Legislative Issues – 2014 The 2014 Kansas Legislature convened on Monday, January 13, 2014. The 2014 session runs for 90 days until approximately mid-April. The 2014 Session was the second-session of the biennial legislature. Bills introduced in the 2013 Session that were not ‘killed’ are held over and may be considered. The first House Bill introduced in the 2014 Session was HB2417; the first Senate Bill in the 2014 Session was SB248. For the 2014 Session of the Kansas Legislature, individual requests for bill introductions must be submitted before February 3, 2014; committee introductions must be before February 10, 2014. All bills must pass their house of origin on or before February 28, 2014 (with some exceptions) or they are “dead” for the session. All bills must pass the opposite house from origin on or before March 26, 2014. All Bills must be considered for final action (other than bills from “exempt” committees) on or before April 4, 2014, when the Kansas House and Senate take “first adjournment” – although the 2014 Session lasted until April 6, 2014 for consideration of school funding required by the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Gannon v. State. The Legislature returned for its Veto Session on April 30, 2014. The Legislature adjourned at 2:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 3, 2014, after 79 days in session — the shortest session in 40 years. The Legislature returns May 30, 2014 for adjournment sine die. The following family law and related bills were pending in the 2014 Kansas Legislature: Senate:

SB252: Requiring that certain information about applicants to the Kansas Court of Appeals be made public. (DEAD)

The 2013 Legislature eliminated merit selection for Court of Appeals judges; in making his first selection under the new political selection method, the Governor refused to disclose any information — including names, qualifications, or number of those who applied for the position. The Governor ultimately selected his Chief Counsel to the post. This bill seeks to require any governor to disclose information to the public about those who are being considered for the court position — which had been done under merit selection for over 50 years. The bill was never scheduled for hearing.

SB269: Rules of evidence; clarifying application of timely objection rule. (PASSED SENATE 38–1)

This bill inserts into KSA 60–404 (Effect of Erroneous Admission of Evidence) the following phrase: “This rule shall apply in every proceeding, both civil and criminal, capital and non-capital, whether tried by a jury or tried by the court without a jury.” It’s an interesting addition considering that the evidence code already applies to every civil or criminal proceeding of whatever kind or nature before the state courts. But the Legislature is never at a loss for words – necessary or unnecessary.

The bill was heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 28, 2014, and was passed out of committee with a “do pass” recommendation on January 30, 2014. On February 12, 2014, the Senate passed the bill on a 38–1 (Francisco) vote.

The bill was introduced into the House and referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 13, 2014. The bill was scheduled for hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, March 06, 2014, at 1:30 pm in 152-S of the Capitol Building. The bill did not pass out of House committee.

SB287: District magistrate judges; jurisdiction; court made “of record”; appeals. (PASSED SENATE 38-1)(See S Sub HB2065)

This bill would allow district magistrate judges to hear a variety of criminal and civil cases that they are not now allowed to consider. In addition to those lower-level matters they can already hear, the bill would allow district magistrate judges to hear felony first appearance hearings, and misdemeanor or felony arraignments as well as any “uncontested actions for divorce” and any other civil actions “only with consent of the parties.” The bill would direct that all magistrate courts would become “courts of record,” and would authorize appeals directly from a district magistrate judge decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, the bill does not require that all magistrate judges be law-trained. As a result, non-law-trained magistrates could decide cases that would be immediately appealable to the Kansas Court of Appeals – which could easily cause a glut of cases to the appeals courts with a strongly likelihood of increased reversal rate. The bill was recommended for passage by the  Judiciary Committee on February 10, 2014. The full Senate passed the bill 38–1 on February 13, 2014.

The bill was received and introduced into the House, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 19, 2014. A hearing was scheduled for March 18, 2014, at 3:30 pm in 112-N of the Capitol Building. The bill did not pass out of committee. Instead, the Senate created a substitute bill for HB2065 incorporating its modified language into SB287.

SB302: Criminalizing Surrogate Parenting and Assistance and Voiding Surrogate Parenting Contracts (DEAD)

This bill would not only void surrogate parenting contracts, but would impose a penalty of up to $10,000 on “Any person or entity who or which is involved in, or induces, arranges or otherwise assists in the formation of a surrogate parenting contract for a fee, compensation or other remuneration.” It could subject to criminal punishment on doctors, lawyers, paralegals, nurses, midwives, and anyone else who had anything to do with helping create a family by those unable to do so. While many groups, including the American Bar Association, have attempted to draft model legislation to wisely regulate the procedures governing surrogate parenting (see ABA Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology, February 2008), this bill would criminalize it – an outdated and uninformed way of dealing with advancements in technology and family creation.

The bill was heard by Senate Committee on Tuesday, January 28, 2014. At the end of a packed committee hearing at which few testified in favor of the change and many testified against it — and after the Senate Majority Leader indicated the Chamber had no interest in criminalizing surrogacy — the Chair indicated the bill would not proceed. (See Washington Post article)

SB311: Civil procedure and civil actions; relating to noneconomic damages cap; expert or other testimony; collateral source benefits. (PASSED SENATE 32–8)(PASSED HOUSE, AMENDED 119–3)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR PASSED HOUSE 120–4)(CCR PASSED SENATE 38–2)(GOVERNOR SIGNED APRIL 17, 2014)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)

This bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on Judiciary at request of the Kansas Medical Society and the Kansas Chamber. As introduced and passed by the Senate, the bill would have amended provisions related to caps on non-economic damages, witness and expert witness testimony, and allowed evidence of collateral source benefits into actions seeking damages. The bill was highly controversial and opposed by the Kansas Bar Association. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, representatives of the Kansas Medical Society, Kansas Chamber, Kansas Association of Defense Counsel, Kansas Association of Osteopathic Medicine, and Kansas Hospital Association testified in support of the bill. Representatives of the Kansas Academy of Family Physicians and the National Federation of Independent Business submitted written testimony supporting the bill.  The proponents stated that the non-economic damages cap adjustment in the bill was a response to the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Johnson, 295 Kan. 636 (2012), that the amendments to expert witness provisions of the Evidence Code would implement the federal “Daubert standard” for expert witness testimony, and that the collateral source benefit amendment would “address” the Kansas Supreme Court decision in Thompson v. KFB Ins. Co., 252 Kan. 1010 (1993), declaring the collateral source benefit amendments unconstitutional. AARP Kansas, Kansas Advocates for Better Care, the Kansas Association for Justice, and the Kansas Bar Association testified in opposition to the bill. Citizens advocates submitted written testimony opposing the bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment put forward by the Kansas Chamber repealing statutes that provide a procedure to determine net collateral source benefits and reduce a judgment by such amount and amending the collateral source benefits definitions statute to reflect the repeal. The Committee also adopted an amendment put forward by the Kansas Association of Defense Counsel limiting lay witness opinion testimony as well as the facts or data upon which an expert witness could rely. After a lengthy debate in the Senate Committee of the Whole, including rejection of an amendment to delete collateral source language from the bill, the Senate passed the bill February 27, 2014 on Final Action (32–8), with all the Senate Democrats voting against passage:

Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Arpke, Bowers, Bruce, Denning, Donovan, Fitzgerald, Holmes, Kerschen, King, Knox, LaTurner, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Masterson, McGinn, Melcher, O’Donnell, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Powell, Pyle, V. Schmidt, Shultz, Smith, Tyson, Wagle, Wolf.

Nays: Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hawk, Hensley, Holland, Kelly, Pettey.

The bill was introduced into the House on March 5, 2014; but instead of being referred to the House Judiciary Committee (as usual practice), it was assigned to the House Committee on Commerce, Labor & Development (a committee on which few lawyer sit). After a hearing on March 17, 2014, the Committee passed the bill out to the full House recommending passage without further amendment.

