SB 210: Military Deployment and Child Custody Hearing

(S)JUDICIARY		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Feb 08 Monday 1:30 PM		BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
*+	SB 246	INCREASING NUMBER OF SUPERIOR CT JUDGES	TELECONFERENCED
*+	SB 210	MILITARY DEPLOYMENT AND CHILD CUSTODY	TELECONFERENCED
+	SJR 21	CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS	TELECONFERENCED
=+	SB 60	UNIFORM PROBATE CODE; TRUSTS, WILLS	TELECONFERENCED
+		Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled	TELECONFERENCED

I came over to the Senate Judiciary Committee to see what they say about SJR 21 - the Constitutional Amendment to increase

But I got in while they were talking about SB 210  Military Deployment and Child Custody.  I've just seen a CBS video about this issue where ex-spouses are using military deployments against service men and women against them in child custody cases.  An attorney from North Carolina, Mark Sullivan, just testified over audio, saying that he had introduced a similar law into North Carolina, but reading SB 210, he feels what Alaska is proposing "runs circles around the North Carolina law."  "I'm going to point Alaska's law as leading the country."

Mark San Souci(spelling?), from Department of Defense.  His job is to work with state legislatures working to assist our military.   He's talking about how this issue being one of the top ten issues among military families.  Several protections states can enact to balance rights of children and parents.  SB 210 is an excellent vehicle.

He's speaking very fast and I can't keep up.  But he's listing aspects of the bill that are supportive of their goal.  32 states have passed laws that in some way deal with this problem.  Thank you Sen. Huggins for sponsoring this.  Questions:

Egan:  How would you class this proposed legislation?  As Mark Sullivan, whom we see as the expert, said, this legislation is superb.  Of our five criteria, you cover them all.

Coghill:  If we put this in law int he state, this puts another burden for family accomodation in the military.  If someone is given custody during deployment, what is DoD going to do to support custody?

Sansouci(?):  I'm sure with electronic communication, can only speculate, with 32 states having some aspects, some of this is going on.

Coghill:  For those coming back for short leaves, etc.  a lot will be housed on post or base, are there issues that have been resolved with that regard?

Sansouci:  Accommoating family that no lnger has military id?

Coghill:  That's one, or the family not being together anymore, I would think youngster would maintain id.  But we are hearing they won't have to rent a hotel off base to accommoate this.

SS:  Childrens still have military id.  Having child accomooated on post, and maybe still benefits, I think.  I'm hesitant to speculate each circumstance.

Coghill:  We're putting requirements that the court do certain things and I want to be sure we don't have them standing out in the cold somewhere.

Witness:  It says, 'make reasonably available' and 'in child's best interest.'

Coghill:  I understand that, just want to know what military will do.

Christine Pate?   Supervising attorney with Alaska Sexual Violence and Assault, Family law in AK for about 15 years.  Thank Sen Huggins helping deployed parents.  Working with his office on this bill, had some initial safety concerns about sexual violence.  Many fixed, still a few more.  Not sure how language reads now.
1.  Expidited hearings at two phases.  Line D p. 2, 6   Page 4 line 5.  Already processes in place for expedited hearings.  I understand times when being deployed immediately, but when they do have the time, that there could be abuse of this process when there is domestic violence.  I have experience with people scrambling for attorneys.  Concerned people will have expedited hearings as an abusive tactic in litigation.
2.  Appreciate that Sen and staff worked with us to get language to protect AS language protecting victims of sexual violence - if I'm a parent delegating my rights to another, but the other person they delegate their custodial rights to.  I want it clear that it covers both.
3.  Always important to update other parent on address and contact info, but it would be good for victims of domestic violence, to have a clause that says, 'as long as their no danger to the spouse or child."

French:  Thank you.

Allen Baily:  Family lawyer in Anchorage, practice for 36 years, handling cases for service members from Fort Richardson and Elmendorf.  [Lots of credentials...]  Very pleased.  Worked with Josh on this expressing concerns of various groups.  Drafters of this have done an outstanding job to make sure courts consider domestic violence issues along with the best interest of the children.  ...Discussed terms needed and not needed with my friend Mark Sullivan.  Pleased Sen. Huggins took it on themselves to accomplish this.  Thought North Carolina bill much briefer etc., but since studied this and think this bill will be a lot easier to enforce because of its specificity.  Eloquence is nice, but I want the specifics in the bill.

