►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Judiciary (3-15-23)
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).
A
C
D
F
A
So
we
have
a
full
agenda
today:
nine
bills,
an
ambitious
agenda,
so
welcome
and
we're
glad
you're
here.
The
first
bill
we
are
going
to
hear
is
Senate
Bill
203,
president
Robert
Stivers.
If
you'd
come
forward
and
introduce
yourself
and
there's
a
committee
service,
all
right-
and
there
is
a
there-
is
a
committee
sub
senator.
A
H
H
My
client
is
part
of
the
testimony
and
production
of
documents
and
witnessing
the
respective
hearing,
wherever
it
may
be,
versus
a
juvenile
matter
can
be
in
criminal
matters
generally
in
domestic
matters
and
we'll
get
a
protective
order
that
sets
out
what
documents
are
to
be
delivered.
What
can
be
testified
to
and
then
at
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing?
H
Well,
that's
what
generally
happens
where
you
would
say
and
I'll
use
for
this
instance,
the
University
of
Kentucky
that
has
corporate
Council
that
looks
at
the
you
know,
looks
at
The
subpoena.
That's
served
on
them.
What
happens
in
many
occasions
when
there
is
not
someone
like
that,
and
you
have
in
a
divorce
action
or
in
a
child
custody
action
that
a
subpoena
is
served
on
a
practitioner,
a
provider
that
does
not
have
counsel
for
them
and
they
will
show
up
with
their
records
and
then
those
records
not
having
something
in
Kentucky
statute.
H
There
is
not
a
clear
order
setting
out
what
should
happen
to
those
records
at
the
conclusion
of
the
case,
so
this
basically
parallels
203
and
the
committee
sub
was
to
create
some
technical,
Corrections,
203,
basically
parallels
HIPAA
to
say
at
the
closure
of
the
case.
Those
records
are
to
either
be
destroyed.
Returned
or
sealed
in
essence
and
not
disseminated
beyond
the
parties
or
the
necessary
people
needed
to
testify,
but
everyone
would
be
under
that
order.
Motion.
I
J
Yes,
thank
you.
I
am
a
family
law
practitioner,
so
I
looked
at
it
through
that
lens
and
I.
Have
a
question
regarding
says:
include
other
measures,
as
are
necessary
to
limit
disclosure
for
the
protection
of
the
patient,
the
physician-patient
relationship
and
treatment
services,
and
it
says
such
as-
and
it
says,
restricting
the
discussion
of
the
content
of
the
mental
health
records
with
anyone
who
is
not
a
party
in
the
case.
So
my
concern
is
about
a
guardian
ad
litem,
a
friend
of
court
custody,
evaluator,
a
parenting
coordinator
and
thought.
H
H
It
may
not
be
clear,
but
if
you
wanted
and
I
think
I
understand,
where
you're
going
but
to
assume
anything
around
here
is
always
a
dangerous
thing
that
if
I
subpoenaed
records
psychological
records
and
wanted
my
expert
to
look
at
them,
that
expert
would
have
to
have
access
to
evaluate
them.
To
say,
are
these
accurate
and
then
are
they
even
relevant
too
so
I
think
you're
wanting
to
make
sure
that
in
those
situations,
individuals
who
are
necessary
to
testify
would
have
access.
H
J
Yes,
it
absolutely
is
so
I
was
just.
My
concern
was
just
making
sure
that
in
child
custody
cases
that
we
were
still
able
to
give
those
records
to
those
people,
so
they
could
make
their
reports
and
and
I'd
be
happy
to
to
work
on
any
language
to
tighten
that
up.
But
if.
H
G
H
A
C
Thank
you,
Mr
President,
thank
you
for
this
bill
and
thank
you
for
coming
to
share
with
us.
What
I
Now
understand
is
the
the
principal
purpose,
which
is
to
prevent
unwarranted
disclosures
of
private
medical
information
by
a
disgruntled
co-party
after
the
case
with
that
motivation
in
mind
as
a
family
law
practitioner
in
addition
to
representative
Dietz
I'm,
coming
at
this
from
a
very
practical
perspective,.
C
H
Generally,
as
what
if
there
is
a
subpoena-
and
there
are
two
things
I
think
you
have
to
look
at
in
these-
is
one
the
testimony
of
the
provider
and
the
records
of
the
provider
records
as
I
generally
do
it
in
my
understanding
of
HIPAA
I
produced
in
the
court
for
the
court
to
review
and
then
determine
who
gets
the
dissemination
of
the
records
and
I
have
my
orders
prepared
that
way
and
then
they're.
H
Naturally,
if
one
party
or
the
other
wants
to
object,
then
you
get
into
a
total
different
type
of
hearing
as
to
relevance,
but
it
would
be
the
judge's
decision
upon
what
is
relevant
or
not,
and
and
to
me
that
is
not
what
I
am
worried
about,
because
that's
going
to
be,
there
could
be
all
types
of
Records
out
there
that
are
pertinent
and
not
pertinent,
relevant
or
not
relevant.
What
and
that
will
have
to
be
a
Judicial
hearing
you
get
it
sealed.
You
can
take
it
up
on
a
pill.
H
A
C
May
thank
you
with
that
in
mind.
It
seems
to
me
two
things:
first,
that
it's
going
to
impose
a
really
intense
burden
upon
the
judges
and
family
court,
who
already
have
some
of
the
fullest
dockets
anywhere
in
the
state.
Family
law
cases
are
the
most
commonly
filed
types
of
cases.
Those
judges
are
quite
busy
to
ask
them
to
make
preliminary
findings
before
records
are
even
released,
is
going
to
slow
down
the
pace
of
family
cases
and
most
concerningly.
C
So
I
have
concerns
about
that
the
pace
of
family
court
and
slowing
it
down
to
the
detriment
of
the
well-being
of
children.
My
second
concern
relates
to
how
we're
going
to
get
them
to
these
relevant
professionals.
Do
the
relevant
professionals
then
need
to
come
to
Chambers
in
order
to
review
documents?
Are
we
going
to
ask
Dr
Feinberg
to
make
a
special
trip?
C
Are
we
communicating
using
confidential
email
where
there
are
passwords
and
then
a
final
concern
and
I
hope
you
can
address
all
three
for
me
in
Fayette
County
we
e-file
all
family
law
cases,
it's
the
rule
of
our
circuit
that
you
e-file,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
that's
going
to
be
quite
unworkable
if
every
case
with
mental
health
records
becomes
sealed.
H
Wish
I'd
brought
my
pen
to
make
notes?