On March 21, 2014, the bill proceeded to floor debate. Representative Kinzer (R-Olathe), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, offered an amendment deleting the provisions pertaining to the admissibility of evidence of collateral source benefits, which was adopted on voice vote. A proposed amendment by Representative Carmichael (R-Wichita), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, to delete amendments to the expert and lay witness rules, failed on voice vote. The bill, as amended on by the House Committee of the Whole, passed on Final Action (119-3) March 24, 2014.

The Senate non-concurred in the House Amendments asking for Conference Committee on March 25, 2014, to which the House acceded. The committee agreed to disagree, but the House refused to accept. A Conference Committee Report was issued on April 3, 2014, agreeing to the version of the bill passed by the House and repealing the existing statutes related to collateral source benefits. The House adopted the Conference Committee Report on April 3, 2014 (120–4); and the Senate adopted the Conference Committee Report (38–2) on April 4, 2014.

The bill was enrolled and sent to the governor for approval on April 11, 2014, and signed by him on April 17, 2014.

Significant to family law cases, the bill would change the rules of evidence governing opinion testimony by both witnesses testifying as an expert and those providing opinion testimony offered by a witness not testifying as an expert: 1. The standard for admissibility of expert testimony would be amended to use the “Daubert standard” (rather than the “Frye standard”) so that, where scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge would help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may offer opinion testimony if the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, if the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and if the witness has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The bill would establish a procedure by which, upon motion of a party, the court may hold a pretrial hearing to determine a witness’ qualifications as an expert and whether the witness’ testimony satisfies the requirements set forth above. The bill would establish that facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived or made known to the expert. If such facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences, the facts or data would not need to be admissible into evidence for admission of the opinion or inference. Facts or data otherwise inadmissible could not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent unless the court determines the probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. 2.  The standard for admissibility of testimony by non-expert witnesses would be limited to opinions or inferences that the judge finds are (a) rationally based upon the witness’s own perceptions, (b) are helpful for a clearer understanding of the witness’s testimony, and (c) are not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge reserved to testimony by ‘expert witnesses.’

SB313: Increasing various docket fees and creating new docket fees. (DEAD)(NOT DEAD, SEE SB Sub for HB2338)

This bill would increase the filing fees paid for criminal and civil filings in the district courts, increasing the filing fee for a family law petition (divorce, separate maintenance, annulment, or for determination of parentage) to $173, increase the appellate court filing fee to $145, and create a new fee of $195 for the filing of a motion for summary judgment.

This bill was heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 5, 2014 and passed out of committee with amendments on February 11, 2014. The amendments remove a new garnishment fee in limited actions under Chapter 61 and clarifies that the new filing for for summary judgment motions does not apply to limited actions cases.

SB324: Judicial branch supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2015, judiciary operations. (DEAD)(NOT DEAD, SEE SB Sub for HB2338) SB329: Clarifying court orders relating to parents in juvenile offender cases. (PASSED SENATE 39–0)(PASSED HOUSE, AMENDED 123–0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)

This bill makes a simple amendment to the Juvenile Offender statutes allowing a sentencing court to order not only participation in parenting classes, but also any “other court sponsored program designed to rehabilitate the juvenile.”

Assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill was scheduled for hearing on February 11, 2014. The bill passed out of committee that same day with a recommendation that it be placed on the Consent Calendar. On February 14, 2014, the bill passed the Senate on a 39–0 vote.

The bill was introduced into the House and referred to the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice, which scheduled a hearing for  Thursday, March 06, 2014, at 1:30 pm in 152-S of the Capitol Building. The House Committee amended the bill to permit a court to order participation in any evidence-based program. The House Committee of the Whole further amended the bill to specify that any court-ordered program must be “designed to rehabilitate the juvenile,” and recommended passage by the full House. The full House passed the amended bill unanimously (123–0). On March 25, 2014, the Senate non-concurred with the House amendments, requesting a Conference Committee with Senators King, Haley, and Smith as conferees. The House acceded to the Conference Committee appointing Representatives Rubin, Gonzalez, and Pauls.

SB329: Clarifying court orders relating to parents in juvenile offender cases. (PASSED SENATE 39-0)(PASSED HOUSE, AMENDED 123-0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(HOUSE ADOPTED CCR 121-4)(SENATE ADOPTED CCR 39-0)

As introduced, the bill would have allowed a court to order an offender’s parent to participate in a “court sponsored program designed to rehabilitate a juvenile” offender other than those listed in current law. In the Senate Committee hearing, a district judge from the Fifth Judicial District testified in support of the bill, stating it would provide more flexibility for the District’s Home Court program. The Senate passed the bill on Consent Calendar (39-0).

The bill was assigned to the House Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee, which amended the bill to permit a court to order participation in any evidence-based program. On consideration by the House Committee of the Whole, the bill was amended to specify that any court-ordered program must be “designed to rehabilitate the juvenile.” On Final Action, the House passed the bill (123-0).

The Conference Committee agreed to the House amendments to SB329, regarding orders related to the sentencing of juvenile offenders. The Conference Committee further agreed to add the contents of SB258 (Amending the juvenile statute of limitations to match adult time limitations for sex crimes), as amended by the House Committee on Judiciary and passed by the House, regarding the statute of limitations for juvenile offenses. On May 2, 2014, the Senate (39-0) and House (121-4) passed the CCR, sending it on to the governor for signature.

SB355: Kansas Power of Attorney Act (PASSED SENATE 38-0)

This bill would make substantial changes to existing statutes authorizing powers of attorney in Kansas. Among the changes, the bill would require specific notices to the attorney-in-fact, and would statutorily require that the attorney-in-fact only exercise the powers granted ‘in the principal’s best interest.” SB355 was introduced in conjunction with SB354, which amends the state criminal statutes dealing with mistreatment of an elder person or dependent adult. (See Topeka Capital-Journal article, “Senate bills strike a blow against elder abuse“). The bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on Judiciary at the request of Senator O’Donnell. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator O’Donnell; the Kansas State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, Kansas Alzheimer’s Association chapters, the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association, and LeadingAge Kansas; and a recently retired adult care home director testified in support of the bill. Written testimony supporting the bill was received from Attorney General Schmidt, and a representative of AARP Kansas.

On February 13, 2014, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended that the bill be passed as amended in committee as suggested by a representative of the Kansas Bankers Association that would include an invalidation in the good faith provision. On February 19, 2014, the Senate Committee of the Whole further amended the bill to replace the phrase “ask your attorney to explain it to you” with “seek legal advice” in the warning statement to the principal. On Thursday, February 20, 2014, the Senate passed the bill in a unanimous vote (38–0), together with SB354 (Mistreatment of an elder person or dependent adult). (See Topeka Capital-Journal article, “Kansas Senate passes financial protections for senior citizens“).

Introduced into the House, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Children and Seniors. The bill was introduced into the House on February 21, 2014, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for Wednesday, March 12, 2014, at 3:30 pm in 112-N of the Capitol Building.

SB364: Courts: budget allocations for judicial districts. (DEAD)(NOT DEAD, SEE SB Sub for HB2338)

This bill would direct that each year a budget would be allocated for each judicial district court the chief judge of each judicial district having the authority to expend funds as necessary to carry out the functions of such district, including establishing what court personnel are necessary and their compensation. The bill was heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, February 17, 2014, supported by a few and opposed by the Chief Justice. (See Topeka Capital-Journal story, “Chief justice opposes bill to diffuse budget authority“).

