►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Judiciary (3-1-23)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
A
B
D
Again,
state
representative
or
the
96th
District
I,
have
with
me
two
representatives
from
the
County
attorneys.
Association
I
will
let
them
introduce
themselves
there
at
the
table
here.
Also,
here
is
Lewis.
Kelly
Who
is
the
Commonwealth's
Attorney
in
Boone
County.
F
D
H
I
A
J
D
It
is
in
some
regards
a
somewhat
of
a
cleanup
bill
from
House
Bill
154
from
last
year
that
I
sponsored
and
passed,
but
also
has
some
new
additions
that
aren't
attempt
to
respond
to
situations
that
we
often
see
in
the
criminal
justice
context,
so
starting
on
page
two.
D
It
inserts
new
language,
standard
operating
procedures
and
Strikes
manufacturers,
instructions
or
instructions.
There
is
a
situation
with
an
intoxilizer
where
there's
a
manufacturer
that
does
not
have
instructions.
I
will
let
Mr
George,
explain
that
and
more
more
detail
so
that
attempts
to
clean
that
up
and
address
that
situation.
D
We
also
have
a
second
part
of
this
starts
on
the
bottom
of
page.
Two
rolls
over
to
page
three
indicates
that
the
mandatory
the
tension
on
a
DUI
rest
will
go
from
four
hours
to
six
hours
and
that
detainee
who
has
been
arrested
as
a
suspect
for
driving
of
the
influence
with
have
to
blow
zeros
to
be
released.
This
attempts
to
address
situations
where
actually
you
have
defendants
that
have
been
charged
that
are
actually
released
from
jail.
D
That
still
may
be
impaired
at
the
time
of
their
release.
There
are
situations
where,
upon
release,
those
persons
have
actually
been
involved
in
other
motor
vehicle
wrecks,
sometimes
causing
death
or
serious
physical
injury.
So
all
that
would
do
is
simply
state
that
they
would
have
to
indicate
that
you
know
they
are
not
impaired
by
alcohol.
At
the
time,
I
will
state
that
there
will
be
a
floor
Amendment.
It
was
intended
to
be
part
of
this
committee
sub
and
is
not
spoke
with
representative
Petrie
about
this
yesterday.
D
It
was
a
simple
oversight,
but
I
do
want
to
make
it
clear
that
the
floor
Amendment
will
state
that
this
subsequent
test
cannot
be
used
as
evidence
and
the
prosecution
personally
I
I,
don't
think
that
it's
relevant,
but
if
there
is
an
issue
on
that
that
floor,
Amendment
will
clean
that
language
up
and
address
that
situation
and
last
on
page,
three
I
believe
for
the
first
time
in
Kentucky.
This
would
create,
if
passed,
a
vehicular
homicide
statute,
which
would
be
a
class
B
felony.
D
Currently
prosecutors
are
faced
with
a
situation
when
they
have
a
DUI
that
results
in
the
death
of
someone.
They
can
charge
Class
A,
wanton
murder,
which
may
be
difficult
to
prove
or
they
can
go.
Class
C,
Man,
2
or
class
D
I
believe
Reckless
Reckless
homicide.
So
this
really
fills
the
Gap
and,
and
it
would
be
what
we
would
call
a
strict
liability
crime,
but
I
think
it
really
fills
the
Gap
and
fits
something.
That's
that's
needed
in
our
nrkrs
laws
on
driving
Under
the
Influence
be
glad
to
let
Mr
George
to
my
right.
D
F
If
I
may,
yes,
you
may
thank
you,
the
I
think
we
have
to
go
back
to
1990
1991
when
this
legislature
adopted
189
a
300
which
requires
the
state
to
furnish
I'll
call
them
intoxilizers
for
every
County
in
Kentucky
at
State
cost.
That
was
the
in
effect,
enabling
legislation
that
made
it
where
every
County
would
have
an
intoxilizer.
F
At
that
time
they
were
called
breathalyzers
and
over
time
they
renamed
two
intoxilizers
early
versions
of
that
did
have
an
operator's
instruction
manual.
The
later
versions
did
not
I
am
not
clear
when
the
legislature
made
it
a
requirement
that
manufacturers
instructions
be
referenced
and
adhered
to
in
in-breath
testing,
but
it
became
evident
that
it's
now
a
matter
of
impossibility
of
performance
for
us
as
prosecutors
to
establish
that
it
was
done
according
to
those
instructions
because
they
don't
exist,
and
some
judges
are
saying.
A
There's
a
committee
sub,
so
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
adopt
the
committee
sub.
Second,
so
there's
a
motion
by
Representatives,
sharp
and
a
second
by
representative
nemes
to
to
adopt
the
sub
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye.
Those
opposed
no
in
the
committee
sub
is
adopting
now
I.
Think
I'll
entertain
a
motion
on
the
bill
as
amended
by
the
sub.
It's
all
moved
for
adoption
motion
by
representative
nemus.
Second
by
representative
Sharp
secretary.
Please
call
the
roll.
G
Is
one
okay,
representative,
Petrie
yeah?
Thank
you
Mr,
chairman
and
representative
Flannery.
Thank
you
for
talking
to
me
about
this
bill
yesterday.
I
think
the
amendment
you're
talking
about
will
meet
that
and
I
think
the
discussion
about
the
need
for
the
instructions,
the
standards
as
opposed
to
the
instructions
of
the
machines,
good
separate
question,
just
asking:
if
you
have
it
I
know
that
we've
got
we're
going
up
to
six
hours
from
four
hours
on
page
three.
G
That
line
one
is
what
data
and
Analysis
do
we
have
that
says
going
from
four
to
six
is
warranted,
as
opposed
to
four
to
five
four
to
seven
four
to
eight.
If
it's
anecdote,
that's
fine
I'm,
not
really
interested
in
that,
but
I
wonder
if
there's
any
data
analysis
that
says
why
we're
moving
to
a
particular
different
number,
please
I'll.
D
Address
that
I
don't
have
any
specific
data.
