►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
Description
The first few minutes of this meeting may have issues due to a technical issue. We will be uploading a complete version at a later date after processing the video footage.
A
Thank
you,
sir
quick
question.
If
that's
okay,
thank
you,
you
know
my
my
experience
with
this
honestly
has
been
that
sometimes
a
child
needs
to
be
removed
from
a
home
and
it
is
high
near
impossible
to
get
that
done.
Can
you
assure
me
that
this
will
do
nothing
to
affect
the
the
ability
to
take
a
child
out
of
a
home?
If
that's,
what
is
needed.
B
It
does
not
affect
that
all
this
does
is
it
gives
the
prosecutor
and
a
tool
in
their
toolbox
to
deal
with
cases
as
they
see
fit,
and
that's
pretty
common
with
prosecutorial
discretion
is
a
pretty
standard
way
of
dealing
with.
You
know
any
sort
of
prosecution,
so
I
don't
really
think
that
would
change
that.
D
D
B
B
If
the
prosecutor
feels
that
this
is
not
a
person
that
has
a
bad
background
and
if
they
feel
like
it's
appropriate,
this
would
be
a
softer
approach.
There
would
still
be
a
case
plan
that
they
would
have
to
work,
but
as
long
as
they
work
that
case
plan
and-
and
they
follow
that
they're
not
going
to
kind
of
have
this
long
term
with
them.
B
So
I
mean
I
feel
like
overall,
it's
a
it's
a
win
for
the
accused
because
it
allows
under
the
law
an
ability
to
kind
of
take
an
alternate
route
on
this,
and
just
to
be
quite
frank,
this
situation
is,
I
mean,
I
guess
I
would
say,
is
fairly
common
practice
in
some
circuits.
Nobody
really
says
anything
about
it,
because
then
there's
there's
no
there
there's
no
person
that
really
objects
to
it.
So,
and
I
and
and
really
what
this
would
accomplish
is
is
actually
have
statutory
authority
for
an
agreed
plan.
B
D
B
C
F
H
Explain
the
vote.
Mr
chairman.
Yes,
I
appreciate
this
bill
coming
forward.
It's
a
long
time
coming
as
a
person,
that's
practiced
it.
Since
this
court
process
was
established,
you
have
as
a
school
board
attorney
you
get
a
kid
that
gets
just
a
little
bruise
on
it.
It's
got
to
get
reported
and
you
take
up
so
much
time
with
the
court.
H
Social
services
will
be
tickled
to
death
with
this,
but
if
you'll
read
the
first
part
of
it
says
and
determine
the
disposition
of
all
cases
brought
on
behalf
of
dependent
elect
abused
children,
the
district
court,
so
it's
mandatory.
The
district
judge
be
involved
in
this.
So
it's
not
a
process
that
somebody
may
worry
about
that.
There's
going
to
be
somebody
slipped
through
the
system,
because
it's
just
a
process
to
streamline
it,
get
it
done,
get
it
out
of
the
system
when
it
doesn't
need
to
be
really
one
that's
prosecuted
and
goes
along.
C
I
voted
aye
bill
passes
with
favorable
expression,
I
believe,
eight
nine
to
zero
motion
and
a
second
from
for
consent.
I
heard
shickle
and
wheeler,
I
believe,
all
those
in
favor,
please
vote
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed
okay,
I
if
it
makes
you
feel
any
better
and
I'm
we
won't.
We
won't
put
it
on
consent,
but
I
I
don't
know
the
cacs
aren't
ever
involved
in,
at
least
in
my
experience.
They
were
never
involved
in
dependency,
neglect
and
abuse
cases.
C
C
I
Thank
you,
chair
westerfield,
vice
chief
carol
and
members
of
the
community
committee,
thanks
for
allowing
me
to
present
hospital
472,
as
the
chairman
said,
a
bill
addressing
the
sexual
abuse
of
minors.
The
thrust
of
the
bill
is
to
increase
the
time
allotted
for
prosecution
to
10
years
from
what
is
currently
five
years.