The bill passed out of Committee on February 25, 2014 with an amendment allowing Chief Judges to “opt-in” to controlling the district budget with final authority remaining in the Supreme Court. The bill was stricken from the calendar on March 13, 2014; but on March 17, 2014, the revisor gave an update on the bill.

SB365: District court judges in judicial district elect chief judge and court of appeals judges elect chief judge of the court of appeals. (DEAD)(NOT DEAD, SEE SB Sub for HB2338)

This bill would allow the district judges in a judicial district to choose for themselves the “chief” district judge without Kansas Supreme Court approval. It is another attempt to dilute and attack the Kansas Supreme Court and the independent Kansas court system, dividing and diffusing its authority. The bill was heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, February 17, 2014, supported by a few and opposed by the Chief Justice. (See Topeka Capital-Journal story, “Chief justice opposes bill to diffuse budget authority“) The bill passed out of committee without amendment to the Senate floor on voice vote on February 25, 2014. The bill was stricken from the calendar on March 13, 2014; but on March 17, 2014, the revisor gave an update on the bill.

SB368: Child in Need of Care: Custody, visitation and residency of a child with certain relatives (DEAD)

This bill would replace all references to “grandparent” throughout the Kansas Revised Code for Care of Children with “relative” so that if a child is determined “in need of care” and is removed from the custody and care of a parent, any relative could apply for and be granted custody of the child with the following priorities: “(1) First, to any grandparent of the child; (2) then to any great-grandparents of the child; (3) then to any adult siblings of the child; and (4) then to any uncle or aunt of the child.” The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, February 19, 2014, at 10:30 am in 346-S of the Capitol.

SB377: Courts; district judge and district magistrate judge vacancies. (DEAD)(NOT DEAD, SEE S Sub for HB2338, SEE S SUB for HB2065)

This bill would mandate the time within which nominations for district judge and district magistrate judge could be considered before appointment to 120 days and extend the time for the consideration of any nominations made from 30 days to 60 days. The bill is the same as HB2612. The bill passed out of Committee without amendment on February 24, 2014. Language from the bill was inserted by the Senate Judiciary into two separate bills previously passed by the House: HB2338 and HB2065.

SB389: Domestic Case Management (DEAD)

This bill would make numerous changes to the Kansas Domestic Case Management (Parent Coordination) statutes to tighten up the process and limit the initial term of case management orders. The bill defines the rights of parents in the process, requires specific findings before a court can order parents into case management, including that other methods to resolve ongoing disputes were tried and failed. The bill clarifies procedural protections for parents in case management, sets out parent rights for court access while in case management, requires the case manager to give rationale for recommendations made, and clarifies the procedures a court must use when reviewing case management recommendations.  SB389 is identical to HB2664, introduced in the Kansas House on the same day.

S Sub SB394: Enacting the foster parents’ bill of rights act and establishing the state foster care and adoption board. (PASSED SENATE 34–3)

SB394 was introduced by the Senate Committee on Assessment and Taxation. Upon introduction, the  bill was assigned to and heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 10:30 am, in 346-S of the Capitol Building. The bill was later set for hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2014, at 10:30 am, in 346-S of the Capitol Building. As introduced, SB394 would require the Department for Children and Families treat foster parents with respect and as partners, provide foster parents with more training, share pertinent and confidential information about the child, provide the foster parent with more voice during the decision to place the child with the foster parent, include the foster parent in meetings concerning court hearings and licensure status, provide appropriate respite care, allow foster parents to share the child’s information with those involved with the case, inform foster parents of the child’s progress following foster care, allow the foster parent to contest the removal of a child from the foster home, and allow a foster parent preference for placement if the parent has cared for the child previously. The bill would change the placement threshold from six months to three months and would require a notice when the child is moved to a pre-adoptive family. Currently, the court must give first preference to relatives and second preference to a person with whom the child has close emotional ties. SB394 would give first preference to a relative to the third degree, to include the adoptive parents of previously born siblings. Second preference would be given to a person with whom the child has close emotional ties, with preference to a foster parent who has had physical custody of the child for six months or longer. On March 6, 2014, a Senate Sub for SB394 was adopted by the committee as suggested by the proponents and neutral conferees. The substitute bill (see comparison) modified the language of the Bill of Rights, removed a section that would create a State Foster Care and Adoption Board, and removed some changes to existing statutes proposed in the original bill. (See KHI News, “Senate committee endorses ‘foster parent bill of rights‘”). The Senate Committee of the Whole amended the substitute bill on March 11, 2014, to remove a provision that would allow foster parents to request “all available information, when possible, before deciding whether to accept a child for placement.” On Final Action, the Senate passed the bill with COW amendments (34–3): Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Arpke, Bowers, Bruce, Denning, Donovan, Fitzgerald, Francisco, Holmes, Kerschen, King, Knox, LaTurner, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Masterson, McGinn, Melcher, O’Donnell, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pettey, Pilcher-Cook, Powell, Pyle, V. Schmidt, Shultz, Smith, Tyson, Wagle, Wolf. Nays: Faust-Goudeau, Hensley, Holland. Present and Passing: Haley, Hawk, Kelly. (See Wichita Eagle-Beacon, “Senate passes bill giving foster parents greater say in child welfare cases“) The bill was introduced into the House on March 14, 2014, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing on the bill for Thursday, March 20, 2014, at 3:30 pm in 112–N of the Capitol Building.

SB399: Allocating moneys from driver’s license fees to the judicial branch nonjudicial salary adjustment fund.  (incorporated into SB Sub for HB2446)

This bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and was heard on Thursday, February 20, 2014, 10:30 am in 346-S of the Capitol Building. The bill was incorporated into SB Sub for HB2446 by the Senate Judiciary Committee in recommendations made on February 25, 2014.

House: HB2014: Revoking the rights of a spouse to claim beneficiary rights under insurance and non-federal retirement plans upon entry of divorce. (PASSED HOUSE 119-0)(HELD OVER)

This bill provides that beneficiary rights of a spouse for insurance policies, non-federally protected retirement plans and accounts, and other accounts with beneficiary designations automatically terminate upon entry of a decree of marriage dissolution (divorce or annulment). The bill originated from a proposal recommended by the Kansas Judicial Council. The Kansas House passed the bill (as amended by the House Judiciary Committee) on February 20, 2013 by a vote of 119-0. The Committee amendment inserted the following language, “if the decree of divorce or annulment specifies any interests of the former spouse described in this subsection which are to be revoked or severed” after language terminating the beneficiary rights, which changed the proposed statute from an automatic termination of beneficiary rights, to one where those rights are terminated only if the divorce decree states that beneficiary rights are terminated. The bill was introduced into the Kansas Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on March 13, 2013, passing it out of committee without further amendments. The bill was put onto the Senate Calendar for debate, but passed over retaining its place on the Calendar for later consideration. On January 22, 2014, at the beginning of the 2014 Legislative Session, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Interstate Cooperation.