I remember when Judge Hunt said, "I will never hold a service man's decision to serve his country to stand against him in this court."

When I'm in court and my client is present and the other side is appearing by phone, I have observed that my client is more credible, because the judge can get visual cues about my clients' honest.  The incorporation of internet testimony will enhance the ability of people testifying by distance.

Two appreciative for on how evolved:
Earlier wording might have conflicted with state and national legislation, and that has been eliminated in this bill.  Thank you.

Weilechoski:  Curious how courts look at it now and under this bill for a parent deployed to Afganistan.  How do courts look at that now?  How would that change?

Bailey:  We have 15 Superior court judges 10 of whom handle civil cases.  There's an infinite way these can be handled.  Some judges are sympathetic and would have handled things the same as they will after.  Some of the youngr ones who have not lived around military bases, will not be so understanidng.  This will prohibit the deployment in considerig what is happening.  There will be possibility to have the deployed parent delegate someone to spend time with the child while the deployment is in effect.  Does that help?

Weilechoski:  The ultimate touchstone is still "What's in the best interest of the child."

Bailey:  I tell my clients its the guiding light?

Weilechoski:  Have courts ordered kids to go along with deployment?

Bailey:  Only if technically 'overseas' post like Alaska.

Weilechoski:  If someone were asking to take kid along to Iraq, the court couldn't say no.  Am I misreading that?

Bailey:  The serviceman who has custody has to develop a family care plan to take care of child if deployed.  I don't believe parents are allowed to take kids along on deployment where kids would be in danger.

Weilechoski:  Language sounds like judge can't look at deployment...?

French:  Point is to not penalized a parent if deployed.  Not intended to hae a parent take a kid to a war zone:

Witness:  Langauge about child's best interest - taking a kid into a war zone wouldn't be in the child's best interest.

Weilechoski:  just looking at the langauge.

Jean Michele:  Drafting attorney.  Hadn't construed it that way.  Intention is not to override all the other decisions that affect custody, but to not penalize parent under employment.  STill laws in the state and every state that govern moing a child out of the home jurisdiction.  And best interest of child still stated throughout.  Would be surprised if court construed it to allow child to be deployed to war zone.  And military doesn't allow family to go to war zone.

Hollis:  Senator raises good point, we should considere we don't have something inadvertently in there that could be mistrured.

Page 4, Line 5:  How long are you 'subject to deployment'?  How would a judge analyze that.

W:  Means, you receive notification you will be deployed.  Not yet deployed, Possibly out of state and can't do anything about custody.

Coghill:  Upon return of deployment there could be another hearing on the fitness/status of parent deployed and guardianship?  Where is that?

Is it true, someone coming back from war zone, could have big impact on emotional stability or brain injury, but it is also true that person who stayed as non-deployed could also have those issues.  Is that parent subject to reevaluation too?

Michele:  page. 3 line 20-29, yes, but non-deploying parent has burden of prove against resumption of protective order.

Mr. Doug Woollover?   ABout skype/internet aspects.  From court.  We can do skype like things, if what was intended was full blown video conferencing, we don't have capability for that.  Language now makes it clear it's internet based.  We just did one last week and it has some issues, but it worked well last week and we can do this.

Weilochoski:  You don't see additional costs?

Doug W.:  I just checked, it may be a couple of hundred dollars.  Not serious.  Per court.  It doesn't cost us to see them, but if they want to see us, then there are other issues.  We'll look into it.

Weilochoski:  If that cheap, we should probably do that for all custody cases.

Specific language of the bill is here.

Doug W:  We're moving in that direction.

They're talking now with Doug Wollover, an administrative lawyer in the State Department of Law again, this time about increasing the number of judges.  I'm going to post this and then get ready for the Constitutional Amendment discussion.  I'll try to check and fix name spellings later.  I don't have a list of names.