That's
just
really
more
of
a
personal
judgment,
call
based
upon
anecdotal
evidence
and
based
upon
the
fact
that,
hopefully,
that
additional
two
hours
will
give
someone
in
the
proverbial
trunk
take
the
opportunity
to
sober
up
and-
and
it's
really
more
of
a
an
issue
to
be
sure
when
they
are
released,
that
they
will
not
continue
to
be
harm
to
anyone
on
public
roadways.
D
A
C
I
just
have
one
question:
if,
if
a
zero
is
required
to
get
out
of
jail,
what
happens
in
the
case
of
refusal
when
you
see
that
sometimes
they
just
refuse
to
take
intoxic
test?
Are
they
in
jail
until
they
see
a
judge.
D
I
believe
that
should
be
be
covered
in
that,
but
that
kind
of
goes
back
to
the
other
issue
of
the
floor.
Amendment
will
address
that
that
can't
be
used
to
against
the
defendant.
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
that's
fair
and
that's
really,
in
my
opinion,
not
relevant
to
the
underlying
charge.
But
that's
why
the
it
was
intended
for
that
to
be
addressed
more
clearly
in
this
committee
sub,
but
making
a
rush
to
make
sure
we
got
within
the
24-hour
rule
that
erroneously
excluded
Mr
George.
You
have
anything
else,
you'll
accept.
F
I
believe
that's
addressed
in
effect,
when
it
references
any
person
who
has
arrested
for
a
violation
of
the
subsection
subsection
B
would
be
standard
driving,
Under,
the
Influence
with
no
number,
which
would
typically
so
it's
addressed
in
that
fact,
and.
L
B
H
E
M
B
K
K
B
A
With
17,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes,
three
pass
votes,
House
Bill,
262
with
house
committee
substitute,
is
passed
and
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass.
There
is
a
title
amendment.
Is
there
a
motion
to
adopt
the
title,
Amendment
motion
by
reps
and
Petrie's
or
second,
to
adopt
the
title?
Amendment.
L
A
A
N
N
A
N
Thank
you
so
much
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
just
speak
to
the
bill,
as
amended
by
the
committee
sub.
All
this
bill
does
is
removes
fentanyl
test
strips
from
the
statutes
around
paraphernalia.
We
feel
that
this
is
important
and
and
I
should
say:
I've
got
some
esteemed
guests
with
me,
so
maybe
I
should
go
ahead
and
let
them
introduce
themselves
for.
E
O
N
N
Okay,
thank
you
and
we
do
have
others
on
hand
to
speak
to
this
bill
and
certainly
answer
questions.
If
we
should
have
any
we.
As
you
heard,
we
have
support
from
the
Attorney
General's
office,
the
chiefs
of
police,
the
Commonwealth
attorneys
and
the
ACLU
dream.org
and
the
Bluegrass
Institute.
This
has
broad
support
on.
A
A
N
Okay,
have
a
few
words.
Thank
you,
I
think
I'll
leave
that
up
to
you
yeah.
Thank
you.
So
much
Mr,
chair,
I,
think
that
would
be
really
good,
because
yeah
I
think
this
is
an
important
issue
that
we
really
should
have
a
little
bit
of
discussion
about
and
just
educating
folks
on
the
importance
of
this.
So
if
I
could
have
Mr
Hubbard
go
ahead.
O
Thank
you,
representative
Moser,
for
asking
me
to
be
up
here
with
you
and
Mr
chairman.
If
I
might,
I
will
just
like
to
read
a
letter
that
has
been
composed
today
for
this
very
event,
representative
Moser.
O
As
you
well
know,
Fentanyl
and
other
lethal
chemical
agents
pose
an
existential
threat
to
anyone
who
may
come
into
contact
with
them.
Given
the
Insidious
introduction
of
Fentanyl
and
other
chemical
agents
into
the
illicit
drug
Supply
chains,
the
risk
of
unintentional
exposure
to
these
agents
is
extraordinarily
High
in
order
to
equip
kentuckians
with
the
necessary
tools
to
prevent
accidental
lethal
chemical
exposure,
whether
they
be
individuals
affected
by
substance,
use
disorder
or
First
Responders,
who
are
dedicated
to
interdicting
harm
I
wish
to
express
support
for
House
Bill
353.
O
N
P
So,
as
I
said,
my
name
is
Sydney.
Romo
I
am
a
resident
of
Shelby
County.
I
am
here
to
be
a
voice
for
my
nephew,
Parker
Ryan.
His
mother
is
unable
to
be
here
today.
So,
as
I
said,
I
will
be
the
voice
for
our
family.
Parker
was
born
on
November
4th
2004..
He
was
a
beautiful
baby
boy
born
into
generational
curse
of
addiction.
He
was
the
only
boy
in
our
family
for
over
a
decade,
Parker
was
full
of
life.
He
was
funny
full
of
energy.
P
P
Although
he
was
surrounded
by
love,
he
had
to
grow
up
with
what
should
have
been
the
most
important
person
in
his
life,
which
was
his
mother,
and
she
was
unable
to
do
that
due
to
her
being
an
addict
as
well
as
an
addict
she
was
in
and
out
of
his
life.
She
wasn't
able
to
be
there
when
he
had
a
bad
day
at
school
or
to
help
him
grow
up,
help
him
with
his
homework
or
have
a
talk
with
him
just
as
a
mom.
P
P
P
P
He
was
experimenting
with
pills
to
numb
his
pain,
the
night
he
died.
He
thought
he
would
take
this
little
tiny
pill
to
go
to
sleep
and
get
up
and
go
to
school
the
next
day
and
he
never
woke
up
pill
contained
a
little
dose
of
fentanyl.
Parker
was
only
17
years
old,
had
Parker
been
educated
about
the
facts
of
Fentanyl
and
had
testing
strips
in
his
possession,
or
have
been
indicated.
Who
would
have?
Maybe
that
would
have
changed
his
opinion
on
taking
that
pill,
that
night
fentanyls
everywhere
from
metropolitan
areas
to
rural
areas?