S Sub HB2065: Crimes; home improvement fraud (PASSED HOUSE 106–16) Judges; vacancies in the office of judge of the district court and the office of district magistrate judge (AMENDED PASSED SENATE 40–0)(HOUSE CONCURRED 109–12)(GOVERNOR SIGNED APRIL 16, 2014)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)

As originally introduced, HB2065 would create the crime of home improvement fraud. In House committee, the bill was amended to strike portions of the original definitions section. The House Committee of the Whole made additional, technical changes. The House passed the bill on final action (106–16) February 13, 2013, sending the bill to the Senate. The bill was introduced to the Kansas Senate Committee on Judiciary, which held a hearing on the bill on March 12, 2013 in346-S of the Capitol. The Senate Committee did not act on the bill during the 2013 session. On February 25, 2014, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended a substitute bill for HB2065. The substitute contained the contents of SB377, which would mandate the time within which nominations for district judge and district magistrate judge could be considered before appointment to 120 days and extend the time for the consideration of any nominations made from 30 days to 60 days. SB377 was the same as HB2612.   On April 2, 2014, the Senate Committee of the Whole amended the bill by striking the language of the substitute bill recommended by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, replacing it with modified provisions from SB287. The Senate Committee of the Whole substitute bill modified the appeal provisions of SB287 providing that the new appeals process would apply only to district magistrate judges regularly admitted to practice law in Kansas. The Senate passed the bill, as amended by the COW on emergency final action that same day (40–0). On April 4, 2014, the House concurred in the Senate changes to the bill (109–12), sending it to the governor for signature on April 8, 2014. The governor signed the bill on April 16, 2014, the same day he signed S Sub HB2065, which unconstitutionally distributes powers of the Kansas Supreme Court to district court judges and chief judges.

S Sub HB2070: Criminal procedure; relating to appearance bonds; surety or agent of surety   (PASSED HOUSE 122–1) Courts; time limits for decisions by courts. (SUB PASSED SENATE 32–7)(SEE CCR S Sub for HB2446)

This bill started its life as a bill introduced by the 2013 House Committee on Judiciary to make changes in the statutes governing appearance bonds and those who could place surety bonds, as well as imposing additional requirements on those bonding agents and persons on bond. The The House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice amended the bill to remove provisions that would have amended conditions for appearance and own recognizance bonds (OR bonds). The committee amendments were approved by the Committee of the Whole on February 28, 2013, and the bill passed the House on March 1, 2013 (122–1). The bill was passed into the Senate and assigned to the Judiciary Committee and was not heard during the 2013 session. On February 11, 2014, the 2014 Senate Committee on Judiciary recommended a substitute bill be passed. The substitute senate bill contained language modified from 2013 SB289. SB289 was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee at the request of Senator King, who explained the bill was derived from recommendations made in the 2012 report by the Kansas Supreme Court’s Blue Ribbon Commission. In the Senate Committee, the Leavenworth County Attorney appeared in support of the bill, noting the bill could encourage a more timely and efficient judiciary. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick McAnany, Chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission, testified on behalf of the Commission and the Kansas Supreme Court in opposition to the bill, stating the Judicial Branch is undertaking internal efforts to provide more timely release of decisions. The Senate Committee modified the language of SB289 to make any writing required by the bill available to the public. The Committee then recommended the modified language be adopted as a substitute bill for HB2070. The Senate Substitute for HB2070 was approved by the Committee of the Whole and passed the Senate (32–7): Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Arpke, Bowers, Bruce, Denning, Donovan, Faust-Goudeau, Fitzgerald, Hawk, Holmes, Kerschen, King, Knox, LaTurner, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Masterson, Melcher, O’Donnell, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Powell, Pyle, Shultz, Smith, Tyson, Wagle, Wolf. Nays: Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Kelly, McGinn, V. Schmidt. Absent or Not Voting: Pettey. The bill passed back to the House for concurrence or non-concurrence. The House non-concurred in the Senate substitute bill and a Conference Committee was appointed by both the House and Senate. The Conference Committee incorporated the provisions of the substitute bill into S Sub for HB2446.

HB2330: Marriage Licenses (DEAD)

This bill would amend existing law to reduce the fees charged to issue a marriage license from the current $59 to $23.50 if the person requesting the license has completed a premarital counseling program authorized by the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Children and Families. The bill would require a certificate to be issued to a person who has completed a minimum of eight hours in one of those programs.Because fees from marriage licenses are designated to pay for victim assistance programs, the bill would reduce the amounts budgeted and paid for those programs – by an unknown amount. The bill was introduced on February 13, 2013 and referred to the House Committee on Appropriations. It was not considered in the 2013 Legislative Session; but “popped up” on the Committee schedule for hearing on February 21, 2014 at 9:00 am in 112-N of the Capitol Building.

S Sub for HB2338: Courts; docket fees (PASSED HOUSE 67–52) Judicial branch; supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2015, judiciary operations; increasing various docket fees and creating new docket fees; annually, allowing the allocation of a budget for each judicial district court operations, chief judge would have the authority to expend funds as necessary to carry out the functions of such district if such chief judge elected to do so, including establishing what court personnel are necessary and their compensation; district court judges in judicial district elect chief judge and court of appeals judges elect chief judge of the court of appeals; district judge and district magistrate judge vacancies; statutory authority for longevity bonus for judicial branch employees repealed; non-severability clause (SUB PASSED SENATE 23–12, 4 abstentions)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR PASSED SENATE 26–11)(CCR PASSED HOUSE 66–57)(GOVERNOR SIGNED APRIL 17, 2014)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)