First
of
all,
let
me
let
me
say
this:
this
is
federal
law
already.
H
This
is
just
mirroring
federal
law,
putting
an
in-state
statute,
because
the
judge
is
required
to
make
these
determinations
as
it
is
under
HIPAA.
What
it
is
not
contained
in
is
within
our
statutes
and
a
lot
of
people
seriously.
I've
I've
I
didn't
think
about
this
until
somebody
came
to
me-
and
it
was
actually
another
Fayette
County
practitioner
who
told
me
that
this
was
going
on
and
relevance
is
always
going
to
be.
A
judicial
proceeding.
My
medical
records
as
to
my
broken
leg,
are
one
thing.
My
medical
records
as
to
my
psychological
background,
are
totally
different.
H
What
is
the
relevance
to
the
case?
Is
it
a
car
wreck
or
is
it
a
custody
case,
and
so
you
can
distinguish
which
one
is
relevant
to
which
that
is
always
going
to
be
up
to
the
judge,
and
that
is
what
happens
to
my
knowledge
and
again
in
practice,
with
every
record
that
is
put
up
there,
and
somebody
can
challenge
it
may
not
be
challenged.
H
Courts
are
going
to
have
to
hear
it
because
there's
going
to
be
some
type
of
protective
order
of
motion
in
Lemony
as
to
what
goes
before
the
Trier
and
finder
effect,
so
it
may
slow
down
the
process,
but
it's
actually
federal
law.
Now
we
are
just
basically
codifying
that
in
state
law,
any
other
questions
along
that
line
that
and
how
you
disseminate
it
I
think
was
the
other
one.
That
is
one
again.
H
H
C
Thank
you
for
your
answers.
I
remain
concerned
that
this
is
an
unworkable
set
of
red
tape
that
is
unnecessary
to
achieve
the
outcome
you
have
stated,
which
is
to
protect
people's
Medical
Records
I,
feel
that
the
judges
still
have
contempt
power
and
could
absolutely
sanction
or
punish
any
party
who
would
unlawfully
distribute
someone
else's
medical
records
as
a
threat
or
a
punishment
to
them.
C
If
they
don't
like
the
way
their
family
law
case
is
turning
out,
and
my
number
one
concern
is
the
well-being
of
children
and
I
I
shudder
to
think
that,
in
order
to
prevent
a
future
disclosure
of
someone's
psychological
records
that
we
would
leave
children
in
dangerous
circumstances
to
wait
for
these
additional
procedures
to
be
done.
Thank
you.
J
J
So
our
concern,
then,
is:
how
do
you
get
the
relevant
information
then
to
these
other
parties
and
understand
completely
the
purpose
of
this
now
so
I
appreciate
those
comments,
so
I'll
be
a
yes
vote
today
and
just
hope
that
we
can
tighten
that
up
so
that
we
we
protect
the
guardian
Elida
in
front
of
Courts,
the
other
significant
players
in
Family
Court,
given
what
the
statute
already
calls
for.
Thank
you.
Thank.
H
Dissemination
to
the
appropriate
parties
to
make
evaluations
of
their
case
is
not
the
intent
of
what
this
is
trying
to
do
to
keep
someone
for
having
additional
moves.
It
is
on
the
back
side
of
it
to
protect
those
individuals
from
having
dissemination
and
and
if
I
can
to
representative
Burke
it's
hard
to
unring
the
bell
and
stop
the
damage
when,
in
the
couple
of
cases
I
was
involved
in
and
brought
into
where
a
young
lady's
records
were
put
on
Facebook
a
fine
doesn't
quite
deal
with
that
contempt.
Sanctions
don't
quite
deal
with
that.
K
C
E
B
L
M
G
A
So
with
14,
yes,
votes,
one
no
vote,
two
pass
votes:
Senate
Bill,
203
with
house
committee
substitute
his
pass
or
will
be
reported
with
favorable
expression
that
the
same
should
pass.
So
congratulations
and
thank
you.
Mr
President,
there
is
a
title
amendment.
Is
there
a
motion
to
adopt
the
title
Amendment
motion
by
representative
dones,
second
by
representative
Blanton,
all
those
in
favor
aye
aye?
Those
opposed
no
and
the
titlemen
is
adopted.
Thank.
A
Liberty
and
I
know
he
has
some
online
guests,
so
we
will
accommodate
them
and
there's
also
a
committee
substitute
something's
in
your
folder
and
was
emailed
last
name.
There's
a
motion,
I
think
representative
Wilson
second
by
representative
Doan,
all
those
in
favor
I,
those
opposed
no
and
the
amendment
or
the
substitute
is
adopted,
and
you
may
proceed
representative
Rawlings
and
introduce
yourself
thank.
F
F
F
F
The
brevity
of
the
current
statute
gives
courts,
not
the
people
elected
to
make
laws.
The
flexibility
to
undermine
the
religious
freedom
of
kentuckians
definitions,
provided
with
this
bill
will
help
ensure
that
religious
kentuckians
can
rely
on
the
ACT
to
be
heard
in
court.
They
can
also
give
the
courts
Clarity
and
how
they
should
weigh
these
rights
against
the
state's
interest
in
burdening
them.
F
Kentucky's
Religious
Freedom
Act
is
10
years
old,
since
its
enactment
courts
Across
the
Nation
and
the
Supreme
Court
have
developed
the
meaning
of
terms
found
in
similar
laws
on
the
books
and
other
states.
Some
courts
interpret
their
State's
religious
freedom
language
so
narrowly
that
they
refuse
to
hear
certain
religious
claims.
F
Other
courts
have
taken
more
expansive
approach.
Approaches
to
these
laws,
HB
204
codifies
definitions
that
are
the
most
protective
of
religious
freedom,
relying
on
what
is
working
in
other
states
and
the
results
of
court
cases.
Ultimately,
this
bill
seeks
to
ensure
that
religious
rights
are
adequately
protected.
F
F
Hb
204
does
not
create
new
rights.
Instead,
it
codifies
the
judicial
standard
that
determines
how
seriously
we
take
our
commitment
to
Religious
Freedom
in
the
Commonwealth
religious
people
and
houses
of
worship
are
facing
more
and
more
government
intrusion
and
violations
of
the
right
to
freely
live
and
freely
worship.
We
must
ensure
that
our
Commonwealth
has
the
strongest
Religious
Freedom
Act
before
these
Trends
worsen
Mr
chairman
may
I.
My
guests
speak
at.
O
Well,
thank
you
very
much
so
as
part
of
my
role
here.