P
Fentanyl
does
not
discriminate
and
no
matter
what
family
and
attic
comes
from
it
could
potentially
affect
any
of
you
sitting
here
today.
Parker's
mother,
which
is
my
sister,
got
clean
on
January
2022.
Parker
is
not
here
to
see
that
she
would
never
get
to
hold
him.
She
will
never
get
to
hold
get
that
relationship
with
him
as
a
mother,
and
he
will
never
get
to
see
how
she
overcame
her
addiction
like
she
wanted
to
help
him.
P
We
do
not
want
to
see
anybody
endure
on
a
daily
basis.
The
suffering
that
my
family
has
as
a
voice
for
my
nephew
I
plan
to
spread
awareness
about
the
lethal
drug
and
do
anything
I
can
to
possibly
save
another
child's
life.
Had
fentanyl
testing
strips
been
available
in
education
programs
about
the
dangers
of
fentanyl,
perhaps
he'd
be
alive.
Today,
too
many
families
are
affected
by
loved
ones,
struggling
with
addiction,
let's
get
together
and
do
everything
we
can
in
our
power
to
save
lives.
I.
P
L
Q
Q
H
I
K
A
A
The
next
item
that
we
will
hear
for
discussion
only
is
House
Bill
463,
which
is
an
act
relating
to
child
support
and
declaring
an
emergency
and
I
know.
We
have
several
distinguished
guests
with
us
that
we
need
to
from
out
of
state
and
otherwise
that
we'd
like
to
advance
so
I'll
turn
the
meeting
over
to
my
co-chair.
H
A
S
A
T
S
A
Well,
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee.
Our
objective
in
this
was
to
do
what
is
in
the
best
interests
of
Kentucky
children
and
families
and
to
and
to
develop
a
shared
parenting
time
adjustment
that
would
be
congruent
with
a
recently
adopted
Kentucky
statute,
probably
not
so
recent,
but
at
the
time
recent
that
provides
a
rebuttable
presumption
of
equal
time
sharing
or
equal
parenting
time.
H
Q
S
Thank
you.
This
process
began.
Actually.
Four
years
ago
we
were
given
the
directive
that
we
needed
to
change
the
child
support
schedules,
because
if
we
didn't,
we
were
going
to
lose
Federal
funding,
and
so
we
we
set
about
doing
that,
and
we
did
that
and
that
what
was
received
great
remarks
from
our
colleagues
around
the
state.
After
that
we
decided.
S
You
know
that
really
doesn't
go
towards
the
the
heart
of
what
we're
trying
to
accommodate
as
far
as
who's
caring
for
the
child,
who's
providing
Etc.
So
we
said
about
this,
and
the
reason
I
have
judge
masterton
I
ask
her
to
be
here
is
because
this
has
been
worked
on
even
prior
to
that
four-year
period,
and
there
was
some
confusion
that
happened
in
our
very
first
meeting
where
she
kept
talking
about
Dr,
Vador
and
I
said
well.
We
also
have
used
a
Dr
veneur,
and
things
had
transcended
during
that
time.
S
So
we
had
to
get
on
the
same
wavelength
so
that
we're
talking
about
the
same
thing
so
Dr
venura,
that's
here,
is
a
renowned
expert
across
our
nation
in
child
support
and
she's
been
working
with
us
through
this
process.
For
those
attorneys
in
the
room.
You
know,
there's
the
Colorado
rule,
there's
the
Arizona
rule,
there's
the
Oregon
rule,
there's
the
Oregon
Arizona
Rule,
and
we
wanted
to
set
about
to
create
what
we
do
here
in
Kentucky.
And
so
we
looked
at
those
variety
of
models.
We've
talked
with
many
judges.
We
had
judges
on
the
committee.
S
We
wanted
to
simplify
the
process
and,
if
you'll
remember
we
passed
when
I
was
part
of
the
legislature,
we
passed
a
bill
allowing
the
child
support
office
to
create
a
manual
that
would
help
show
how
this
was
going
to
be
done
efficiently
and
timely
and
easily
for
purposes
of
computation.
So,
in
the
past
year
and
I
worked
on
this
up
until
December
when
I
left
the
legislature
we
worked,
we
had
have
meetings
monthly
and
we
went
through
this
and
we
worked
with
the
drafter.
We
worked
with
judge
masterton.
S
We
worked
with
Lexington
Sowers
who's,
the
drafter
that
has
now
left
us
and
gone
on
to
another
Horizon.
We've
worked
with
Steve
Vino
who's
here
in
the
room
with
us.
Today
we
worked
with
his
assistant
Lily
who's
in
the
room
with
us
here
today
and
putting
this
all
together.
This
bill
reflects
what
that
group
came
up
with
as
the
best
solution
to
deal
with
this
issue.
S
It
needs
to
be
dealt
with
because,
right
now
it
can
be
dealt
with
differently
in
counties
across
the
state,
so
some
will
use
the
Colorado
method
so
I'm
using
other
methods.
Some
use
and
judges
have
wide
discretion,
as
we
know,
especially
family
law
judges,
as
far
as
they
Implement
that
into
their
courtrooms
and
part
of
the
issue
in
my
area
at
least,
is
that
you
might
have
judges
in
the
same
Courthouse
that
apply
it
differently.
S
You
might
have
judges
that
are
across
counties,
but
there
are
joining
County
that
apply
it
differently,
so
our
goal
was
to
create
a
systemic
process
that
allows
this
to
be
applied
equitably
and
accurately
through
the
state.
So
that's
the
basis
of
the
bill
again.
This
has
been
the
reason
we
had
it
last
year.
If
you
remember,
we
actually
repealed
a
portion
of
the
bill
and
set
it
forward.
So
we
need
to
act
on
something
within
this
legislative
cycle
in
order
to
make
this
work
with
the
child
support
tables
that
have
already
been
authorized.
T
I
didn't
bring
any
prepared,
come
I'm
thrilled
to
be
here,
I'm
thrilled
that
we're
really
coming
up
with
something,
and
mostly
what
I
am
happy
about,
is
that
the
committee
has
continued
to
work
with
Dr
vanour,
because
when
I
was
a
chair
of
the
commission,
one
of
the
frustrations
that
we
had
was.