Senate Sub. for HB 2338 would appropriate $2.0 million in additional State General funds for the Judicial Branch in FY 2015, increase docket fee revenue to the Judicial Branch, and modify statutes governing Judicial Branch operations concerning budgeting, the election of chief judges, and allowing for a delay in filling judicial vacancies for up to 120 days. The bill also would delete the statutory requirement for the payment of longevity to Judicial Branch non-judicial staff. The provisions of the bill would be non-severable. As originally introduced, this bill would change current law providing for a splitting of docket fee revenue giving designated percentages of the docket fee to a variety of state funds, to remove those designated percentages and, in addition, would reduce docket fees by $2 due to the elimination of the fee that were used to support the Judicial Performance Commission. The House Committee on Appropriations amended the bill to delay the implementation of the bill until FY2015 to allow agencies to submit amended budgetary requests, on March 18, 2014. On March 25, 2014, the House Committee of the Whole passed the bill on to final consideration without amendment. The House passed the bill on March 26, 2013 (67–52): Yeas: Alford, Boldra, Bradford, Brunk, Couture-Lovelady, Carpenter, Cassidy, Claeys, Corbet, Crum, DeGraaf, Dove, Edmonds, Edwards, Esau, Ewy, Gandhi, Garber, Goico, Grosserode, Hawkins, Hedke, Hermanson, Highland, Hildabrand, Hoffman, Houser, Howell, Huebert, Hutton, Johnson, Jones, Kahrs, Kelley, Kelly, Kinzer, Kleeb, Lunn, Macheers, Mast, McPherson, Meigs, Merrick, Montgomery, O’Brien, Peck, Petty, Powell, Proehl, Read, Rhoades, Rothlisberg, Rubin, Ryckman Jr., Ryckman Sr., Schroeder, Schwab, Schwartz, Seiwert, Shultz, Siegfreid, Suellentrop, Sutton, Thimesch, Vickrey, Waymaster, Weber. Nays: Alcala, Ballard, Barker, Becker, Bideau, Bollier, Bridges, Bruchman, Burroughs, Campbell, Carlin, Christmann, Clayton, Concannon, Davis, Dierks, Dillmore, Doll, Finch, Finney, Frownfelter, Gonzalez, Grant, Hibbard, Hill, Hineman, Houston, Jennings, Kuether, Lane, Lusk, Meier, Menghini, Moxley, Pauls, Perry, Phillips, Rooker, Ruiz, Sloan, Sloop, Swanson, Tietze, Todd, Trimmer, Victors, Ward, Weigel, Whipple, Wilson, Winn, Wolfe Moore. Absent or not voting: Carlson, Henderson, Henry, Osterman, Peterson, Sawyer. The bill was received in the Senate on March 26, 2013 and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means on March 27, 2013. The bill did not make it out of Committee during the 2013 Session of the Legislature. On February 28, 2014, without apparent hearing, a Senate Substitute was made for HB2338. Senate Sub. for HB 2338 would appropriate $2.0 million in additional State General funds for the Judicial Branch in FY 2015, increase docket fee revenue to the Judicial Branch, and modify statutes governing Judicial Branch operations concerning budgeting, the election of Chief Judges and allowing for a delay in filling judicial vacancies for up to 120 days. The bill also would delete the statutory requirement for the payment of longevity to Judicial Branch non-judicial staff. The provisions of the bill would be non-severable. These changes amend into the previous House bill various House and Senate bills that had not previously had hearings in their respective committees (including SB313, SB324, SB365, SB377, and others). The revised bill would mandate the time within which nominations for district judge and district magistrate judge could be considered before appointment to 120 days and extend the time for the consideration of any nominations made from 30 days to 60 days and make many other changes. Background HB2338, as passed by the House, would have amended the distribution of clerk’s fees in the Judicial Branch. The Senate Committee on Ways and Means deleted these contents and replaced them with the modified contents of SB 324, which would have appropriated $8.2 million in additional State General funds to the Judicial Branch in FY 2015. The Committee also inserted the contents of SB 313 (docket fees), SB 364 (Judicial Branch budgeting procedure), SB 365 (chief judge elections), and SB 377 (filling judicial vacancies) without amendment into SB 324 prior to the insertion of the contents of SB 324 into HB 2338. SB313, on docket fees, was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee at the request of Senator King, who explained the bill was derived from recommendations made in the 2012 report by the Kansas Supreme Court’s Blue Ribbon Commission. The Blue Ribbon Commission was formed in late 2010 and was charged with reviewing the operations of Kansas courts to determine how to improve their efficiency while maintaining access to justice for all Kansans. In the Senate Committee, representatives of the Kansas District Judges Association testified in support of the bill. Written testimony supporting the bill was received from a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission and representatives of the Kansas Credit Attorneys Association and the Office of Judicial Administration (OJA). The OJA testimony included language for a proposed amendment clarifying the name and purpose of the fund created by the bill. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick McAnany, Chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and another representative of OJA provided neutral testimony. A representative of the Kansas Department of Corrections also provided neutral testimony and requested an amendment to exempt the state of Kansas and its municipalities from the motion for summary judgment filing fee. The Senate Committee adopted an amendment removing a new garnishment fee in limited actions under Chapter 61 and clarifying the motion for summary judgment filing fee is not to apply to such actions. Staff stated this amendment would allow the bill to reflect the intent of the parties requesting the bill. The Committee also adopted the amendments proposed by the OJA and the Department of Corrections. According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of the Budget on the bill, as introduced, the OJA indicates the fees created or amended by the bill would increase Judicial Branch revenues by $5.9 million in FY 2015. The first $3.1 million of this amount would be directed to the new fund created by the bill, with $2,772,280 distributed to the Judicial Branch Docket Fee Fund and $27,720 distributed to the Judicial Council Fund. In FY 2016 and FY 2017, the first $3.1 million would be credited to the fund created by the bill, and the remaining $2.8 million would be distributed to a variety of other funds based on percentages established in current law. Beginning in FY 2018, the first $1.0 million would be credited to the fund created by the bill, and the remaining amount generated would be distributed to a variety of other funds based on percentages established in current law. The Department of Revenue estimates SB 313 as introduced, would increase expenditures by approximately $4.9 million in FY 2015: $20,000 in new garnishment fees; $53,685 for a FTE position to handle work related to the new garnishment fees; $4.8 million in civil docket fee increases related to tax warrant cases; $68,250 in summary judgment fees; and $1,933 in increased appellate fees. The Attorney General indicated enactment could be challenged in court, increasing expenses under the Kansas Tort Claim Act, but those costs cannot be determined. The Judicial Branch submitted revised fiscal information in anticipation of the adoption of the amendment removing the Chapter 61 provisions from the bill, indicating the bill would increase Judicial Branch revenues by $4,594,005 in FY 2015. SB364, on Judicial Branch budgeting procedure, was introduced by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. In the Senate Committee on Judiciary, a district court judge from the Eighteenth Judicial District testified in support of the bill. Written testimony supporting the bill was received from two additional judges of the Eighteenth Judicial District. The chief judge from the Fifth Judicial District and representatives of the Kansas District Judges Association, Kansas Association of Defense Counsel, and OJA testified in opposition to the bill. Written testimony opposing the bill was received from Kansas Chief Justice Lawton Nuss and representatives of the Kansas Association for Justice and Kansas Bar Association. The Senate Committee amended the bill to make the new budget process and authority optional at the election of the chief judge of a judicial district. According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of the Budget on SB 364, as introduced, the OJA indicates the bill would require 13 judicial districts to establish a court administrator, resulting in $1,032,174 in increased expenditures from the State General Fund in FY 2016 and each subsequent year. OJA estimated an additional $1,251,774 would be required from the SGF in FY 2016 and each subsequent year to add court program analysts in 18 judicial districts requiring additional assistance. OJA anticipates continued dependence on its office for payroll management and personnel processes, but a precise fiscal effect cannot be provided until the provisions of the bill are in place. SB365, on chief judge elections, was introduced by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. In the Senate Committee on Judiciary, two district judges from the Eighteenth Judicial District spoke in favor of the bill. Two judges from the same district submitted written testimony supporting the bill. A representative of the Kansas Supreme Court testified in opposition to the bill. The chief judge of the Eighth Judicial District and a representative of the Kansas Bar Association submitted written testimony opposing the bill. The fiscal note prepared by the Division of the Budget on the bill indicates SB 365 would have no fiscal effect on the expenditures or revenues of the Judicial Branch. SB377, on judicial vacancies, was introduced by the Senate Committee on Judiciary at the request of the Kansas Supreme Court. In the Senate Committee, Kansas Court of Appeals Judge Karen Arnold-Burger, Chairperson of the Court Budget Advisory Council, testified in support of the bill. There was no neutral or opponent testimony. The fiscal note prepared by the Division of the Budget indicates passage could reduce Judicial Branch expenditures by allowing a longer period of time to fill judicial vacancies than is allowed under current law. The Court Budget Advisory Council made certain presumptions and found this proposal would be a cost-saving measure. Vacancies are sporadic, however, and an average vacancy rate is not indicative of actual vacancies that might occur in any given year. Additionally, the Office of Judicial Administration indicates counties might incur additional expenses for temporary judges if cases are delayed or cannot be heard by other judges. Appropriations The bill would appropriate an additional $2.0 million, all from the State General Fund, for the Judicial Branch. The additional appropriation would provide a State General Fund budget of $97,783,858 for FY 2015. The funding would be intended to offset lower than anticipated revenue to the Judicial Branch Surcharge Fund and the Judicial Branch Docket Fee Fund. Judicial Branch clerk’s fees have been reducing an average of 6.0 percent per year over the past four years. Docket Fees The bill would create statutory filing fees for appeals to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in the amount of $145 and grant the Supreme Court the authority to impose an additional charge of up to $10 from July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2015, to fund the costs of non-judicial personnel. (Appellate court filing fees currently are set at $125 by Supreme Court rule.) A motion for summary judgment filing fee of $195 would be created, as well as a garnishment request fee of $7.50. The Supreme Court would be authorized to impose an additional charge of up to $12.50 for garnishment requests to fund the costs of non-judicial personnel. The summary judgment filing fee would not apply in limited actions cases under Chapter 61, and the State of Kansas and its municipalities would be exempt from payment of this fee. Each of these new fees would go into effect on July 1, 2014, and for each a poverty affidavit would be allowed in lieu of the fee. The bill would increase existing docket fees as follows:

• For a petition for expungement of conviction or related arrest records, from $100 to $176 for the period July 1, 2013, through July 1, 2015;
• For a petition for expungement of an arrest record, from $100 to $176;
• In a traffic, cigarette or tobacco, or fish and game violation case, from $74 to $86 beginning July 1, 2014;
• For a petition for expungement of juvenile records or files, from $100 to $176 for the period July 1, 2013, through July 1, 2015;
• For the filing of an out-of-state probate decree, from $108.50 to $173, beginning July 1, 2014; and
• For cases under KSA Chapter 60, from $154 to $173, beginning July 1, 2014.