I
review
religious
liberty,
legislation
across
the
country
and
I
provide
legal
analysis
on
how
they'll
impact
religious
freedom,
rights
and
I
would
Echo
everything
that
has
just
been
said.
It's
true
that
Kentucky
law
currently
requires
strict
scrutiny
for
State
action
that
would
substantially
burden
religious
freedom
rights,
but,
as
you
have
the
the
shortest
of
the
rifras
that
are
across
the
23
states
that
have
them.
O
O
It
uses
definition
for
government,
that's
very
similar
to
what
Montana
passed
just
two
years
ago,
and
it's
also
similar
to
what's
used
by
most
of
the
states
that
have
rifras
and
the
definition
of
substantially
burden
is
also
the
same
as
what
Montana
used
and
very
similar
language
is
also
used
in
other
states
like
Kansas
and
Louisiana,
and
so
towards
the
end
of
the
bill.
It
all
also
ensures
that
people
can
seek
appropriate
remedies
when
their
rights
are
violated.
O
So
these
definitions
provide
the
meaningful
direction
to
judges,
who
need
to
apply
the
law
to
a
wide
variety
of
factual
scenarios
and
ensures
that
citizens
have
this
clarity
about
the
religious
freedom
rights,
which
also
ensures
that
they
can
stand
up
for
their
rights
instead
of
possibly
being
warned
by
an
attorney
or
someone
that
Kentucky's
roof
might
not
apply
to
them.
So,
just
to
close
here,
the
bill
strengthens
religious
liberty.
O
Rights
in
Kentucky
by
ensuring
that
courts
today
and
well
into
the
future
will
continue
to
apply
the
law
as
intended
and
ensuring
that
everybody
can
have
a
fair
Hearing
in
court
if
the
state
stops
them
from
practicing
their
religion
and
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
If
anybody
might
happen,
thank.
A
N
A
C
Thank
you
and
this
question
might
be
best
suited
to
our
Our
Guest
I'm,
not
sure
whichever
one
of
you
wishes
to
answer
well,
the
standard
used
still
be
strict
scrutiny,
or
is
that
different?
Now,
with
this
bill.
O
P
Yes,
thank
you.
I
just
have
a
a
question
about
there's
a
part
that
talks
about
the
protections
afforded
under
this
section
shall
not
apply
to
an
inmate
in
the
custody
of
a
jail
or
local
or
State
Correctional
or
Detention.
Facility
I
just
want
to
get
more
clarity
on
why
that
is
in
there
and
needed,
and
then
also
is
that
the
only
change
in
this
committee
so.
F
O
F
O
Q
Thank
you
I
two
questions
in
paragraph
four.
It
says
that
any
infringement
that
happens
before
active
after
the
effective
date
of
this
act.
The
people
will
have
these
remedies.
So
you
can
go
back
and
say
the
government
did
something
to
stop
you
from
praying
that
happened
two
years
ago
and
it
would
be
covered
under
this
act.
F
Q
F
Yeah
go
I'd
like
to.
O
One
is
the
state
action,
so
laws
passed
in
the
past
if
they're
applied
in
a
discriminate
in
a
way
that
substantially
Burns
religious
exercise
look
at
when
is
when
is
the
burden
and
that's
what
would
be
applied,
but
this
just
says
that
religious
liberty
is
protected
from
the
application
of
laws
from
you
know
all
of
the
laws
it's
similar
to
what
all
the
other
states
that
have
reference
do
so
there's
any
state
law,
that's
used
to
address
to
burden
substantially
burn
religious
exercise
should
not
be
done
so
so.
O
Health
and
safety
is
a
common
compelling
interest
that
that
courts
recognize
okay.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
discussion,
but
I
do
have
a
question
on
line
14
of
page
one
of
the
committee
sub.
It
says,
compels
any
action,
contrary
to
a
person's
exercise
of
religion.
Will
this
include
a
conscientious
objection
on
the
part
of
a
health
care
worker
to
allow
for
a
denial
of
care.
F
O
That's
right
and
Talos
already
covers
that
up
from
from
a
federal
perspective,
but
compulsion
of
speech,
compulsion
of
action
is
something
that's
regularly.
Insured
is
protected
as
a
fundamental
right
and
remember
what
what
the
current
strict
scrutiny
test
does
in
Kentucky,
and
this
doesn't
change.
That
is
that
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
decide
outcomes
for
these
cases.
O
It
would
say
that
a
person
can
bring
a
case
to
a
court,
and
the
court
will
weigh
the
state's
interest
in
compelling,
for
example,
compelling
a
person
to
do
something
that
might
violate
their
religion
against
the
compelling
State
interest
and
and
ensuring
that
people
get
the
care
they
need
and
whatnot,
and
also,
if
that's
the
least
restrictive
means
as
Kentucky's
law.
Currently
States
is
accommodating
religious
practices
where
feasible.
R
K
R
P
I
I
F
M
A
F
A
S
You
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
Phillip
wheeler,
31st,
Senate
District.
Some
of
you
all
were
here
last
year
may
have
seen
this
bill.
It's
the
Michael
Micah
Chantelle
Fletcher
Bell
this
bill.
To
give
you
the
two-minute
version.
Chantelle
was
a
young
lady,
visiting
upikes
campus
for
a
site
visit.
She
was
found
deceased
at
the
bottom
of
steps
of
a
dormitory.
Without
a
mark
on
her
law
enforcement
investigation
was
opened.
S
They
sent
the
body
to
Frankfurt
to
see
what
could
happen
and
why
she
may
have
died
and
the
cause
of
death
came
back
undetermined
due
to
the
Persistence
of
chantelle's
mother
and
a
local
detective
Bruce
Collins.
S
They
weren't
satisfied
with
undetermined
one
reason
that
law
enforcement
is
required
to
open
a
criminal
investigation
and
undetermined
deaths,
but
they
found
a
geneticist
at
UVA
who
was
able
to
take
some
fluids
and
determine
that
Micah
Chantelle
suffered
from
a
a
genetic
heart
defect
that
actually
could
have
been
treated
with
a
simple
beta
blocker
and
because
of
that,
the
rest
of
the
family
was
able
to
be
tested
and
to
determine
whether
or
not
they
also
suffer
from
this
genetic
heart
abnormality
so
that
they
could
get
the
appropriate
treatment
to
keep
them
from
passing
away.
S
This
bill
would
require
limited
genetic
testing
for
cardiac
abnormalities
for
persons
who
are
whose
cause
of
death
is
found
to
be
undetermined
for
who
are
under
40
years
of
age,
started
out
as
a
slightly
broader
bill,
but
do
do
some
limited
resources
that
the
medical
examiners
and
working
with
the
corners
we.