I
I
will
talk
about
the
committee
sub
later.
Sexual
abuse
of
any
kind
is
abhorrent,
but
sexual
abuse
of
minors
is
not
only
abhorrent
but
also
incomprehensible.
To
me,
my
goals
with
the
bill
are
to
help
victims
and
hold
perpetrators
accountable
for
their
heinous
crimes.
Mr
chairman,
I
have
a
person
on
zoom
to
testify.
Do
we
want
to
go
to.
J
J
My
name
is
lauren
bassiniak
and
I
am
a
pediatric
forensic
nurse
senior
for
the
division
of
pediatric
forensic
medicine
at
the
university
of
kentucky,
and
while
I
am
here
today
to
represent
myself
as
a
pediatric
forensic
nurse,
you
know
for
for
university
of
kentucky.
However,
my
statement
today
does
not
reflect
the
views
of
the
university
of
kentucky.
J
J
I
have
seen
how
heavily
the
reality
of
what
it
means
to
not
only
disclose
but
to
press
charges
and
move
forward
with
the
prosecution
and
how
heavily
that
can
weigh
on
the
child
and
a
family.
It's
not
an
easy
decision
to
make.
I
also
understand
this
personally.
As
a
survivor
of
child
sexual
abuse,
I
was
around
the
age
of
three:
when
the
grooming
and
the
sexual
abuse
began,
it
stopped
when
he
finally
moved
away
around
the
age
of
six
or
seven.
J
C
J
Necessarily
have
the
secret
touching
and
the
exposure
to
the
male
anatomy.
I
realized
that
that
was
not
something
that
was
normal.
You
know,
then,
suddenly,
I'm
I'm
overwhelmed
with
feelings
of
shame
and
guilt.
You
know,
I
remember
that
really
like
it
was
yesterday,
and
I
carried
you
know
those
feelings
with
me
for
many
years
and
yet
I
still
didn't
disclose
until
I
was
17
years
old,
my
sister,
who
was
also
a
victim
she
didn't
disclose
until
she
was
in
college.
J
You
know
we
both
felt
very
angry,
dirty
and
guilty,
but
most
of
all
we
were
terrified
that
our
parents
would
would
blame
themselves
as
if
somehow
they
should
have
known
what
was
going
on
because
they
didn't,
because
that's
how
predators
work
you
know
my
story
is
not
uncommon
and
too
many
are
afraid
upon,
and
the
impetus
for
seeking
justice
and
peace
for
those
who've
fallen
victim.
Even
after
me
is
stronger
now
than
ever
before.
C
She
does
there
is
so
the
substitute
members
makes
a
couple
of
changes.
The
bill,
as
the
as
it
came
over
from
the
house,
had
a
reviver
provision
in
it
that
you
could
read
to
allow
the
revival
of
claims
even
previously
time
barred
claims
going
back.
As
far
on
the
calendars,
you
thought
you
could
find
a
case.
C
So
this
this
tracks
with
that
and
it
caps
that
reviver
at
five
additional
years.
Importantly,
one
other
change
in
the
insurance
industry,
which
still
objects
to
the
reviver
language,
but
they
requested
that
section
three
in
the
bill
that
came
over
from
the
house
be
stricken.
That
was
a
one
sentence,
two-line
section
of
the
bill
that
allowed
insurance
companies
to
not
that
they
weren't
they
weren't
obligated
to
provide
coverage
for
certain
conduct.
I
assumed
they
would
prefer
that
they
didn't
like
that
for
whatever
reason.
C
C
L
C
I'd
then,
you
could
have
more
than
ten
years.
Excuse
me.
I
should
say
that
if
it's
more
than
ten
years,
you
said
it
right
and
I've
restated
my
answer
wrong.
It's
we
are
reviving
previously
time
barred
claims
to
what
extent,
just
for
the
five
years,
beyond
the
the
five
that
we're
in
so
five
years
back.