The bill also would extend the time for the Supreme Court to impose an additional fee in juvenile and conviction expungement cases and Chapter 60 cases to fund non- judicial personnel to July 1, 2015. The bill would reduce the docket fees in small claims cases from $37 to $35 (claims under $500) and from $57 to $55 (claims over $500) beginning July 1, 2014. The bill would create the Electronic Filing and Centralized Case Management Fund and direct expenditures from the fund be used to create, implement, and manage an electronic filing and centralized case management system for the state court system. For FY 2015, 2016, and 2017, the bill would direct the first $3.1 million of the balance of docket fees received by the state treasurer from clerks of the district court to the fund created by the bill. Beginning in FY 2018, the first $1.0 million of the docket fees received would be directed to the new fund. Finally, the bill would update agency references to reflect current agency authority and responsibilities. Judicial Branch Budgeting Procedure The bill would enact new law to allow, for the fiscal year ending June 20, 2016, and each subsequent fiscal year, the chief judge in a judicial district to elect to be responsible for preparing and submitting a budget for the judicial district to the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court. A chief judge electing this responsibility would be required to notify the Chief Justice of this decision by August 1 of the preceding fiscal year, and the chief judge would be required to submit, on or before June 30 of each fiscal year, the budget for theensuing fiscal year based upon the dollar amount allocated to the district by the Chief Justice for such fiscal year. Subject to appropriations, the Chief Justice would have the final authority over the annual amount allocated to each judicial district budget. After the Legislature makes Judicial Branch appropriations each year, the Chief Justice would determine the budgeted amount for each judicial district and notify each chief judge of that amount. Once the amount of each judicial district budget is established by the Chief Justice, the chief judge of each district would have control of the expenditures under the budget, except for salaries mandated by law, and all lawful claims by a chief judge within the limits of the district budget would be approved by the judicial administrator. The chief judge of each district would determine the compensation of personnel in the district and would have the authority to hire, promote, suspend, demote, and dismiss personnel as necessary to carry out the functions and duties of the district. If it appears the resources of any Judicial Branch special revenue fund are likely to be insufficient to cover the appropriations made against such fund for the fiscal year, the Chief Justice would be responsible for determining any allotment system to assure expenditures would not exceed available resources of any such fund for the fiscal year, and chief judges who have elected the responsibility for the district budget would be required to follow this allotment system. Existing law would be amended to remove from the Supreme Court’s judicial personnel classification system any nonjudicial personnel who would be subject to the authority of a chief judge who has elected responsibility for the district budget, and the bill would state that the classification system is not to infringe upon the authority of a chief judge who has elected budget responsibility. The bill would amend a provision related to departmental justices to clarify that a departmental justice would not have the authority to make or change any budget decisions made by the chief judge of a district court. The bill would amend statutes relating to judicial departments, district court rules, district court clerks, district court nonjudicial personnel, court services officers, county budgets for court operations, and court reporters to be consistent with the new budget process and authority established by the bill. Certain provisions (related to the judicial personnel classification system and compensation, probation and parole officer, and district court employees) tied to specific dates in 1978 and 1979 would be removed, and references to certain agencies and boards would be updated to reflect reorganization. Chief Judge Elections The substitute bill would establish that the district court judges in each judicial district would elect a district judge to serve as chief judge and would determine the procedure for such election. Similarly, the judges of the Court of Appeals would elect a judge of the Court of Appeals to serve as chief judge. The Court of Appeals would determine the procedure for such election. Under current law, the Kansas Supreme Court designates a judge in each judicial district and a judge of the Court of Appeals to serve as chief judge of the judicial district or the Court of Appeals, respectively. The bill would provide that each chief judge designated by the Supreme Court on July 1, 2014, would be allowed to serve as chief judge through January 1, 2016. Judicial Vacancies The substitute bill would amend the law concerning the filling of judicial vacancies. The bill would require the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to provide notice of a vacancy in the office of district court judge or district magistrate court judge to the chairperson of the district judicial nominating commission in such district not later than 120 days following the date the vacancy occurs or will occur. Current law requires such notice be given “promptly.” Once the nominating commission has submitted the required number of nominations to the Governor, the bill would increase from 30 to 60 the number of days within which the Governor must make an appointment. Similarly, the bill would increase from 30 to 60 the number of days within which the Chief Justice must make an appointment if the Governor fails to make an appointment within the allotted time. In judicial districts where judges are elected, the bill would require the Clerk of the Supreme Court to provide notice of a vacancy in the office of district court judge to the Governor not later than 120 days following the date the vacancy occurs or will occur. Further, the bill would increase from 60 to 90 the number of days within which the Governor must make an appointment following receipt of such notice. On Thursday, March 6, 2014, the bill was considered by the Senate Committee of the Whole. At noon, before the Senate floor debate on the bill, it was learned that the Kansas Supreme Court would issue its school funding decision against the state (Gannon) on Friday, March 7, 2014. (See Kansas Public Radio, “KS Supreme Court to Release School Funding Decision“) Although during floor debate, Democrats offered amendments to cut out the worst parts of the bill, all were defeated. Only one amendment – by Judiciary Committee Chair Jeff King – was accepted. That amendment provides that the State of Kansas and all municipalities need not pay any filing fee surcharge authorized in the bill to be levied by the Kansas Supreme Court. On Emergency Final Action, held immediately after the vote by the Senate COW, the bill passed (23–12 with 4 passing): Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Arpke, Bowers, Bruce, Denning, Donovan, Fitzgerald, Holmes, Kerschen, King, Knox, LaTurner, Longbine, Lynn, Masterson, Melcher, O’Donnell, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Shultz, Smith, Wagle. Nays: Haley, Hawk, Hensley, Holland, Kelly, McGinn, Olson, Pettey, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, V. Schmidt, Tyson. Present and Passing: Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Love, Wolf. Absent or Not Voting: Powell. (See Topeka Capital-Journal article, “Senate ties judiciary budget to reforms: Democrats cry foul as committee chairman bundles budget with other bills“) With Senate approval of its substitute, the bill returns to the House for a vote on whether to accept the Senate changes or send the bill to Conference Committee. On Friday, March 7, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Gannon v. Kansas. Included in the decision was a strong statement about the importance of the separation of powers, the importance of an independent judiciary, and that it is the designated responsibility of the courts, not the legislature, to determine and interpret the law: “The Kansas Constitution is the work of the people. In their constitution, the people have distributed governmental power among three departments or branches, i.e., the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Under this separation of powers, the judiciary interprets, explains, and applies the law to actual controversies. It is the judiciary’s obligation to interpret the constitution and safeguard the basic rights reserved to the people. Determining whether an act of the legislature is invalid under the people’s constitution is solely the duty of the judiciary. The judiciary is not at liberty to surrender, ignore, or waive this duty.” On Wednesday, March 12, 2014, the House non-concurred with the Senate amendments to the House bill, appointing Representative Rhodes, Kinzer, and Henry to the Conference Committee. The Senate acceded to the Conference appointing Senators King, Masterson, and Francisco. The Conference Committee was reappointed on March 25, 2014 after they agreed to disagree. The second Conference Committee amended the bill to designate that docket fees previously deposited in various funds instead be deposited into the Judicial Branch Docket Fee Fund from FY 2016 forward. This amendments codifies the appropriations proviso language from the 2013 Legislative Session. The Judicial Council Fund would continue to receive 0.99 percent of docket fees under the amendment. After contentious debate on the Senate floor, the Conference Committee report was passed on April 2, 2014, on final action (26–11, with 3 Senators present and passing): Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Arpke, Bowers, Bruce, Denning, Donovan, Fitzgerald, Holmes, Kerschen, King, Knox, LaTurner, Longbine, Lynn, Masterson, Melcher, O’Donnell, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Powell, Shultz, Smith, Wagle. Nays: Francisco, Haley, Hawk, Hensley, Holland, Kelly, McGinn, Pettey, Pyle, V. Schmidt, Tyson. Present and Passing: Faust-Goudeau, Love, Wolf. After another contentious debate on the House floor pointing out the tricks-and-traps included in the bill, the unconstitutional provisions attempting to dilute Supreme Court power over the district courts, and other attacks on the court system highlighted by a “non-severability clause” that would nullify the judicial budget if any part of the bill is found unconstitutional, the House passed the Conference Committee report on April 4, 2014 on final action (66–57) after Representative Kinzer moved adoption of the conference committee report: Yeas: Alcala, Anthimides, Barker, Boldra, Bradford, Bruchman, Brunk, Couture-Lovelady, Carlson, Carpenter, Cassidy, Christmann, Claeys, Corbet, Crum, E. Davis, DeGraaf, Dove, Edwards, Esau, Ewy, Gandhi, Garber, Goico, Grosserode, Hawkins, Hedke, Highland, Hildabrand, Hoffman, Houser, Howell, Huebert, Hutton, Johnson, Jones, Kahrs, Kelley, Kinzer, Kleeb, Lane, Lunn, Macheers, Mason, Mast, Meigs, Merrick, O’Brien, Osterman, Petty, Proehl, Read, Rhoades, Rothlisberg, Rubin, Ryckman Jr., Ryckman Sr., Schroeder, Schwab, Seiwert, Suellentrop, Sutton, Swanson, Thompson, Todd, Vickrey. Nays: Alford, Ballard, Becker, Bollier, Bridges, Burroughs, Campbell, Carlin, Carmichael, Clayton, Concannon, Curtis, P. Davis, Dierks, Doll, Edmonds, Estes, Finch, Finney, Frownfelter, Gonzalez, Henderson, Henry, Hibbard, Hill, Hineman, Houston, Jennings, Kelly, Kiegerl, Kuether, Lusk, Lusker, McPherson, Meier, Menghini, Moxley, Pauls, Peck, Perry, Phillips, Powell, Rooker, Ruiz, Sawyer, Sloan, Sloop, Tietze, Trimmer, Victors, Ward, Waymaster, Weigel, Whipple, Wilson, Winn, Wolfe Moore.  The bill was sent to the governor for approval. On April 17, 2014, the governor signed the bill saying that it, “addresses the judiciary budget and includes minor reforms.” The Kansas Supreme Court issued a (very) rare public statement about the bill the day after the signing: TOPEKA—The Supreme Court of Kansas released this statement on learning Senate Substitute for House Bill 2338 was signed by the governor. “The Supreme Court of Kansas has strongly opposed this bill since its creation. We are troubled now that it has been signed by the governor. “It weakens the centralized authority of the Kansas unified court system in exchange for money to pay our employees and keep courts open. And the money it provides still may fall short of even doing that. “This is a poor trade. We have very serious concerns about what will happen to the administration of justice in Kansas. “We believe Kansans deserve better.”

