wherever you're already having a pending proceeding So if you're already a child brought in through the chins, yes, right? I get that but say you're on the street Having a news Ken shots, um commissioners department I mean, I do think it depends. I mean, I'm in learning mode here. So I do appreciate Other swimming ahead of me appreciate the conversation that maybe there'll be some tweaks later. We're glad to participate in that I think it depends Frankly, how the case starts in what context and goes to represent nika some of senator nika. Sorry Some of your questions that found us the reality is if there is a one parent Who is still involved with the child in the scenario described by miss Jacobson that might go through probate On the other hand if this matter has come to the attention of authorities or a mandated reporter Then it might go through the chins process. Um, and so that will dictate The which court actually deals with it. At least that's my understanding because I'm having concurrent jurisdiction Just to say that love makes sense to me But again, we'll have to educate all of ourselves and our stakeholders to make sure they understand the difference It is it is always the question out, you know, for us We we rarely see the qualifying child because usually You know, there is the reunification possible with a parent, right? So not all three Three requirements are found or there is ultimately an adopted family in the wing I was under the impression and I back when I ran Hopefully I was all I thought it was people who had been adopted and came to the United States and then This frequently happens and we've seen it in a number of cases where the parents aren't able to handle the kid They give the child, you know, give a dcf comes in Or they even Try to undo the adoption That's been true of I know I had a kid from Honduras He had been through an awful lot in Honduras and then The people who adopted him couldn't handle it I still keep track of him and he's doing very well by the way And then I had another kid that was from I can't think I don't know if it was Mexico or Guatemala, but it had a similar situation and the He actually stopped me one day at a gas station and I thought he was going to yell at me for something I didn't recognize him. He said thank you for saving my life was really something But that's another kid who spoke very broken English and had never Really had a tough time. I'll tell you it's true that he may have been in this situation. I'm not sure His case may have been one where he was Those those not those cases are just the most compelling stories and that's what's amazing about having the status available Is that it is a pathway To one of the questions earlier concerns. What if we have all of a sudden a mass arrival of Undocumented children over the Canadian border. Um, what does that mean? Well, I think the point of how the whole design of this federal immigration status is set up It's a case by case. Yeah, right and and also, uh, we have to look at the individual circumstances as to again Not just our do that with the legal status is an undocumented, but they found their way into dcf But back then it was us our rest custody to You know So I can see that those cases dick certainly might The child who's brought into this country to be adopted and it doesn't work out and dcf gets them Very common very common. Well, it could apply to them. It would apply to them Professor Jacobson said that they have already Like my neighbor's child from Haiti has already been become a us citizen by being adopted Maybe not though some people don't file for it Yeah, I can give an example of one of my juvenile clients. She her grandmother tried to adopt her But because of international adoptions are so incredibly difficult and there's all kinds of rules depending on the country of origin She actually Still four years later hasn't been able to adopt and so For that grandmother to be able to go to the probate court and have a guardianship And then for us to get special findings from the probate court means the child is safe from deportation And the grandmother has decision-making capabilities And is safe from the parents Two kids right now Yeah I'm learning Ken Schatz commission of the department for children families I will say that we are definitely supportive of of moving forward with this We do appreciate again the opportunity to to review detail With others who are more knowledgeable and in obviously we are in in the child protection Mode and so protecting vulnerable children is part of our mission. So we want to be supportive We recognize though also our lack of expertise or knowledge about immigration And so in fact just to be straightforward with the whole committee We have retained professor Jacobson On a couple of cases to help us Work through issues related to immigration and some of the children that we're involved with And so from our perspective It does make sense to have vehicles to enable to have these kind of findings made as appropriate. It's obviously The the findings related to abuse neglect and abandonment and potential reunification Are the kind of opinions and analysis that we do provide on a day-to-day basis in the chins process And we're not typically in probate court So, you know, again, I want to learn a little bit more about how that might work and how that might involve Our staff if at all, but the point being we definitely want to support These vulnerable children As appropriate and so from our perspective it does make sense to proceed Go ahead to answer your questions you have for me Pretty straightforward to me We prepared a We're not changing any wording We can vote on that and see if I mean, I'm I'm concerned about kind of a range time for Staff because you've got many other committees Yeah, I can I can go on it right now. We only get you for I think I probably would need editing to look at Oh, no, no, no, I'm just we can vote on a rough draft Okay, um, so if you get it to you probably in the next half an hour or so if I can get anything to If we came back at 10 minutes of 12 Okay And that we'd have a rough draft to look at a new draft and then the final you can do tomorrow We'd get it to whoever I'd like to be able to vote this out today and not have it That'd be okay. Yeah, I don't want to push you I know you're only my committee you're interfering with It's just the capital though. Yeah That's all Yeah, I'll get that So Becky was serving in legislative council. Um, this is a strike all amendment of I struck out section three which was Putting in immigration status to the protected categories So the new section three is the the new sub chapter 14 on special immigration status And then there the second change was in this section of law. I struck out Um section 3099 which was going to be the section on the 18 to 21 year old guardianship piece of the language Yeah, we're having some some dm problems. So it's draft number 1.1 I'll I'll add that into it didn't automatically update it looks like but I'll add that into the Senator value is that we Amend s3 16 as seen in draft 1.1 All the favor say aye. Aye And senator betting further moved that we report f3 16 favorably as amended any discussion None I said I guess my vote's been turned Oh, no, I don't I thought you were moving the bill when you asked for the draft. No, I just wanted to go to the draft That's okay. No, just keep going Peggy, would you please call senator betting moves? Yeah Well, I didn't think there was much opposition given the discussion earlier, please call the Senator White. Yes. Senator Ruth. Yes. Senator Pennington. Yes. Senator Micah. Yes. Senator Micah has volunteered to report the bill. Yeah, thank you all very much