C
K
C
And
importantly-
and
it
came
over
from
the
house
this
way
there's
a
severability
clause
in
the
bill,
so
if
that
particular
part
is
challenged
successfully,
so
be
it,
but
I
also
think
there's
some
evidence
or
some
and
we've
passed
things,
and
I
mentioned
this
to
you
over
the
weekend.
I
mentioned
this
with
the
sponsor
representative
beckler.
You
know
a
few
years
ago
we
passed
the
bill.
Senator
do
I
look
back.
C
C
A
So
I
would
like
somebody
to
look
into
that
and
address
that
concern
for
me,
because
if
you
have
either
a
a
survivor
of
abuse
or
perhaps
a
family
member
who
is
concerned
about
the
possibility
of
abuse
and
they
go
to
a
therapist
and
want
to
discuss
this,
I
mean
that
could
be
really
chilling.
If
they
know
that's
not
privileged.
I
C
A
What
if
the
counselor
you're
not
admitting
to
sex
abuse,
you're
admitting
to
a
concern
that
somebody
in
your
family
may
be?
I
mean
I
just
think,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
of
a
room
here
for
people
not
being
willing
to
discuss
something
along
these
lines.
If
they
know
that
it's
not
privileged,
I
mean.
Can
we
just
not
include
professional
client
patient
privilege
unless
it's
waived.
C
I
The
I'm
not
an
attorney,
as
you
probably
all,
would
have
guessed
by
this
time.
So
I'm
very
very
happy
that
I
have
worked
with
a
number
of
attorneys
beforehand,
but,
as
the
chairman
was
saying,
it
says
neither
the
husband,
wife
nor
any
professional
client,
patient
privilege,
except
the
attorney
client
and
clergy
penitent
privilege
shall
be
ground
for
excluding
evidence
regarding
childhood.
Sexual
abuse,
assault
or
abuse
are
the
cause
thereof
when
an
exception
to
the
kentucky
rules
of
evidence
is
met,
as
the
chairman
pointed
out,.
E
Yeah,
maybe
some
peop.
The
attorneys
on
the
committee
can
answer
the
question,
but
it
was
my
impression
that
criminal
conduct
is
not
protected
by
professional
privilege
in
those
types
of
situations.
So,
for
instance,
if
you've
got
a
or
you
have
a
rape
and
you've
got
a
counselor
and
there's
an
investigation
that
that
the
prosecutor
is
allowed
to
discover
that
evidence
from
the
counselor.
Is
that
your
all's
impression?
That
was
my
impression?
C
K
J
J
C
M
M
Thank
you
very
much,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
today
and
express
our
concern
to
certain
provisions
in
in
this
bill.
Hb
472.,
my
name's
carrie
silverman,
I'm
here
behalf
of
the
american
tort
reform
is
association,
which
is
a
coalition
of
businesses,
municipalities
and
associations
that
support
a
balanced,
predictable
and
fair
civil
justice
system.
M
I'm
an
attorney
at
a
firm
called
shakardi
and
bacon
where
I've
practiced
for
20
years,
primarily
primarily
in
the
product,
liability,
consumer
and
appellate
law.
I'm
also
an
adjunct,
professor.
I
respect
the
courage
of
those
who
are
going
to
testify
in
support
of
this
bill
and
the
the
proponents
of
this
legislation.
M
Achara
has
no
issue
with
lengthening
the
time
to
bring
a
lawsuit
for
injuries
for
childhood
sexual
abuse
against
anyone
or
applying
that
longer
period
to
lawsuits
against
organizations
for
which
perpetrators
were
employees
or
volunteers.
Our
main
concern
with
the
bill
as
draft
is,
is
its
revival
of
time-barred
claims
with
any
statute
of
limitations.
M
We
believe
that
kentucky
should
adhere
to
the
fundamental
legal
principles
that
govern
all
civil
claims,
and
that
is
you
know
that
statutes
of
limitations,
one
should
be
a
finite
period
of
time
to
file
and
that
changes
to
the
limitations
period
should
be
made
prospectively
and
they
shouldn't
revive
claims
after
the
time
to
file
them
has
ended.