We
doubt
it
back
to
this
group
of
folks
who
are
make
up
the
vast
majority
of
undetermined
deaths
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky.
A
N
B
A
N
N
G
T
T
I
brought
my
attorney
with
me
also,
and
then
I've
got
my
good
father.
Josh
Bray,
which
took
your
place
said
about
199
is
basically
a
tracking
device
that
people
have
used
illegally
are
to
check
on.
T
Maybe
an
ex-wife,
or
maybe
somebody
they've
had
trouble
with
or
maybe
they're
stalking
and
all
we're
trying
to
do
is
make
them
illegal
and
basically
it
prohibits
someone
to
have
ordered
to
stay
away
from
an
individual
from
tracking
the
protected
individuals
locations
say
they
want
to
find
out
where
they're
at
or
prohibits
someone
on
probation
or
parole
from
tracking.
If
it's
a
crime
in
the
family
or
a
member
of
the
victim.
Now
we
do
have
a
sub.
A
K
A
T
The
bill
and
I'll,
let
representative
Bray,
explain
the
other
the
bill
itself.
It
don't
prohibit
the
things
that's
in
our
car
already.
The
GPS
is
the
the
things
that
are
built
into
the
car.
That's
tells
them
where
I'm
at
or
anything
else
about
it.
It
does
prohibit
somebody
sticking
a
device
on
your
car
to
find
out
where
you
are,
and
that's
basically
against
the
law
and
Senator
Central
Westerfield,
which
is
our
geek
buddy,
and
our
attorney
over
there
locked
the
bill
and
and
I
liked
it
as
well.
T
U
And
House
Bill
157
last
year
it
was
a
the
DUI
fixed
Bill.
There
was
a
requirement
that
hospitals
withdraw
blood
in
if
from
a
defendant.
If
there
was
a
court
order
present,
you
know
if
the
court
had
ordered
them
to
draw
blood.
You
know
they
were
required
to
do
it.
There
has
been
some
liability
issues
raised
with
that
hospitals
are
concerned
with
that.
U
E
Because
comment
in
question:
Senator,
girdler
I'm
not
opposed
to
your
bill
as
it
came
over
here-
I-
am
opposed
to
the
committee
sub
question
for
the
I
guess
for
representative
Bray
I
was
the
sponsor
of
House
Bill
154
last
year,
and
what
154
changed
was
the
fact
that
under
the
Old
Law
there
had
to
be
the
showing
of
a
death
or
physical
injury
for
a
blood
draw.
E
What
154
changed?
Is
it
allowed
it
for
any
circumstances
in
a
DUI
based
upon
that
Supreme
Court
case
and
trying
to
address
that
help
me
understand
what
the
liability
issues
are
for
a
hospital,
because
previously
there
were
multiple
situations
where
a
party
would
not
consent,
but
there
would
be
a
warrant
judicial
Authority
for
that
blood
draw
so
I,
don't
see,
really
why
this
would
be
necessary.
Absolutely.
U
So
hospitals
are
trained
that
their
employees
have
to
give
consent.
I
mean,
if
you're
going
to
perform
a
procedure
on
someone
you
have
to
have
consent
attorneys
from
hospitals.
My
Hospital
has
raised
issue
with
it
saying
they
don't
feel
comfortable
if
a
person
does
not
consent,
but
there
is
a
court
order
that
says
you
shall
I
mean
that
that's
the
heart
of
the
issue.
It
just
clears
that
up
all.
E
N
C
A
C
J
V
E
as
it
came
to
committee
I
would
I
guess,
agree
with
representative
Burke
on
this
I
think
these
two
should
be
two
separate
issues
and
no
offense
to
representative
Ray
I
know
he's
had
a
lot
going
on
and
and
and
we
can
talk
about
this
issue
but
I
just
think
these
should
be
two
separate
issues
and
really
have
a
personal
problem
with
somehow
how
some
of
this
was
handled
earlier
in
the
session
on
this
committee
sub.
So
for
those
Reasons
I'm
going
to
vote
no
on
this.
N
B
A
W
B
L
F
A
A
J
You
I'm
Stephanie
Dietz
state
representative
from
the
65th
District,
which
is
a
part
of
Kenton
County,
so
I'll.
Let
my
guests
introduce
themselves.
V
V
A
A
J
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
committee
members,
House
Bill
535
with
the
committee
sub,
is
a
cleanup
Bill
to
last
sessions,
Senate
Bill
271,
where
CJ
Sac,
the
criminal
justice
statistical
analysis,
Center,
was
created
as
part
of
the
Kentucky
Justice
and
Public
Safety
cabinet.
In
short,
Senate
Bill
271
went
into
effect
on
July
14
2022
mandating
comprehensive
reporting
on
domestic
violence
for
cabinets
and
agencies
across
the
criminal
justice
system.
The
collected
data
and
analyzed
data
would
go
towards
targeting
services
and
addressing
issues
in
the
areas
identified
by
the
data.
A
K
You
know
during
this
Juvenile
Justice
session,
there
was
much
discussion
that
family
courts
don't
speak
to
juvenile
courts
and
is
this
data
and
and
I
may
be
off
Stephanie,
but
is
this
data
shareable
to
other
division,
Court
divisions
and
whatnot?
K
Let
me
explain
so
like
say
a
child
is,
is
in
Family
Court
and
there
are
they
come
up
with
treatments
or
whatnot,
ordered
by
the
court
and
I
know
that
that's
non-disclosable
right
but
then
say
that
same
child
is
in
juvenile
court
a
year
later
or
something
on
a
charge
or
whatnot.
G
K
I,
don't
know
if
your
bill
even
addresses
this,
but
I've
been
wanting
to
say
this
all
session,
that
family
courts
and
juvenile
courts
have
a
big
problem,
communicating
with
each
other,
because
many
of
them
deal
with
children,
so
you're
shaking
your
head.
No,
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
it,
but
I'm
glad
I
still
said
it.
So
thank
you
and.
J
K
C
I
have
what
I
think
is
a
simple
question,
but
just
for
my
edification,
the
committee
sub
I,
see
that
there
was
some
language
that
was
stricken
and
then
added
in
3B.
Well,
the
the
information
about
domestic
violence
will
it
all
still
be
provided
adequately.
So
we
have
good
statistics
and
can
make
good
decisions
for
policy
based
on
that.
Do.