We
really
didn't
understand
it
as
well
as
we
should
have,
and
Dr
benore
brought
a
tremendous
amount
of
expertise
to
this
topic
when
I
left,
we
had
proposed
the
Oregon
formula,
which
the
commit
commission
really
approved
of
this
is
a
different
idea.
T
Well,
it's
a
it's
a
different
formula,
but
it's
the
same
idea,
which
is
that
you
have
gradual
adjustments
and
I
I
think
we
could
have
still
have
plenty
of
debate
about
whether
this
is
perfect,
but
I
guess.
My
message
is
that
I'd
prefer
that
pretty
darn
good
not
not
succumb
to
Perfection
as
a
goal,
and
nobody
can
describe
what
Perfection
is
anyway.
So
I
believe
that
we
have,
through
this
process,
come
up
with
a
formula
that
is
workable.
T
I
really
believe
the
major
danger
that
we
have
been
saddled
with
forever
is
that
judges
couldn't
get
on
the
same
page
and
the
whole
idea
of
child
support
guidelines
is
to
simplify
and
and
develop
consistency
across
the
state
so
that
it
doesn't
matter
whether
you
live
in
Louisville
or
in
Pikeville.
The
formula
will
be
the
same
and
that's
what
this
bill
accomplishes.
That's
the
major
major
in
my
view,
benefit
to
this
bill.
T
It
also
is
pretty
easy
to
figure
out
we'll
get
some
worksheets
that
will
work,
I,
think
and
so
I
bottom
line
I
thank
Dr
venor
for
her
expertise
and
I.
Thank
the
work
of
representative
Massey
and
everyone
else.
Who's
worked
on
this
project,
I'm,
happy
to
say,
I,
think
we've
gotten
a
pretty
darn
good
result
here.
One.
S
Thing
I
did
neglect
to
mention
in
my
comments
was
the
fact
that
there
was
a
big
concern
that
there
was
going
to
be
this
barrage
of
litigation.
If
we
do
this
change,
that
was
a
real
concern
that
it
was
just
going
to
open
the
floodgates
of
of
litigation
and
people
were
going
to
be
in
court
and
the
judges
were
going
to
be
more
overwhelmed
than
they
already
are
and
I
know,
representative
Dietz
and
I
both
practice
in
Northern
Kentucky,
and
it's
not
uncommon.
S
It
wasn't
uncommon
to
go
to
Boone
County
and
be
there
until
8
pm
at
night,
trying
to
deal
with
cases
and
that's
because
the
large
onslaught
of
of
things
that
they
have
to
deal
with,
but
I
will
say
that
we've
talked
with
the
people
in
Oregon.
We've
talked
about
people
in
Arizona
and
both
of
them
said
that
it
was
a
nil
effect.
S
There
was
really
not
a
barrage
of
litigation
that
there
was
initially
some
trainings
that
had
to
be
done
to
bring
people
up
to
speed,
and
that
is
part
of
the
manual
process
that
this
body
passed
last
year
and
there
will
be
some
trainings.
That
will
be
involved
with
judges
with
County
attorneys
and
with
practitioners,
and
the
goal
again
is
to
get
us
all
on
the
same
page.
E
U
Please,
oh
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
all
the
Kudos,
but
I
I
really
do
have
to
throw
it
back
on
the
people
of
Kentucky.
You
know
this
was
a
very
much
a
group
effort
in
two
years,
where
they've
done
their
homework
as
far
as
looking
at
all
other
state
guidelines,
as
far
as
their
time
sharing
Miss
Richardson
from
Oregon's
on
this
call.
U
U
L
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I.
Just
briefly,
we
were
very
happy
to
work
with
Kentucky
to
discuss
this
issue.
Q
The
art
guidelines,
reviews
and
I
addressed
the
very
issue
regarding
a
lot
of
litigation
around
what
we
call
the
cliff
effect
where
there
was
no
parenting
time
credit
given
for
persons
with
just
a
very
little
amount
of
time
and
in
the
end
there
was
a
lot
of
litigation
about
how
many
overnights
here
and
there
we
were
able,
in
our
guidelines
to
find
a
solution
that
was
very
incremental
and
was
able
to
achieve,
and
I
will
underscore
this,
that
it
removed
the
the
argument
and
the
litigation
regarding
parenting,
time
credits
and
that
parenting
time,
because
it
was
so
incremental
that
one
day
here
or
another
night
there
did
not
make
a
a
significant
difference,
but
it
also
honored
the
parent
in
time
that
was
shared
between
both
parents
and
recognized.
Q
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
coming
today.
I
I
understand
that
you've
done
a
great
deal
of
work,
but
can
you
very
succinctly,
I
mean
I'm,
not
a
lawyer
so,
and
I
I
don't
practice
family
law.
Can
you
very
succinctly
tell
us
what
the
problem
is
that
we're
solving
here
and
exactly
how
this
addresses
it.
S
So
the
problem
is,
is
that
now
that
we
have
new
child
support
tables
and
we
had
those
figures
in
place
and
we
had
this
presumption,
whether
we
like
it
or
not,
that
there's
shared
parenting
that
if
there's
shared
parenting,
it's
not
never
50
50.,
it
cannot
be
50
50
Because,
unless
both
parents
are
so
wealthy
that
they
don't
have
to
work,
and
they
can
do
week
on
week
off
or
you
know
something
of
that
nature.
They
have
to
work
around
their
job
schedules.
S
So
what's
happened
in
some
cases
is
that
some
people
are
getting
inappropriate
credit
because
they
really
don't
have
the
child
maybe
except
overnight,
and
then
some
are
getting
enough
credit
because
they
actually
have
the
child
more
than
what
is
reflected
in
their
agreement
or
their
agreed
order.
So
the
the
on
the
bill
on
page
three
of
35,
it's
a
long
bill.
You
can
see
the
language
in
there
specifically
at
the
bottom,
starting
at
line
17
through
line
25.