The
reviver
in
this
bill
strays
from
those
principles
by
reviving
any
claim
that
was
barred,
because
the
statute
of
limitations
expired
during
a
five-year
window
period.
M
An
actress
concerned
with
the
approach
and
the
precedent
that
this
type
of
provision
provides
for
other
types
of
claims
in
the
future,
and
I
understand
that
some
may
view
statutes
of
limitations
as
as
an
arbitrary
time
to
bring
a
claim
and,
and
others
may
consider
them
as
just
a
way
for
defendants
to
avoid
liability
on
a
technicality.
But
the
core
reason
that
we
have
statutes
of
limitations,
which
can
be
overlooked
is
to
make
sure
that
judges
and
juries
can
make
decisions
about
liability
based
on
the
best
evidence
available.
M
But
I'll
I'll
speak
on
that
in
a
moment
is
that
in
many
cases
you
may
have
a
perpetrator
that
is
is
dead,
that
the
employees
who
worked
at
the
organization
are
are
gone
and
any
records,
because
there
was
no
inkling
that
there
would
be.
Liability
have
been
discarded
along
with
whatever
document
retention
policies
were
were
set
and
may
be
set
in
accordance
with
what
the
statute
of
limitations
was
and
where.
M
We
don't
change
them
retroactively.
We're
very
concerned
about
the
precedent.
This
sets
continuing
down
this
path
and
reviving
time
barred
claims
of
any
kind.
It's
understandable
to
view
childhood
sexual
abuse
as
involving
such
horrific
conduct
that
there
should
be
an
exception
to
the
rules
that
apply
to
other
claims,
but
but
tort
law.
M
Just
for
example,
there's
many
other
areas
where
statutes
of
limitations
will
seem
unfair
and
arbitrary
when
viewed
in
an
individual
case.
But
we
need
to
consider
the
broad
public
policy
reasons
why
we
have
them
and
if
we
set
aside
a
statute
of
limitations
here,
you
can
expect
others
to
seek
similar
treatment
for
product
liability
claims,
environmental
claims
and
ms
others
we're
already
starting
to
see
that
slippery
slope
begin
and
and
as
mentioned
earlier
today,
you're
not
only
is
reviving
time
board
claims
problematic
from
a
public
policy
perspective.
M
As
I
said,
it
also
may
be
unconstitutional
and
I'm
not
a
kentucky
lawyer.
But
I've
spent
some
time
before
this
hearing
researching
whether
kentucky's
constitutional
law
is
consistent
with
most
other
states,
and
most
other
states
recognize
that
a
legislature
cannot
take
away
vested
rights,
which
includes
reviving
time
broad
claims.
Now
there
are
exceptions
in
some
states,
but
but
this
is
not
a
state
where
we
have
those
exceptions
and
what
I
found
that
is
for
well.
M
Over
a
century,
the
kentucky
supreme
court
has
consistently
said
that
a
legislature
can
extend
the
period
to
file
a
claim
before
a
statute
of
limitations
expires,
but
it
can't
permit
a
claim
once
the
time
to
file
it
has
run
and
that's
a
principle.
That's
actually
important
for
both
plaintiffs
and
defendants.
It
protects
plaintiffs
by
allowing
the
legislature
by
not
allowing
the
legislature
to
retroact
retroactively,
shorten
the
statute
of
limitations,
say
a
future
legislature
came
in
and
changed
the
10-year
period.
M
M
Well,
I'd
be
happy
to
just
one
more
moment,
mr
chapman,
just
contrary
to
what
you
may
have
heard.
Most
states
haven't
taken
this
approach
about
a
third
of
states
have
revived
time
board
claims,
but
most
of
those
states
have
had
significant
limitations
on
the
revived
claims,
limiting
them,
for
example,
to
perpetrators
to
knowing
or
criminal
conduct
to
gross
negligence.