V
Yes,
ma'am
all
the
information
that
is
in
here
we
will,
we
will
be
able
to
get
in
one
manner.
Some
of
the
strikes
were
like
link
is
actually
KSP,
provides
it.
So
it's
stricken
and
moved
and
then
some
of
the
things
that
kcdv
asked
for
to
be
stricken
one
was
duplicative
and
then
the
other
one
was
not
consistent
with
what
they
report
on
the
federal
side.
So
it
was
just
for
consistency.
Thank.
B
K
J
J
F
M
G
A
So
with
20,
yes,
votes
and
no
no
votes
and
no
pass
votes.
House
Bill
535
with
the
committee
substitute,
is
passed
and
should
be
reported
with
favorable
expression.
Congratulations,
representative,
Dietz
next
I'm
going
to
take
Senate
Bill
123,
which
is
Senator
Johnny
Turner,
and
he
is
here
and
if
you'd
come
forward,
senator
an
act
relating
to
notorial
Acts
and
if
you'd
introduce
yourself,
sir,
and
turn
on
your
microphone,
you
may
proceed
I'm.
X
Senator
Johnny
Turner
from
the
29th
District
that
was
out
in
Harlan
County
Kentucky
I'll
try
to
be
real
short.
This
bill
is
kind
of
simple
in
a
sense
it's
bought.
It's
brought
on
behalf
of
the
board
of
directors
of
Kentucky
court
reporter
Association,
a
young
lady.
My
hometown,
is
on
that
board.
In
back
I'll
go
from
2000
from
1982
the
governor
appointed
a
special
commission.
You
could
be
an
in-state
or
out-of-state
person
to
get
appointed
as
a
no
Republican.
X
You
could
go
in
or
outside
the
state,
in
2020,
with
the
good
old
covet
act
where
everybody
they
didn't
know
by.
S
X
K
C
B
V
L
I
F
A
A
R
R
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman,
been
rushing
around
a
lot
of
committee
meetings
everybody's
doing
that
today,
but
thank
you
for
hearing
Senate
Bill
9
I'm,
Robbie,
Mills
I'm
state
senator
from
District
4
in
Northwest,
Kentucky
and
I
have
to
my
right
the
hazelwoods
and
I'll.
Let
them
introduce
themselves
and
representative.
U
A
M
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
committee
members,
this
the
house
committee
sub
that
is
before
you
now
makes
a
few
clerical
changes
and
direct
changes
to
this
legislation.
It
won
in
section.
One
makes
note
that
it
is
a
direct
action
in
section
one.
It
also
removes
mental
in
section
two:
it
takes
out
consent
and
in
section
four
it
removes
the
keys
portion
of
this
bill.
M
All
of
these
were
suggestions
along
the
way
to
make
this
a
better
Bill
and
to
get
us
to
the
point
that
we
are
right
now
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
Senator
Mills.
R
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
just
a
brief
I
know:
we've
you've
heard
this
spoken
of
in
in
the
interim,
but
we
want
to
just
refresh
your
memory.
You
know
currently
Kentucky
law
places
the
burden
on
universities
and
colleges
to
enforce
acts
of
hazing
with
the
maximum
penalty
of
expulsion
for
the
student
symbol,
9
seeks
to
add
Kentucky
to
a
list
of
13
other
states
that
have
elevated
the
act
of
hazing
to
a
criminal
status.
For
far
too
long,
hazing
has
been
this
awkward
rite
of
passage
in
Kentucky.
R
L
A
C
You
will
this
law
be
equally
applicable
to
people
who
are
under
age
18..
So
if
you're
a
17
year
old,
who's
in
college-
and
you
are
part
of
this
hazing-
are
you
subject
to
a
felony
I.
R
A
I
Thank
you
Mr
chairman
I'm,
assuming
this
is
lofton's
Mother
and
Father.
It
is
I
want
to.
First
of
all,
thank
you
guys
for
coming
here
and
for
bringing
this
before
us.
I
also
want
to
know,
make
sure
you
know,
and
the
world
knows
that
Senator
Mills
and
representative
Dixon
also
representative
miles
have
worked
very
hard
on
this
bill.
At
first
I
had
a
number
of
problems.
I
I
know
a
lot
of
the
legislators
did,
and
you
know
they
were
dogged
in
their
pursuit
of
this,
to
get
this
done
for
your
son,
but
for
all
kentuckians.
So
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
coming
and
also
make
sure
you're
aware
of
the
really
good
work
that
that
your
representative
and
your
Senator
has
done.
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and.
A
R
A
I
C
J
J
F
B
R
A
A
Y
Himself,
I'm
Whitney
Westerfield
senator
for
the
third
Senate
District
and
sponsoring
civil
64,
which
is
an
act
that
proposes
to
update
the
Uniform
Commercial
Code
Uniform
Commercial
Code
is
the
the
code
that
governs
business
transactions
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
and
it
is
woefully
out
of
date.
Y
I
have
with
me
no
stranger
to
either
the
Judiciary
committees
in
the
legislature,
The
Honorable,
John
McGarvey,
who
is
one
of
our
one
of
Kentucky's
uniformed
law
Commissioners
and
was
instrumental
in
drafting
this
model
legislation
and
working
with
me
to
draft
the
bill
that
you
have
I'll.
Let
him
speak
for
himself.
Thank.
Z
You
chairman,
Westfield
good
good
afternoon,
chairman
Elliott
members
of
the
committee,
my
representative
Petrie,
and
one
of
my
twin
grandchildren's,
favorite
people,
Colonel
pam,
pam,.
Z
As
Central
Westerfield
said,
I
am
one
of
your
uniform
commercial,
uniform
law
Commissioners,
so
I
come
to
you
with
no
special
interest.
I
work
for
you
I
happen
to
also
be
chairman
of
the
uniformed
law
commission's
Uniform
Commercial
Code
committee,
so
I'm
familiar
with
every
page
of
this
multi-page
bill
and
and
happy
to
answer
your
questions
rather
than
talk
about
the
bill
overall,
which
is
the
title,
says
the
22
amendments
to
the
uniform
commercial
code
to
accommodate
emerging
Technologies.
It
brings
the
nation's
primary
body
of
business
law
into
the
digital
world.
Z
It
does
it
throughout
the
code.
Unfortunately,
a
controversy
that
I
think
many
of
you
all
are
aware-
has
origin
really
in
the
last
10
days,
growing
out
of
something
in
South
Dakota.
Z
The
dispute
over
the
Amendments
really
reflects
a
misunderstanding
of
commercial
law.
Concepts.
