Print đź–¨

House Juvenile Justice & Family Affairs met on March 8 to take up a number of bills. This report covers testimony on HB 865 (Thompson), HB 867 (Thompson), and HB 756 (Dutton).

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

HB 865 (Thompson) – Relating to spousal maintenance

  • Thompson – This bill aligns spousal maintenance to practices for child support
  • Bill only allow increase to be retroactive to the date of filing; are times during the course of paying where someone may lose a job/laid off and are no longer able to meet that amount
  • Would allow them to get a modification; and if they got a job that makes that amount or more, the person could not get an increase more than the initial agreed-upon amount

 

Bill Morris, VP Texas Family Law Foundation – For

  • Are a limited number of things that are allowed; would allow the court to decide if the person is un-under employed; can deem if property is income
  • Bill says you can reduce it, but does not say you can increase it; is no mechanism for an increase

 

Teran Champagne, Self – Against

  • Concern is intentional unemployment upon separation; should not be obligated by a judge what you should/should not be doing in terms of employment
  • Vasut – Why should one of the spouses be able to avoid the obligation to support the other spouse?
    • Divorce may cause a shift in priorities; one may decide to work less hours
  • Vasut – Intentional unemployment means working less house?
    • Does not think the bill specifies that
  • Swanson – Testifying for self?
    • For self

 

David Casen, Texas Family Law Foundation – For

  • Bill brings in line what we are already doing with child support; potential underemployment is already considered for that
  • This bill is a good thing for family law, and there are those who intentionally change their earning patterns; this bill determines what is intentional for spousal maintenance
  • Wu – This addition is one more element of consideration for a judge?
    • Court currently has no avenue to consider if there is factual evidence of underemployment
    • Wu – Would add this consideration?
    • Correct
  • Wu – Existing law only has considerations, and is not absolute; is just adding them one more consideration
    • Correct; is no obligation on the court’s part to find intentional underemployment

 

HB 865 is left pending.

 

HB 867 (Thompson) – Relating to the issuance of a qualified domestic relations order for the payment of spousal maintenance and child support obligations

  • Thompson – Under federal law, can be paid and collected under CDRO orders; Texas attorneys have historically used
  • Has been confusion if state law is aligned with federal law; CDRO to be used for the payment and collection for spousal maintenance and child support like they have
  • Have a proposed amendment
  • Swanson – What is intended to change?
    • Will add an amendment to make clear that federal and state law are the same so the AG does not run into any problems

 

Charla Bradshaw, Texas Family Law Foundation – For

  • Is important for the collection of child/spousal support; is no specific statute that provides for CDRO orders
  • Came into question in the Supreme Court, Dalton vs. Dalton; case specifically Title I provide for the divisions in divorce proceedings, but does not extend to child/spousal support
  • Prior to this case, courts were signing CDRO enforcement orders, but after there was a halt to this; has prevented collections for spousal/child support
  • Is nothing automatic about this order; court must hear the evidence to determine if they want to make the order
  • Have discussed an amendment with PRS, TRS, etc.
  • Vasut – Makes it more likely an individual will have to pay what they have been ordered to pay?
    • Correct
  • Cook – Bill will avoid millions in attorney fees and thanks them for their testimony

 

Joel Rogers, Child Support Division AG’s Office – Resource Witness

  • Ramos – What is the amount of unpaid child support?
    • Is a tremendous number, and were using this as a method to collect child support; CDRO collections have dwindled
    • Dalton vs. Dalton causes confusion and courts are reluctant to use a CDRO order
  • Ramos – Many of those who are on child support apply for Medicaid, and would this address the expenses the state?
    • Could prevent those Medicaid dollars because they could afford other insurance; state taxpayers would also get reimbursed from those costs
  • Frank – Would this cover all retirement accounts? We cannot collect from those in a state retirement plan?
    • About 10% that are filed are state retirement plans; this bill amendment will clarify that
    • Will be the same across the board after this bill; issue is inconsistencies
  • Cook – Do you support this bill?
    • Is a resource witness, not allowed to say if against/for this bill; bill would bump up child collections
  • Swanson – Why did we not do anything about this before?
    • Was a bill filed last session that addressed the child support side, but died off near the end

 

Art Alfaro, TEXPERS – On

  • Are neutral on this bill, does not have much to add, but notes TEXPERS represents many state-supported retirement plans

 

Thompson – Will add an amendment that clarifies this bill will have no conflict between federal and state law

 

HB 867 is left pending.