L
L
L
I
think
it's
pretty
accurate,
too,
and
so
for
let's
say
if
you're
wanting
entity
liability
for
an
individual's
actions,
you
would
have
to
show-
and
I'm
going
to
use
this
in
the
in
the
case
of
an
employee
who
commits
child
abuse,
you
would
have
to
show
that
the
entity
knew
or
should
have
known,
that
its
employee
was
doing
that
to
make
entity
or
employer
liability
and
was
negligent
in
not
stopping
it.
The
second
scenario
is
if
the
employer
knew
that
the
employee
was
doing
this,
I.e
the
explorer's
case
and
specifically
helped
cover
it
up.
L
That's
a
total,
separate
and
distinct
cause
of
action
again,
which
I
think
if
it
was
just
lack
of
knowledge,
lack
of
supervision,
that's
a
negligent
claim,
negligence
claim
and
and
the
carrier
would
be
responsible.
But
if
there
was
a
concerted
effort
to
conceal,
which
in
and
of
itself
is
a
criminal
act,
that
exclusionary
provision
would
basically
keep
the
carrier
from
having
liability.
M
Yes
I'll
agree
with
that
senator
stivers.
There
are
two
types
of
claims.
Negligence
claims
are
going
to
be
the
ones
that
are
easier
to
meet
and
involve
a
broader
range
of
of
conduct,
and
there
are
going
to
be
claims
that
may
allege
intentional
torts
where
an
insurer
may
have
a
defense
that
the
policy
coverage
would
not
apply.
E
Thank
you.
We're
gonna
call
an
audible.
It's
that
time
in
the
session.
You
know
how
we
have
those
scenarios.
What
happens
if
the
president's
gone
and
the
vice
president's
gone?
That's
what
we're
experiencing.
Now
we
have
our
chairman
out
presenting
a
bill.
We
have
our
vice
chairman
out
presenting
a
bill
now,
I'm
in
charge,
I'm
as
a
former
vice
chairman
they've
allowed
me
some
leeway
here.
So
we're
going
to
table
representative
beckler
we're
going
to
table
your
bill
momentarily.
E
N
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chair
and
committee,
and
I
know
this
is
a
very
busy
time-
we're
all
shifting
back
and
forth
trying
to
get
things
done
at
the
last
minute,
but
this
is
a
very
good
bill.
I
am
representative
kim
mosher
for
the
record
and
I
do
have
some
guests
with
me,
whom
I
will
allow
to
introduce
themselves.
N
E
E
N
Please
proceed
all
the
committee
sub
does
is
cleans
up
language
for
aoc
in
terms
of
the
documents
that
are
given
to
the
incarcerated
individual
just
strikes
the
language
that
it
set
on
sec.
In
section
one
sub
sub
one
a
to
be
provided
by
the
administrated
administrative
office
of
the
court
at
no
cost
to
the
department.
They
were
not
sure
that
they
could
make
that
happen,
but
they
are
very
willing
to
work
with
us
and
the
local
jails
and
then
section
two.
It
just
adds
a
provision
that
includes
a
curriculum
on
employment.
N
This
is
something
that
they
use
in
various
jails.
We
just
want
to
standardize
this,
it's
very
popular
apparently
so.
For
many
reasons,
we
know
that
individuals
who
are
incarcerated,
lack
skills
that
it
are
are
necessary
to
re-enter
society
and
function
as
productive
members
of
society
and
in
families.
This
legislation
seeks
to
encourage
individuals
to
gain
the
skills
and
the
education
necessary
to
enter
the
workforce
and
to
reintegra
reintegrate.
Excuse
me
I'm
trying
to
go
fast.
N
This
will
help
individuals
obtain
the
documents
that
are
essential
to
gaining
employment.
It
will
increase
individuals,
confidence
through
job
training
and
resume
building,
and
it
incentivizes
employers
to
give
individuals
opportunities
and
be
the
second
chance
employer
by
providing
limited
liability
protections
for
the
employer,
while
ensuring
that
individuals
can
then
provide
for
themselves
and
their
families.
O
E
A
L
E
L
E
J
E
O
E
O
A
Thank
you,
certain
representative
moser.
I
would
like
to
echo
what
senator
strickland
just
said.