The
cryptocurrency
industry
was
intimately
involved
in
the
drafting
of
this
legislation.
They
supported
the
22
amendments,
seek
to
preserve
the
decentralized
nature
of
Bitcoin
and
other
cryptocurrencies.
They
enable
secured
lenders
to
enjoy
the
existing
benefits
of
commercial
law
rules
in
regard
to
cryptocurrencies,
and
they
enable
people
to
take
them
free
of
encumbrances.
Z
The
group
that
I
work
is
has
drafted
a
legislative
note
for
legislatures
that
have
been
made
uncomfortable
by
some
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
recently.
I
would
like
to
read
that,
briefly
to
you,
I've
received
it
today.
The
change
to
the
definition
of
money
in
article
one
does
not
exclude
Bitcoin
or
other
cryptocurrencies
from
use
in
commercial
trends
actions
and
and
does
not
ban
Bitcoin
or
other
cryptocurrencies.
Z
Adopting
these
changes
together
reflects
Kentucky
stance
against
the
introduction
of
a
U.S,
government-issued,
Central
Bank
digital
currency,
while
creating
bare
minimum
rules
for
those
Central
Bank
digital
currencies
that
already
exist
in
other
countries,
while
simultaneously
implementing
preferential
treatment
for
Bitcoin.
One
of
the
problems
we
were
dealing
with
is
that
El
Salvador
and
the
Central
African
Republic
declared
Bitcoin
as
legal
tender
that
brought
them
under
the
definite
existing
definition
of
money
in
the
Uniform
Commercial
Code.
That's
something
we
need
to
clarify
as
a
matter
of
law,
it's
being
done
throughout
the
country.
Z
The
bill,
that's
before
you
is
before
the
legislatures
of
23
States
Alabama
is
going
to
be
number
24
next
week,
There's
No
political
agenda.
Here,
there's
no
liberal,
there's
no
conservative!
You
all
probably
know
my
politics
from
my
family,
the
vice
chair
of
my
uniform
commercial
code
committee.
A
good
friend
of
mine
is
the
most
conservative
guy
I've
ever
met.
Z
He
makes
Jason
nemis
look
like
a
liberal
and,
and
he
teaches
law
at
Texas,
A
M
I,
don't
want
to
go
on
longer
than
I
need
to,
because
I
know,
you're
rushed
today
and
I.
Think
it's
more
important
that
I'd
be
able
to
answer
the
questions
that
you
all
may
have
regarding
this
legislation.
A
Y
Z
Like
me,
let
me
make
one
brief
point:
we
I
say
we
we
that's
true.
The
uniform
law,
commission
and
I.
Don't
think
anybody
when
they
really
think
this
out
want
virtual
currency,
cryptocurrency
Bitcoin
to
be
money,
because
once
it
becomes
legal
tender,
then
all
kinds
of
things
set
in
like
Bank
secrecy
act,
currency,
transaction
reports,
anytime
you're
dealing
more
than
ten
thousand
dollars
and
on
money
laundering
regulations.
What
we
want
is
for
cryptocurrency
to
be
part
of
the
commercial
world.
The
most
important
thing
about
commercial
law
is
being
able
to
categorize
the
collateral
right
now.
Z
Bitcoins
out
there
are
Never
Never
Land,
because
you've
got
two
governments
that
have
said
it's
legal
tender.
I
could
be
money,
it's
more
than
likely
a
general
intangible.
But
if
you
want
to
use
your
Bitcoin
as
collateral
for
a
loan,
your
secured
party
has
to
file
a
financing
statement
with
the
Kentucky
Secretary
of
State.
It's
going
to
tell
the
world
you've
got
Bitcoin,
that's
not
something
that
the
Bitcoin
interests
want
and
what
the
people
who
have
reacted
to
this
legislation.
Without,
in
your
understanding,
it
I
have
thought.
W
Senator
Westerfield,
it's
a
166,
page
Bill
and
there's
a
lot
of
terminology
that
I
would
venture
to
say
that
most
of
us
don't
encounter
on
a
daily
basis.
A
lot
of
acronyms
and
I
just
had
a
few
questions,
I
mean,
first
of
which
you
know
for
those
at
home
that
may
be
trying
to
follow
along
cbdc.
That's
the
first
acronym
Central
Bank
digital
currency,
which
of
course
is
a
form
of
digital
money,
that's
controlled
by
the
government,
but
no
one
that
is
opposing
this
bill.
W
As
far
as
I'm
aware
would
make
the
assertion
that
the
bill
somehow
adopts
a
cbdc.
We
know
that
that's
a
federal
issue,
that's
not
what
we're
saying
here,
but
it
appears
to
create
the
framework,
and
this
is
what
we
heard
in
South
Dakota
as
well.
It
appears
to
create
a
framework
for
the
future
adoption
of
a
cbdc,
and
particularly
given
the
definition
of
money
and
the
exclusion
that's
found
in
section.
W
One
that
can
only
refer
to
a
cbdc
is
essentially
what
opponents
of
this
legislation
are
saying,
and
my
first
question
would
be:
was
that
the
intent
and
what
I've
heard
you
say?
Gentlemen?
It
sounds
like
you're
saying
that
that
wasn't
the
intent
of
this
legislation,
yet
in
South
Dakota,
where
this
legislation
was
vetoed,
that
was
one
of
the
chief
concerns,
so
that
would
be
my
first
question.
It.
Y
Was
not
the
intent
I
I
I
won't
speak
for
the
uniform
law
Commissioners,
but
it
was
not
my
intent
and
I.
Don't
I.
Don't
aim
to
do
that
and
I.
Don't
believe
that
it
creates
a
framework
for
doing
that.
That's
a
federal
question
that
the
federal
government
through
honestly
have
no
idea
how
Congress
I
assume
it's
Congressional
I,
don't
know
how
they
do
that,
how
they
would
establish
a
central
bank,
digital
currency,
or
what
process
is
required
to
do
that?
Y
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
modernize
the
code,
so
businesses
and
private
entities,
even
across
state
lines
and
so
forth,
can
use
cryptocurrency
in
a
way
that
today
they
can't
the
the
collateral
example
that
you
just
heard
described
there
are
there
are
steps
you'd
have
to
do
now
that
I
think
run
counter
to
the
the
whole
concept
behind
having
a
cryptocurrency
and
using
it
that
you'd
have
to
abide
by
and
again
the
code
doesn't
even
recognize
cryptocurrency
today,
but
there
are
businesses
that
use
it.