S
It
shows
the
parenting
time
days
and
then
it
shows
the
adjustment
percentage
and
the
reason
that's
in
there
like
that
is
to
eliminate
that
Cliff
effect
that
they
were
talking
about
where,
where
one
night
in
essence
could
make
a
huge
difference
in
the
child
support
computation.
That
is
not
the
intent
here,
because
if
that
were
the
case,
it
would
create
that
litigation
event,
because
everybody
would
run
in
if
they
got
one
more
night,
they
would
run
back
in
and
file
litigation
trying
to
get
that
offset
on
their
child
support.
S
V
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
being
here
today.
So
as
background
I'm,
a
family
law
attorney
have
been
for
29
30
years
and
I.
Think
the
Judge
I
took
training
under
you
for
my
mediation,
so
I
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
you
all
put
into
this
I
have
some
concerns
which
I
have
voiced
to
chair
Elliott
and
I
also
know
since
I'm
new
I'm
six
months
behind
so
with
that
being
said,
I
have
concerns
we're
not
Oregon
and
we're
not
Arizona
work.
The
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
I,
don't
know
how
their
courts
are.
V
Organized
I
can
tell
you
that
in
Northern
Kentucky
and
since
we
are
now
in
Family
Court
we've
added
a
new
judge,
we've
had
elections,
we
have
new
judges
in
all
our
counties.
They're
pushing
every
we'll
just
set
this
for
15
minutes.
Come
back.
We're
going
to
set
this
for
15
minutes
come
back,
so
we
have
problems
gaining
access
to
the
courts.
Still
I
think
and
I
raised
that
issue,
because
I
think
what
this
does
is.
It
could
promote
litigation
and
I
heard
everything
you
all
said:
parents
fight
over
what
does
an
overnight
mean?
V
V
V
V
That
I
should
be
able
to
do
in
front
of
my
client
in
60
seconds
when
they're
in
my
office
for
a
consultation
causes
me
heartburn
I'm
also
concerned
that
the
County
attorneys
are
going
to
get
into
the
practice,
then
of
creating
parenting
schedules,
because
my
clients
I
give
them
the
option
when
they
call
and
say
I
think
that
I
you
know
he
bought
a
new
car.
He
must
have
more
money,
we'll
go
to
the
child
support
office.
They
can
run
the
numbers
for
free.
Then
come
back
to
me.
V
If
you're
not
satisfied
the
County
Attorney
can't
get
into
parenting
time.
That's
that's
not
part
of
their
job.
Their
job
is
to
run
the
numbers
and
I
don't
speak
for
the
County
attorneys,
but
I
would
think
that
if
they
have
W-2
employees,
it's
a
much
easier
job
for
them.
Now
that
we're
going
to
tie
parenting
time
to
their
job
they're,
going
to
be
sending
all
these
people
back
to
their
private
practitioners
and
so
I
think
it's
going
to
increase
costs
for
our
citizens
that
normally
go
back
and
they
can
work
with
the
county
attorney.
V
So
those
are
just
some
of
my
concerns.
The
last
thing
I'll
say
is
I
also
have
the
honor
that
I'm,
a
fellow
in
the
American
Academy
of
matrimonial
lawyers,
I,
did
reach
out
to
our
chapter
in
Kentucky
and
I:
don't
speak
for
them,
but
I
can
tell
you
the
emails
I
got
back,
they
were
the
same
concerns.
I
had
is
that
this
is
going
to
increase
litigation
and
and
is
going
to
decrease
our
ability
to
be
able
to
work
through
agreements
without
going
to
court.
V
H
S
T
You
I
will
try
way
back
when,
when
we
were
considering
the
Oregon
formula
I
reached
out
to
members
of
the
aaml
in
Oregon
to
see,
because
that
was
my
fear
too,
that
whatever
we
did
was
going
to
create
more
litigation
and
the
message
I
got
and
I
didn't
pull
all
of
them,
but
just
randomly.
If
you
talk
to
a
few
and
the
message
I
got,
was
that
almost
immediately
litigation
went
away
and
I
think
because
you
have
a
gradual
adjustment
rather
than
a
cliff.
T
The
incremental
change
is
so
small,
almost
regardless
of
how
you
define
a
day
that
it's
not
going
to
promote
litigation,
so
I
felt
comfortable
based
on
those
conversations.
I
understand
that
I've
heard
the
same
comments
that
people
are
concerned
about
defining
a
day,
but
we
have
to
figure
out
some
way
to
have
an
adjustment.
Otherwise,
what
we
have
now
is
just
unworkable.
L
Thank
you
I
have
some
comments
on
this
bill.
It
needs
work
at
the
bottom
of
page
three
lines:
26
and
27.
We
say
that
failure
for
one
party
to
consistently
comply
with
a
parenting
schedule
shall
be
grounds
for
the
other
party
to
seek
modification
for
the
court.
This
bill
does
nothing
to
Define
what
consistently
comply
means
now.
L
I
do
understand
that
above
there
is
a
schedule
which
Alters
the
days
and-
and
you
may
make
an
inference
there,
but
without
a
definition
it
leaves
it
into
my
hands
as
a
family
law
attorney
to
decide
whether
or
not
I
want
to
file
a
motion
and
bring
that
other
party
into
court.
It's
a
discretionary
issue
that
certainly
needs
some
work.
So
in
some
ways
this
build
does
tend
to
increase
the
potential
for
litigation
and
in
another,
very
critical
way.
It
absolutely
abolishes
any
ability
for
some
people
to
go
in
and
to
get
relief.
L
Our
Supreme
Court
recently
considered
the
case
of
McCarthy
V
Farid
Kenneth
Faried
was
an
NBA
basketball
player.
He
made
millions
of
dollars.
The
primary
purpose
of
Child
Support
is
to
put
that
child
in
the
same
position,
regardless
of
which
parent
they're
with
so
in
the
Supreme
Court
in
that
case
said
certainly
our
guidelines
into
the
point,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
child
support
ends.