 

HB 756 (Dutton) – Relating to a suit for possession of or access to a child by a grandparent

  • Dutton – Grandparents are increasingly involved in children’s life; now have no common law rights over their grandchildren
  • Other states give grandparents rights to petition the court for access to their grandchildren
  • Bill requires court to appoint guardian ad litem for the grandchild
  • Bill eliminates subsection 3 requiring the parent is dead, incarcerated, etc. for the grandparents to take custody and eliminates the requirement for an expert opinion

 

Babs James, Self – For

  • Provides a personal anecdote of lack of access to grandchildren due to a divorce

 

Robert Clinton Coleman, Self – For

  • Current law makes it difficult to resolve the issues between parents and grandparents
  • This law attempts to bring up a suit for visitation; provides an anecdote of lack of visitation rights with their grandchildren

 

Brenda Keltner, Self – For

  • Parents have coercive control over children, and children are not able to voice their opinion to re-establish their relationship with their grandparents
  • If a relationship has been created between the grandparent and the child over time, then the parent does not have the right to sever the relationship

 

Teran Champagne, Self – Against

  • Bill could be used against fit parents to gain access to their kids
  • Vasut – Do you have issue with guardian ad litem and waiving expert opinions?
    • No

 

Mary Daniels, Self – For

  • When laws were written, family structure was much more different; notes those in non-traditional households are more likely to be abused or have behavioral
  • Currently, there are no laws to protect the children; appreciates the guardian ad litem section
  • Provides a personal anecdote of their grandchildren being abused and they have no way to help them; notes that CPS contracted out their case
  • Grandparents usually provide a stable household for their grandchildren
  • Frank – Investigative side of CPS is entirely done by the state, contracting is only after the child is removed
    • Begs to differ, notes that their investigative case was contracted out
  • Vasut – Provision notes you can get access of the child; if CPS were to take custody, could you then petition?
    • Yes, but CPS is not doing so unless there is evidence of child sexual assault or broken bones; notes those cases are being prioritized under COVID-19 procedures
  • Leach – Would like to have a broader conversation of how this is all linked together
    • Neave – Can do that in the future
  • Swanson – Suggests they speak to Rep. Frank, need to deal with this right away; notes this bill will not go into effect until September

 

Wilma Accord Ramirez, Self – For

  • Provides a personal anecdote of raising their grandchild and the parents forcibly taking them from their home; children deserve better than this
  • Swanson – Reiterates there are laws already in place for this; is not a grandparent visitation issue
  • Ramos – Grandparents currently can only have standing if one of the parents are incarcerated, found competent or is dead; this bill removes those factors and allows the guardian ad litem to give recommendations to the court if grandparents need to be in their life
    • Correct, this gives us the opportunity to be in the grandchild’s life; is all we are asking for

 

Karen Gan, Self – For

  • Provides an anecdote of the lack of access to their grandchildren after the death of one of the parents

 

Daren Gan, Self – For

  • The provision of the bill allowing a third party to intervene is important

 

Tracy Janick, Self – For

  • Provides an anecdote of lack of access to family members; please keep in mind that while the grandparents are denied access, the rest of the family are as well

 

Chris Clay, Self – Against

  • Family law bills should be written to protect the rights of parents, not to dimmish them
  • This bill has dangerous financial and mental consequences for grandparents taking parents to court; guardian ad litems are expensive
  • If this bill is passed, the courts will be filled with frivolous suits

 

Cecilia Wood, Self – Against

  • Being a grandparent does not make you a parent; this bill does not help those who have lost children or those who are being abused
  • Standing is an important issue, and hopes those grandparents can use existing avenues
  • Components of this bill are unconstitutional; when parental rights are terminated, the state is happy to terminate those grandparent’s rights as well unless they adopt them
  • Guardian ad litem aspect is not bad, but should not be appointed until after the court has determined the case should not be thrown out
  • Supreme Court has relied on expert testimony; court needs expert testimony to determine significant impairment

 

Bill Morris, Texas Family Law Foundation – For

  • Currently have to determine if situations significantly impair children, that goes far beyond best the “best interest” of a child
  • Looking at denial and that test; need to look also at what are the parent’s actions that are contributing to it
  • Likes the guardian ad litem aspect, does not think it is possible to appoint them after the court determines if they should hear the case
  • Neave – What is your response to the constitutionality of this bill?
    • Federal statue has been interpreted as broad; state needs to look at those aspects that are in the best interest of a child rather than having to determine “significant impairments”

 

Stewart McMullen, Self – On

  • Is important that competent grandparents have access to their grandkids
  • Have issues that a guardian ad litem “shall” be appointed; should be turned to “may” in order to prevent the state to be involved in family matters
  • Removal of expert opinions
  • Bill uses preponderance of evidence standard, and should be a much higher bar
  • Vasut – Opinion on a specific provision?
    • Grandparents should see their grandchildren, death and divorce causes a lot of conflicts
    • Current law incentivizes litigations, and this bill will increase litigation further; not for that either
  • Neave – Clarify if you are for or against this bill? Would you object to the bill in its current form?
    • Neutral, should delete the portion about expert witnesses and should change “shall” to may”
    • Object to the bill in its current form

 

Mark Daniels, Self – For

  • This bill is not just for grandparent’s rights, but is for the rights of grandchildren as well

 

Jefferey Daniels, Self – For

  • Policies need to allow grandparents access to their grandchildren
  • Frank – Issue here is to determine how easy should it be made for grandparents to sue their children for their grandchildren
    • Laws should support that Texas is a grandparent-friendly state; CPS should have a responsibility to not distract a family’s life
  • Ramos – This bill is asking for responsible access to the child, not custody
    • Based on the ambiguity of “best interest” of the child; should re-look at what that means in the family code

 

Dutton – This bill does not make winners and losers and is not unconstitutional or dangerous, are 30 states have something similar to this; if there is abuse taking place, will be less so when grandparents are involved

 

HB 756 is left pending.