A
W
But
my
question
is
this:
the
uniform
law
commission
has
said
that
Bitcoin
and
other
cryptocurrencies
will
never
be
money
for
UCC
purposes,
so
that
I
think
is
the
issue
here
and
that
the
definition
would
ultimately
create
an
exclusion
for
cryptocurrencies
and
digital
assets.
I
think
that's
why
it
was
vetoed
in
South,
Dakota
and
I.
Think
that
that's
why
a
multitude
of
states
are
mounting
a
resistance
around
the
same
Concepts
excuse
me
concept
that
we've
begun
to
see
come
up.
Z
Commission,
yes,
Uniform
Commercial
Code
cannot
determine
what
is
legal
tender.
Only
the
federal
government
can
do
that.
The
issue
we
were
dealing
with
is
that
two
countries,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
Salvador
and
the
Central
African
Republic,
said
Bitcoin
is
legal
tender
that
creates
a
conundrum
for
anybody
dealing
with
in
this
country.
What
we
want
you
to
be
able
to
do
is,
if
you
acquire
Bitcoin,
that
you
acquired
under
a
take-free
rule,
where
there's
no
security
interest
that
might
be
attached
to
that
Bitcoin.
Z
That
would
take
priority
to
your
interest
that
rule
is
created
in
this
legislation.
It
does
not
exist
today,
Bitcoin
if
it
becomes
a
controllable
electronic
record,
which
is
a
term
this
bill
creates
yeah,
CB's,
Central,
Bank
digital
currency
appears
nowhere
in
any
of
the
official
comments
in
any
of
the
statutes.
That's
not
something
the
uniform
law
commission
deals
with.
What
we
do
is
we
set
a
uniform
body
of
state
law
to
facilitate
Commerce
amongst
the
states.
Z
To
give
you
an
example,
if,
with
somebody
from
Henderson
was
just
up,
if
they
go
across
the
river
in
Indiana
to
buy
a
car
and
finance
it
there,
the
Uniform
Commercial
Code
sets
the
rules
for
using
that
car
as
collateral
in
an
interstate
transaction.
But
the
Uniform
Commercial
Code
doesn't
regulate
the
registration
of
that
motor
vehicle.
It
doesn't
regulate
the
use
of
that
motor
vehicle.
Z
The
only
way
you
can
perfect
a
security
interest
in
money
is
to
possess
it
if
it
becomes
the
case
equivalent,
as
I
indicated
they're
going
to
be
all
sorts
of
reporting
rules,
scarring
people
who
own
it
and
they
seek
more
confidentiality
than
that.
We
think
this
preserves
the
best
of
all
worlds
for
cryptocurrency
and
recognizes
it
as
a
medium
of
Exchange
in
the
modern
economy.
V
W
No
I
I
appreciate
the
dialogue.
I
think
that
it
is
fair
to
say
that
stakeholders
within
the
cryptocurrency
community
are
not
in
favor
of
this
legislation.
That
said,
the
language
of
the
definition
of
money
in
section
one
clearly
states
that
any
existing
cryptocurrency
Bitcoin
so
forth,
so
on
cannot
be
considered
money
Under
the
UCC.
So,
while
I
understand
that
you're
saying
that
that
is
a
federal
issue,
it
is
a
federal
issue.
The
way
that
we
are
codifying
this
language,
if
we
were
to
pass
this
in
Kentucky,
is
excluding
it.
Z
Z
Are
two
Central
Bank
issued
digital
currencies
in
the
world
right
now?
One
of
them
is
the
Bahamian
sand.
Dollar,
that's
actually
the
term
for
it.
The
other
one
comes
more
in
this
Pacific
Islands
and
I,
can't
remember
which
one
it
is.
A
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
We
appreciate
your
time
today
and
thank
you
for
educating
us
on
this
issue.
We
are
next
going
to
take
up
Senate
Bill
268
for
discussion.
Only
Senator
David
Yates
is
with
us,
and
this
is
an
act
relating
to
child
support
after
driving
Under
the
Influence,
so
you
may
introduce
yourself
and
and
begin
I
know
we
we
heard
about
this
topic
in
the
interim
on
this
committee
and
so
we're
looking
forward
to
your
presentation.
Thank.
D
D
It
allows
for
restitution
and
I
know
it
can
be
confusing,
sometimes
because
we
use
the
child
support,
but
it's
resting
restitution
in
the
form
of
child
support
after
a
DUI
conviction
if
the
parent
or
Guardian
has
has
been
killed
because
as
a
result
of
the
DUI
or
permanently
disabled
I
named
it
after
Melanie
who's,
my
cousin,
who
likely
won't
she's
fighting
for
her
life
right
now,
I've
been
practicing
law
for
about
17
years.
D
We
see
this
a
lot
into
it
as
far
as
drunk
drivers
hitting
people
doing
a
short
bit
and
then
children
sometimes
living
without
that
parent
and
the
ability
Mothers
Against
Drunk
drivers
just
sent
the
letter
of
support.
This
has
happened
in
other
places
such
as
Tennessee.
It
can
be
confusing
as
a
practitioner.
Sometimes,
when
I
see
the
word
child
support,
it
scares
me
I
run
away
from
it.
The
way
they
get
around.
This
is
that
this
is
restitution
in
the
form
of
child
support.
D
They
use
the
guidelines
of
child
support
and
the
county
attorney's
office
even
willing
to
help
with
the
collection
of
that,
but
it's
separate
and
apart
and
the
reason
that's
important
is
well.
First
of
all
several
reasons:
it's
important
civil
penalties
don't
hold
you,
you
hit
somebody.
If
you
have
insurance
at
all
or
minimum
coverage
of
twenty
five
thousand
dollars,
it's
paid
out.
It's
done.
You
serve
your
three
years,
two
years
whatever
that
is,
and
you
get
out
you
go
on
with
your
life.
This
child
has
lost
their
parent
or
Guardian
forever.
D
So,
whether
or
not
even
that,
if
it's
small
amounts
of
money,
that's
paid
out,
that's
a
check.
The
writing
and
I
know
that
the
reason
you
have
to
look
at
the
for
instructions
on
how
to
order
that
restitution.
You
look
at
those
guidelines
for
fairness,
an
idea
no
different
than
a
personal
injury
action.
I
argue
that
someone's
been
disabled
from
accident
I'm,
not
bringing
something
through
disability
court,
but
I'm
arguing,
sometimes
I
use
those
some
kind
of
guidelines
and
ideas.
This
has
worked
in
other
places.
It
works
here
in
several
ways.
D
First
of
all,
for
fairness
for
that
child
think
about
the
orphan
child.