Child
support
continues
based
on
the
income
of
the
parents
at
the
top
of
page
four,
on
the
bill
that
we've
been
provided
with.
L
It
says
a
party
May
seek
modification
following
a
15
change
in
the
number
of
time
sharing
days,
that's
essentially
the
same
as
our
current
statute.
If
the
sentence
ended
there,
I
wouldn't
have
a
problem
afterward
it
says
and
shall
have
the
burden
of
proving
a
material
change
in
time-sharing
circumstances.
One
party's
income
could
change
by
a
million
dollars
and
the
other
party
could
not
come
in
to
modify
child
support
unless
time
sharing
changed,
which
once
people
have
resolved
and
figured
out
and
gotten
to
equal
parenting
time,
it's
not
going
to
change.
L
S
You
no
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
Steve,
Vino
and
Lily
Patterson
are
here
in
the
room.
I
would
certainly
encourage
any
member
of
this
committee
to
talk
to
them.
They
can
explain
a
lot
of
the
things
that
were
raised.
I
will
tell
you
that
we've
worked
on
this
every
month
for
two
years.
There
will
never
be
a
perfect
Bill
I've
heard
it
said
committee
after
committee
meeting.
This
will
require
work
in
the
future,
as
all
bills
do
and
that's
why
the
Committees
have
the
ability
to
repeal
pass
Etc.
S
A
W
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
be
in
front
of
you
all
today
in
front
of
the
committee.
There
is
a
committee
substitute
in.
W
I'm
hopeful
this
is
you
all
encounter
this
session.
Here
is
my
goal.
There
is
on
the
first
page.
We
do
change.
The
word
from
a
series
of
to
multiple
is
the
main
meat
of
this
bill,
and
this
came
specifically
from
an
employer
that
contacted
me
with
the
concern
of
the
opportunity
for
him
having
an
employee
that
was
having
difficulty
getting
expungements
because
of
the
crimes
that
he
had
committed
in
the
past
that
he
had
felonies
at
a
very
young
age
and
several
years
later,
the
circumstances
come
about
for
him
to
try
to
get
an
expungement.
W
He
was
told
that
he
could
only
have
one
expungement
per
felony.
His
specific
item
was
due
to
cold
checks
and
there
were
multiple
cold
checks
and
my
understanding
is
kind
of
the
interpretation
of
the
judges
and
the
courts,
and
things
like
that,
whether
or
not
they
can
have
one
felony
expunge
or
if
they
could
have
multiple.
So
that
was
with
the
change
at
that.
W
We
also,
if
you
go
further
back
into
the
bill
and
pay
age
four
at
the
time
that
we
did
the
some
of
the
expungement
work
in
2019
it
put
where
you
could
only
have
one
expungement
beyond
that
time
period,
and
so
we
have
stricken
that
so
that
you
would
have
the
opportunity
to
apply
for
multiple
expungements
and
the
main
thing
that
comes
out
of.
Hopefully,
this
bill
the
opportunity
for
more
of
our
people
that
have
a
felony
on
their
record,
multiple
felonies,
that
this
changed
nothing
about
their
charges.
W
A
D
N
K
K
A
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
I'm
going
to
say
about
a
sentence
about
what
the
bill
does
and
then
I'm
going
to
throw
it
over
to
these
gentlemen,
who
will
give
a
very
brief
history
of
vpa,
which
I
think
is
important
to
the
question
and
then
I'll
close
in
a
sentence
or
two
and
then
and
then
we'll
be
ready
to
roll
in
a
sentence?
What
this
does
what
this
bill
does
is
it
brings
the
Louisville
Public
Advocacy
Office
Under,
the
Umbrella
of
the
state
system.
K
There
are
currently
no
offices,
except
for
Louisville's,
that
is
outside
the
state
system
and
as
we're
going
to
hear
right
now,
it's
it's
time
to
bring
Louisville's
under
the
the
state's
umbrella,
so
Mr
Lewis.
Yes,.
J
I'm
going
to
be
very
brief
and
I'm
going
to
talk
about
the
context
for
this
bill,
starting
with
1963,
when
the
obligation
for
providing
counsel
to
poor
people
charged
with
a
crime
was
imposed
on
the
state
in
Gideon
versus
Wainwright.
J
This
General
Assembly
passed
KRS
chapter
31,
which
created
the
Office
of
Public
Defender,
now
known
as
the
Department
of
Public
advocacy
from
1972
until
1982
Council
was
provided
and
CA
and
counties
had
a
responsibility
for
funding
Council.
Even
though
it
was
a
state
responsibility
in
1982,
the
public
advocacy
commission
was
created
and
this
general
assembly
at
the
same
time
eliminated
the
assigned
council
plan
gradually
from
1982.
J
Until
1996
counties
dropped
out
like
flies,
they
could
not
afford
to
pay
for
the
state
responsibility
when
I
was
appointed
by
Governor
Patton
in
1996,
47
counties
were
full-time,
covering
those
counties
that
had
dropped
out
and
73
counties
were
still
using.
What
was
called
a
plan
and
a
plan
was
something
the
county
was
following
to
provide
funding
for
Public
Defender
Services,
the
public
advocacy
Commission
in
1992
set
out
a
complete
full-time
system
as
their
primary
goal.
J
J
I
think
it
was
31
offices
by
that
point
by
2005,
only
two
counties
were
not
in
the
state
system
where
there
were
full-time
state
employees
providing
services,
and
that
was
Fayette
in
Jefferson
in
2007,
Fayette
County,
converted
from
a
locally
funded
locally
operated
full-time
office
to
a
state
office
leaving
only
Jefferson,
County,
Jefferson
County
remained
remained
outside
the
state
system
from
2007
and
glaringly
so
I
would
add
this
bill
cleans
that
up
brings
Jefferson
County
into
the
system
and
I.
Think
it's
a
great
Bill
and
thank
representative
nemes
for
this.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman.
Let
me
say
that
I
used
to
be.
As
everyone
knows,
the
the
director
of
the
administrative
office
of
Courts
was
what
I
was
when
the
Fayette
system.