I
I
think
this
is
a
great
bill,
wonderful
bill.
I
think
it's
something
needed.
I
would
love
to
add
that
we
have
to
have
their
eyes
examined
and
give
them
glasses
before
they
get
discharged
so
that
they
can
actually
get
their
driver's
licenses
and
get
to
work.
But
that's
not
my
question.
A
My
question
is
under
this
little
section:
the
department
shall
provide
an
individual
whose
certificate
of
employability
has
been.
Oh
wait.
No,
no,
no!
No!
No!
No!
Okay
line
before
it.
The
department
shall
revoke
the
certificate
of
employability,
provided
under
this
section
of
any
individual
who
is
convicted
of
a
felony
after
receiving
a
certificate
of
employability.
A
N
That
is
an
interesting
question.
Thank
you
for
that
senator
the
the
revocation
piece
section
in
this
bill
it
I,
I
think
that
there
are
two
issues.
I
think
that
there's
an
earlier
section
of
the
bill
that
talks
about,
if
a
if
a
person
has
a
certain
crime,
has
committed
a
certain
crime.
For
example,
if
they
were
a
a
health
care
professional
with
a
substance
use
disorder,
this
does
not
preclude
them
from
they.
They
it
doesn't
preclude
them
from
having
to
deal
with
that
issue
separately.
Does
that
make
sense?
N
A
N
Right
right-
and
I
I
think
I
understand
your
concern
and
I
would
agree
that,
if
someone's
gone
through
the
training
that
we
wouldn't
want
to
automatically
revoke
that
training
just
because
they
were
incarcerated,
so
I
don't
know
if
this
I,
I
don't
think
that
this
would
repeal
any
sort
of
law
that
pertains
to
that
particular
order
issue.
Does
that
make
sense?
Okay,.
E
K
O
E
P
O
E
H
I
would
hope,
under
section
10,
where
it
says
the
department
shall
notify
incoming
prisoners
of
the
possibility
of
earnest
certificate
employment
that
they
do,
that
in
writing
and
present
this
document
to
them
or
the
document
they
prepare
and
give
it
to
them.
So
they
can
read
it
so
they'll
know,
then,
that
what
challenge
they've
got
to
do
while
they're
in
there.
E
G
Okay
and
mr
chairman,
I
I
apologize.
I
had
a
to
present
a
bill
on
another
committee
representative,
moser
chairwoman,
moser
communicated
with
you
last
night
in
this
morning
and
expressed
some
concern,
and
maybe
you
all
have
already
talked
about
this,
but
I
understand
that
this
is
a
simple
document.
That's
really
nothing
more
than
a
record.
G
N
N
N
N
G
You
know
how
much,
how
much
strength
will
this
gather
over
the
years
and
how
much
more
pressure
will
be
put
on
employers
who
who
have
a
very
sensitive
clientele
to
to
hire
folks
that
are
out
of
prison?
And
that's
that's
what
worries
me
with
this
and,
mr
chairman,
I
would
like
to
cast
an
eye
vote
to
move
the
bill,
but
I
would
be
a
no
vote
as
far
as
consent.
E
E
K
C
C
Mr
chair
on
the
sub
motion
from
senator
schroeder,
second
from
who
senator
west
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
the
sub,
please
vote
by
saying,
aye
aye
motion
on
the
bill.
Miss
chair
motion
on
the
bill
from
senator
schroeder,
second,
from
senator
turner,
seeing
no
further
questions
and
it
having
been
debated
at
great
length,
and
I
appreciate
everyone's
patience.
Mr
secretary,
please
call
the
roll
on
house
bill
472
as
amended
by
the
sub.
J
C
C
Appreciate
everybody's
patience
as
we
had
to
work
through
everybody's
multi-committee
juggling
act
this
morning.
Unless
something
unexpected
happens,
I
believe
we've
just
finished
our
last
judiciary
meeting
of
the
session,
but
never
say
never,
that's
right.
Unless
motion
to
adjourn
made
and
seconded.
Thank
you.