Think
about
the
child
that
the
the
primary
bro
Winner's
been
taken
away.
It
also
works
as
a
deterrent
effect.
It's
a
discussion.
People
are
talking
about
this.
It
matters,
but
ultimately
to
me
it's
more
important
than
that.
It's
too
often
when
I
have
a
client.
Now
a
family
member
who
have
a
surviving
child.
We
can
give
some
kind
of
Remedy.
We
can
do
that
here
today.
Again,
it's
put
into
fairness.
D
If
they
have
six
children
into
it
and
they
have
no
means
to
pay,
they
get
out,
they
get
out.
They
in
the
restitution
would
be
ordered
to
begin
after
they
had
a
year
out.
Then
all
that's
taken
into
consideration,
which
is
fair
and
reasonable.
So
I'd
ask
that
we've
passed
that
if
we
can
I
know
that
a
special
committee
meeting
is
possible,
like
time
is
of
the
essence.
We
got
the
letter
today.
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
victims
who
would
benefit
by
our
quick
action.
D
I
know
our
delay
means
a
lot
of
people
that
lose
in
that
loophole.
That
interim
so
I
think
we
have
11
members
here
today
on
the
21.
I'm,
not
great
at
math.
We
had
just
enough
if
it
could
be
the
rule
of
the
chair,
but
I
really
appreciate
you
guys
taking
the
time
to
hear
me
and
whatever
can
be
done
to
move
this
forward.
J
D
In
the
bill
and
a
personal
injury
lawyer
into
it
and
I
think
practitioners,
so
what
I
did
is
enlisted
this?
The
help
of
professionals
and
I
think
there
had
been
in
Tennessee
I
think
there
may
have
been
some
budding
with
with
some
of
the
federal
things.
So
that's
why
they're
all
guidelines
they
put
into
place
and
they
do
it
in
the
form
of
restitution
as
that
use
the
child
support
guidelines
as
a
reference.
Obviously,
it
would
be
determined
by
it's
this.
D
The
determination
would
be
by
the
sentencing,
judge,
obviously,
and
so
different
than
they
took
catalytic
converters,
and
you
have
to
pay
restitution
for
that.
They
can
make
that
decision.
You
know
based
on
what
it
would
be,
but
you
use
the
guidelines
just
like
you
would
with
child
support
and
the
reason
they
did.
D
That
is
because,
ultimately,
that's
kind
of
found
of
fairness,
those
aren't
it's
not
a
system,
that's
put
into
it's
a
hard
system
because
it
lays
down
with
the
sentencing
judge
that
shall
comply,
shall
Institute
restitution
in
the
form
of
child
support
and
using
these
guidelines
as
factors.
J
Go
ahead
so,
and
maybe
I
just
don't
see
it
where
in
here
I,
don't
remember
where
in
here,
do
you
reference
them
back
to
using
our
tables,
so
I
I
was
wondering,
would
you
not
add
in
there
to
for
them
to
use
krs-403,
which
I
think
is
the
child
support
statute
so
that
they're
looking
at
incomes
of
the
parties
and
then
would
we
also
then
make
the
defendant?
The
non-custodial
parent
in
the
child.
Support
worksheet
is.
Is
that
what
you're
trying
to
say
or
am
I
just
completely
missing.
D
No,
no
representative,
thank
you
for
the
question.
I
think
that
a
couple
of
the
child
support
practitioners
that
they
want
to
put
it
in,
like
child
support,
guidelines
and
I.
Think
because
you
talk
about
restitution
in
the
form
of
Child
Support,
we're
thinking
that,
just
like
in
my
example
of
in
a
personal
interaction,
I'm,
saying
disabled,
it's
not
necessarily
like
disability
court.
D
So
what
we
did
on
the
second
page
page
two
under
subsection
B
we
looked
at
the
court,
shall
determine
an
amount
that
is
reasonable
and
necessary
for
the
maintenance
of
the
victim
child
repented
after
consideration
of
all
relevant
factors,
including
so
what
we
did
is
we
didn't
take
away
that
discretion
from
the
Civil
the
sentencing
judge
onto
it.
We
added
out
factors
we
want
to,
but
I
think
if
we
actually
put
this
in
the
child
support
guidelines
into
it,
you
get
into
some
gray
area
with
some
federal
regs
and
other
things
like
that.
D
D
They
get
to
see
everything
they
get
to
make
a
determination,
what's
very
much
reasonable
onto
it
and
again,
I
know
that
probably
be
less
money
for
some
of
these
children,
but
I
felt
like
I,
wanted
to
make
sure
we
didn't
run
into
problems
and
the
biggest
part
not
the
biggest
part.
A
big
part
of
this
is
when
they're
out
they're
still
writing
that
check
for
this
child,
the
surviving
child-
and
sometimes
it
may
be
small
if
they
don't
have
a
lot
if
their
job
is
making
very
little
money.
Whether
but
it's
got
to
be
something.
J
Ahead,
go
ahead
with
the
wording,
then.
Maybe
I'm
hung
up
on
the
wording
when
you
say
child
support
to
me.
That's
child
support
under
the
statute.
What
about
support
of
the
child
in
terms
of
restitution
it
and
maybe
I'm
getting
hung
up
on
the
wording.
D
And
I
think
that's.
That
was
some
of
the
discussion
and
I
started
off
that
way,
the
same
way
and
it
was
because
I
tried,
it
says
restitution
in
the
form
of
Child
Support,
so
I
guess
we
could
call
it
restitution
in
the
form
of
supporting
the
child,
but
I
think
and
I.
Guess
probably
what
we
do,
but
in
my
definition,
we
lay
out
the
reasons
what
it
is
and
I
think.
Even
when
we
say
child
support,
we
have
to
reference
the
statute
to
get
into
those
perimeters
right.
That's
not
what
we
do.
D
It's
just
it's
just
my
explanation
of
the
bill
because
I
want
to
know
the
fairness
and
the
reason
and
the
Justice
of
the
restitution
is
not
punitive
it.
All.
The
restitution
is
for
to
pay
for
the
lack
of
support
that
child
would
have
received.
O
D
Other
things
here,
Mothers
Against
Drunk
drivers
have
talked
about
they've
named
some
other
laws
where
they've
been
supportive.
If
it's
gone
into
place
and
they've
been
helpful
with
this
as
well
and
I
want
to
say,
thank
thank
you
for
their
expertise
in
doing
this
as
well.
L
L
A
M
Senate
Bill
40
is
in,
did
you
get
super
123
Center,
okay,
see
at
the
199.