Fayette
County,
was
brought
into
the
state
system
and
at
that
point,
I
thought
it
you
know
was
unfair
and
I
know
that
the
the
powers
that
be
in
the
Public
Public
advocacy
World
thought
that
it
was
inevitable
that
Louisville
would
be
brought
on.
K
So
I
was
looking
for
a
time,
but
when
it
wasn't
right,
I
wasn't
going
to
push
it
looking
for
a
time
to
finally
bring
Louisville
into
the
system.
As
we
mentioned,
it's
a
state
responsibility,
and
so
the
question
is
why
now
well
there's
a
number
of
reasons.
One
is
the
the
recent
Department
of
Juvenile
Justice
issue
has
has
brought
this
back
up.
To
my
mind
where
the
DJJ
is
a
state
responsibility
that
only
Louisville
was
was
paying
for
it
at
the
local
level
and
there's
an
unfairness
to
that.
K
But
we
also
had
a
council
hearing
recently
Metro
Council,
where
bipartisan
bipartisan
support
of
bringing
this
office
into
the
state
system,
and
that
was
at
the
Louisville
Louisville
Council,
and
so
it's
not
to
my
knowledge,
objected
to
by
anyone.
It
is
including
bipartisan
support
at
the
local
level.
Also
I,
don't
know
how
long,
hopefully,
for
a
long
time,
I
don't
know
how
long
the
current
public
Advocate
Damon
Preston
is.
K
Somebody
who
we
all
know
and
I
have
a
great
deal
of
respect
for
I,
know:
I,
don't
know
how
long
he'll
be
there
and
Leo
Smith
who's
in
charge
at
the
Louisville
office.
I,
don't
know
how
long
he'll
be
there,
but
both
of
them
are
reaching
the
ends,
I
think
of
their
careers
and
I
trust
both
of
those
men
and,
if
we're
going
to
do
it,
which
is
inevitable,
it's
inevitable
that
it
be
done.
I
think
they
should
be
the
ones
that
do
this.
So
what
does
this
do?
In
a
nutshell?
It
brings.
K
It
sets
up
a
transition
period,
so
the
next
biennium
the
Louisville
office
will
be
will
be
under
the
umbrella
of
the
State
office,
where
the
state
office
will
be
running
it
just
like
it
does
the
rest
of
the
rest
of
the
offices
throughout
the
Commonwealth.
With
that
Mr
chairman
I'm,
open
any
questions
is.
G
You're
recognized,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
we've
discussed
this
before
representative
namus
and
I
would
remind
everybody
that
there's
another
reason
for
the
timing
of
this
bill.
Also
last
session
House
Bill
won.
There
were
emergency
funds,
essentially
that
were
placed
in
a
little
over
six
million
dollars.
I
think
that
was
placed
into
the
public
Advocate
system,
the
state
system,
and
that
was
somewhat
unconditioned,
that
we
recognized
there
needed
to
be
a
restructuring
and
and
public
Advocate,
Preston
and
other
ones
have
worked
with
us.
We're
working
on
that.
G
We
hope
to
have
something
ready
for
this
upcoming
session
and
24
and
then
we'll
have
the
budget
adjust.
That
should
allow
us
to.
If
I
saw
your
bill
correctly,
section
7
says
the
effective
date
is
July
1
2024.,
yes,
sir.
So
that
way
we'll
be
able
to
complete
that
adjustment
rather
than
later
on
having
to
bring
in
another
entity
and
hope
it
fits
the
right
structure
since
we're
restructuring.
Now
this
is
a
as
a
a
good
opportunity,
especially
to
adjust
the
budgets
and
just
in
case
anyone's
concerned.
G
K
R
You
Mr
chairman
representative
Burke.
My
questions
are
also
Financial
in
nature:
I'm,
just
seeking
a
little
clarification,
so
the
amount
that
Louisville
was
paying
previously
for
this
was
about
four
and
a
half
million,
but
we
know
that
it
will
be
additional.
That's
needing
to
be
funded
by
the
state
in
the
coming
years.
Is
that
sounded
like
the
appropriate
number
I.
K
Don't
know
what
the
number
is:
I've
talked
to
the
public
defender,
I
think
he's
getting
us
that
information
I'm
going
to
go
back
and
forth
with
him
to
make
sure
we
get
the
proper
number.
My
understanding,
representative
Burke
is
that
our
the
state
was
spending
over
six
million
dollars
and
the
county,
the
local,
the
county
the
city
was
putting
in
4.5
is
what
I
have
in
front
of
me
here
and.
L
K
I
I
I'm
there
will
be
additional
costs,
I'm,
assuming,
of
course
that's
an
annualized
cost
right.
You
know
there
will
be
administrative
and
so
forth
and
so
on
to
bring
them
into
the
system.
There
I
don't
know
the
levels
of
benefits
I
understand,
maybe
the
Louisville
Advocates
might
be
getting
less
of
a
benefit.
They'll
become
state
employees
or
not
in
stadium
they're,
not
state
employees
today.
K
So
that's
that's
the
information
that
I
have
that
we
do
have
I.
Think
a
fiscal
note.
That's
going
to
be
put
onto
this
that
may
have
been
submitted
today
or
going
to
be
submitted
today,
hopefully-
and
so
we'll
know
more
information,
then,
but
I
would
note
that
this
is
a
state
responsibility,
just
as
it
was
in
Fayette
County
and
if
Jefferson
County
for
some
reason
couldn't
meet
their
responsibilities
or
decided
not
to
fund
this
office
at
all
it
would.
K
R
R
K
That's,
and
that
was
one
of
the
questions
that
that
I
had,
and
so
that's
why
we're
having
this
transition
period
to
figure
all
that
out
the
administrative
portions
that
make
sure
who
who's
covering
what
now
I
want
to
be
clear
that
I
don't
anticipate
any
Louisville,
but
public
defender,
just
like
nobody
in
Fayette
County
would
go
outside
of
Louisville.
Maybe
there's
an
emergency
situation,
I
don't
know,
but
the
intent
is
that
there'll
still
be
the
Louisville
office
just
like
there
wasn't
Fayette.
K
A
R
B
D
K
K
K
C
I
just
want
to
say:
I
began
my
career
with
the
public
defender's
office
under
Ed
Monahan
I
only
left
to
work
closer
to
home
and
I
had
no
complaints
of
the
office.
The
day
I
left
I
had
about
every
client
in
McCreery
County.
On
the
days
I
had
court
there
and
I
always
heard
everyone
deserves
their
own
day
in
court,
I,
believe
it
and
so
I
just
want
to
vote
Yes.
A
L
C
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
as
you
said,
representative
Dodson
can't
be
here
today.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
allow
me
to
present
this
bill.
There
was
a
committee
substitute
submitted
to
make
just
a
few
Corrections.
A
C
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman,
like
I,
said
I'm
happy
to
present
this
on
behalf
of
represent
dots,
and
this
was
one
of
the
first
bills
I
sought
out
when
I
took
office,
one
of
the
first
things
I,
co-sponsored
I,
believe
I
was
the
first
co-sponsor
the
bills
badly
needed.
There
is
a
blind
spot
that
I've
experienced
when
it
comes
to
the
laws
on
animal
abuse.
Where,
as
during
my
experience
as
a
prosecutor,
we
rarely
had
good
options
on
on
combating
animal
abuse.
C
Behavior
in
this
bill
relates
to
the
torture
of
a
dog
or
a
cat.
One
specifically,
we
had
a
case
where
a
man
used
an
AR-15
to
shoot
a
dog
over
30
times
killed
the
dog
under
current
law.
That
is
a
misdemeanor.
We
were
able
to
indict
a
felony
of
one
endangerment
because
the
dangerous
nature
of
that
particular
action.
C
However,
normally
that
would
be
a
mismir
and
in
fact
we
weren't
confident
we
would
get
a
felony
conviction
by
jury,
so
I
think
he
ended
up
with
a
misdemeanor
anyways,
but
but
this
bill
adds
abandonment
to
the
definition
of
torture
and
it's
very
specific
on
what
constitutes
abandonment,
and
it
is
quite
egregious
Behavior.
It
is
when
a
dog
or
cat's
tied
up
locked
up
stuck.
C
They
have
no
ability
to
save
themself
and
they
end
up
freezing
to
death
or
starving
to
death
or
a
serious
physical
industry.
Injury
again,
as
prosecutor
I
saw
a
horse
tied
to
a
tree
till
it
starved
to
death.
Of
course,
this
wouldn't
apply
to
a
horse,
but
I
mean
it's
just
terrible.
Things
really
happening
out
there
to
to
our
pets.
C
I
want
to
make
a
point
that
this
bill
is
a
collaborative
effort.
Representative
Dodson
worked
with
many
groups,
including
like
Sportsmen
and
hunters,
and
and
s
this
bill
is
a
compromise
for
everyone.
It
has
Common
Sense
exceptions,
Hunting
Fishing,
trapping
Humane
purposes,
Veterinary
purposes,
Cosmetics,
Bayonne,
neutering,
sporting
activities,
like
the
dog,
shows
bona
fide
animal
research,
self-defense
or
defense
of
another
or
or
your
own
pad
I
mean
these
things
do
come
up
and
this
bill
it.
It
takes
that
into
account
there.
C
There
are
many
exceptions
that
are
common
sense
and
there's
even
a
catch-all
there
at
the
end.
So
that's
basically
what
the
deal
the
bill
does
it.
It
changes,
torture
of
a
dog
or
cat
from
this
minute
or
two
felony,
and
the
way
it
sits
right
now
is
second
offense
is
a
felony
and
I
think
that
you
should
get
a
free
chance
to
do
this.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
will
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
Y
Thank
you
to
representative
Dodson
and
you,
sir,
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I
do
have
one
question
in
the
bill.
The
only
time
something
can
be
called.
Torture
is
if
a
dog
or
a
cat
is
restrained
and
is
aren't
there
times
when,
for
example,
the
AK-47
in
would
not
be
restrained.
That
would
still
be
torture.
No.
C
So
torture
would
include
intent
intentional
infliction
to
extreme
physical
pain,
or
this
restraining
is
under
that.
So
so
there's
there's
more
than
one
way
for
that
to
be
restrain
is
not
the
only
way,
so
an
intentional
infliction
is
is
also
certainly
torture.
This
adds
the
restraining
part
that
was
really
not
clear
in
previous
bills
and
and
in
fact,
I
think.
Current
law
were
forced
to
like
adequate
housing
and
that's
up
to
interpretation
and-
and
so
this
kind
of
takes
away
terms
like
adequate
to
help
that
along.
A
Y
May
thank
you
I
think
this
is
a
good
bill.
I
I
am
going
to
be
a
yes,
it
doesn't
go
far
enough.
I
I
literally
cannot
stand
this
or
any
kind
of
abuse
of
something
that
you
can
abuse
just
because
you
can
and
I
also
think
that
it's
a
severe
sign
of
mental
illness
that
you
would
do
any
of
the
egregious
things
that
you've
even
talked
about
so
I'm
going
to
be
a
yesterday,
but
I
say:
let's
keep
going.
Let's
get
them.
C
I
agree
and
I
think
we
just
have
to
start
here.
This
bill
has
failed
for
years
and
years
and
we
need
a
starting
point
and
I
think
this.
Is
it.
I
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
Mr,
chairman
I,
know
you
mentioned
this
briefly
in
your
testimony,
but
in
years
past
we've
had
issues
arise
from
from
this
bill
brought
To
Us
by
the
houndsman
different
sporting
groups
and
so
just
to
again
clarify
there's,
no
groups
that
oppose
this
bill.
Correct.
C
Not
to
my
knowledge
and
their
specific
language
in
the
bill
referring
to
Hunting
Fishing
and
sporting
activities,
they're
they're,
basically,
specifically,
they
have
a
specific
exception
carved
out
and
to
my
knowledge,
they
have
no
opposition
to
this
bill.
Thank.