HB2415: Concerning court; reducing the mandatory retirement age for appeals court and supreme court judges from 75 to 65. (DEAD) S Sub for HB2446: District courts; court trustee operations fund. (PASSED HOUSE 121-0) Courts; allocating moneys from driver’s license fees to judicial branch nonjudicial salary adjustment fund; allowing chief justice to authorize expenditures from court trustee operations fund in judicial district where office of court trustee has ceased to exist. (SUB PASSED SENATE 30–0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR PASSED SENATE 38–1)

As originally introduced, this bill would have allowed the chief judge of a judicial district in which the court trustee’s office has ceased to exist to “authorize expenditures from the court trustee operations fund for [other] district court operations.” The bill was heard by the House Judiciary Committee on January 29, 2014 and was passed out of committee with a “do pass” recommendation on February 6, 2014. The House passed the bill (121-0) on February 12, 2014. The bill was introduced into the Senate and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 13, 2014. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Monday, February 24, 2014, at 10:30 am in 346-S of the Capitol Building. On February 25, 2014, the Judiciary Committee proposed a substitute bill be passed by the Senate, combining HB2446 as passed by the House with SB399.  Senate Sub. HB2446 would allow the chief judge of a judicial district where the office of court trustee has ceased to exist to authorize expenditures from the Court Trustee Operations Fund for district court operations. The bill also would revise dates in portions of the law amended by HB2303, which was enacted in the 2013 Legislative Session, changing the effective date from 2013 to 2014 and a four-year sunset provision from 2017 to 2018. Additionally, the dates in a provision limiting the salaries of nonjudicial personnel based on approved salary adjustments would be changed from fiscal year (FY) 2009 to FY 2015 and from FY 2010 to FY 2016. On March 19, 2014, the Senate passed Senate Substitute for HB2446 (30–0). The House non concurred with the Senate Substitute on March 26, 2014, and the Senate acceded to the request for Conference Committee that same day. On April 5, 2014, the Conference Committee issued its report. The Conference Committee agreed to the Senate’s amendments and added to the bill the modified contents of Senate Sub. for HB 2070, which originally was introduced as SB289. The Conference Committee agreed to amend the provisions from Senate Sub. for HB 2070 to clarify that when no oral argument is conducted, an appeal would be deemed submitted for decision as of the date the case is considered on a non-argued calendar, rather than the date the last memorandum or other document is permitted to be filed. The Senate adopted the CCR on April 5, 2014, on final action (38–1).

This bill amends the crime of interference with judicial process to include:

“knowingly making available by any means personal information about a judge or the judge’s immediate family member, if the dissemination of the personal information poses an imminent and serious threat to the judge’s safety or the safety of such judge’s immediate family member, and the person making the information available knows or reasonably should know of the imminent and serious threat.”  The bill was heard by the House Judiciary Committee on January 28, 2014 and was passed out of committee with a “do pass” recommendation on February 6, 2014. The bill was considered by the House Committee of the Whole on Thursday, February 20, 2014, which passed the bill on to final action by voice vote. On Friday, February 21, 2014, the bill was approved (121–0) and referred on to the Kansas Senate. The bill was introduced into the Senate on February 24, 2014, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing on the bill for Tuesday, March 18, 2014, at 10:30 am in 346–S of the Capitol Building. On March 21, 2014, the Senate Judiciary Committee amended the bill by adding the contents of S. Sub for HB 2182, concerning the Kansas RICO Act, and the amended contents of HB2495, a follow-up bill to 2013 HB2170, also known as the Justice Reinvestment Act. The Committee amended provisions from HB2495 to clarify the intermediate sanctions provisions would not be applicable to felony DUI, test refusal, domestic battery, forgery, and cruelty to animals convictions. Instead, the sanctions for misdemeanor violators would be imposed. Additionally, the Committee amended provisions from HB2495 to add a two- to three-day confinement for a misdemeanor violator, similar to that already allowed for persons convicted of a felony. On March 25, 2014, the Senate unanimously passed the Substitute bill (40–0). The House non-concurred to the Senate Substitute April 1, 2014, with the Senate acceding to the request for a Conference Committee that same day. The Conference Committee agreed to the Senate amendments to Senate Sub. for HB2448, and further agreed to delete the provisions related to the Kansas Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act added by the Senate Judiciary Committee (SB404). Further, the Conference Committee agreed to make a technical amendment restoring language inadvertently removed by HB2252, which the Governor signed April 1, 2013, and to add the amended contents of HB2490, concerning jury conduct and DNA collection, and HB2662, concerning expungement of DUI and test refusal convictions and diversions. The Conference Committee agreed to amend the DNA collection provisions by adding an amendment suggested by the KBI clarifying when expungement may occur and defining additional terms. Additionally, the Conference Committee agreed to an amendment that would make it a class A nonperson misdemeanor for a person who has possession of or access to samples or profile records maintained by the KBI due to such person’s employment or official position to disseminate such samples or records except in strict accordance with applicable laws, or for a criminal justice agency to request profile records without a legitimate need for such records. A conviction under these provisions would constitute good cause for termination or licensure revocation or suspension. Finally, the Conference Committee agreed to establish seven years as the time for expungement of DUI and test refusal convictions and diversions. The Senate passed the CCR on final action (39–0)

This bill seeks to replace the term “best interests of the child” throughout the Kansas Revised Family Law Code with the term “least detrimental alternative.” The bill was heard by the House Committee on Children and Seniors on Thursday, January 30, 2014. At the end of a packed committee hearing at which few testified in favor of the change and many testified against it, the Chair indicated the bill would not proceed.

HB2453: Religious “freedom” respecting marriage (PASSED HOUSE 72-49-3)(DEAD)

HB2462: Domestic relations: child custody. residency and parenting plans; child support (DEAD)

There aren’t enough words to express how bad this bill is. It not only proposes changes to law that violate federal child support law; it also proposes to radically limit the ability to obtain spousal support (it proposes a limit of 12 months of spousal maintenance no matter how long a marriage); to politicize the child support guidelines (setting up a legislative committee to draft them), mandate that all separated families have equal parenting time; allow jury trials whenever there is a request to modify child support, or parenting time; require that any change from an equal time-share be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt;” eliminate income withholding for child support and spousal support; allow a child to choose with which parent the child will live; allow modification of child support regardless of any change in circumstances; allow a court to retroactively modify support to any date; and eliminate the court’s role to assure that any agreements made by the parties are in the child’s best interests or are appropriate and voluntary. The bill did not receive a hearing.

HB2469: Child support: Lottery, gaming, parimutuel winnings, and debt set off (DEAD)

The bill was originally referred to the House Committee on Appropriations. On February 19, 2014, the bill was withdrawn from Committee on Appropriations and re-referred to Committee on General Government Budget, where it was heard on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, at 1:30 pm in 218-N of the Capitol Building. On February 26, 2014, the Committee recommended passage of the bill, with an amendment made at the request of the Department of Administration, to clarify the name of Department of Administration’s Debt Setoff Clearing Fund, and to specify the bill would not apply to Tribal gaming facilities. The bill was not heard by the House before turn-around (February 28, 2014).

HB2517: Garnishment: prohibition on wage garnishment for “assigned accounts”; amending KSA 60–2310 (DEAD)

This bill would strike from KSA 60–2310 the provision providing that “If any person, firm or corporation sells or assigns an account to any person or collecting agency, that person, firm or corporation or their assignees shall not have or be entitled to the benefits of wage garnishment,” excluding from its coverage assignments of support to the State of Kansas or any other state. The effect of this bill would allow wage garnishments even if those wages were assigned to another person, firm, or collection agency.  This bill was heard by the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2014, which recommended that the bill pass without amendment. On February 26, the House Committee of the Whole considered the bill for passage, but re-referred the bill back to Judiciary for further study killing the bill for the session (78–38).

HB2528:  Judicial branch: supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2015, judiciary operations. (DEAD)(See S Sub for HB2338) HB2531: Insurance: providing for Insurance Coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorder (DEAD)

This bill would require that insurers doing business in Kansas provide insurance coverage for children and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). (See Kansas Health Institute article, “Key Legislators Cite Breakthrough on Autism Bill“). The bill was originally assigned to the House Committee on Insurance; but on February 19, 2014, the bill was withdrawn from Committee on Insurance and re-referred to the House Committee on Taxation. On February 20, 2014, the bill was withdrawn from the Committee on Taxation and re-referred to the Committee on Insurance. The bill did not make it out of committee. Instead, another bill (HB2744) was introduced, passing both the House and Senate in the last days of the regular legislative session.

HB2554: Marriage: repealing the prohibition on marriage between two persons of the same gender. (DEAD)

This will would repeal provisions in Kansas law prohibiting marriage between two persons of the same gender. Kansas has enacted both statutory and constitutional prohibitions on marriage between two consenting people defining “marriage” as only between one man and one woman. This bill anticipates the now inevitable.

HB2558: Domestic relations: prohibition of case management process. (DEAD)

This bill would repeal Kansas “domestic relations case management statutes” and void any existing domestic relations case management orders “effective upon publication in the statute book” (July 1, 2014). This bill is scheduled for hearing in the House Committee on Children and Seniors on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 9:00 am in 218-N of the Capitol. On February 18, 2014, the Committee on Children and Seniors heard testimony. No proponents appeared; four opponents appeared (including Ronald W. Nelson – see Testimony in Opposition). The bill was not reported out of committee and died.

HB2568: Domestic Relations; Kansas Revised Family Law Code; child support guidelines. (PASSED HOUSE 123–0)(PASSED SENATE, AMENDED, 40–0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR PASSED SENATE 40–0)(2D CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR-2 PASSED SENATE 40–0)(CCR-2 PASSED HOUSE 123-0)(GOVERNOR SIGNED MAY 13, 2014)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)

This bill is a continuation of efforts by the Kansas Judicial Council to update and unify Kansas domestic relations statutes into the Kansas Revised Family Law Code. Among the changes proposed in this bill:

1. Remove most non-uniform provisions from the Kansas Uniform Parentage Act that were inserted to provide for how child custody and parenting plans are determined in parentage actions. These provisions are unnecessary duplications already included in Article 32, which governs “Custody, Residency and Parenting Plans.”

2. Further editing of the Kansas Revised Family Law Code to move provisions more appropriately placed in other Chapters or articles.

3. Section 7 of the bill amends statutes dealing with issuance of temporary orders in divorce actions allowing the court to modify or vacate any temporary orders until entry of a final order in the case. This provision is meant to “correct” a ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court (In re Marriage of Brown) that in past sessions the Legislature had changed the statutes in a way that would not allow Kansas courts to modify or vacate temporary support orders at trial when evidence was finally presented to the court.

4. Section 8 of the bill amends the statutes to require that, “Any person who files a motion requesting a child support order or modification order shall include in such filing a completed domestic relations affidavit and proposed child support worksheet.” This amendment is made to correct a Kansas Court of Appeals decision (In re Marriage of Jones), which determined that a Kansas Supreme Court rule requiring the filing of a financial affidavit with a motion to modify support was not jurisdictional and was not authorized by statute. The result has been an allowance of “sneak attacks” and late-filing of financial information.

5. Section 9 of the bill changes the date on which any modified child support amount can become effective from 30 days after the filing of a motion to modify to the first day of the month following the motion filing.

6. Section 10 of the bill updates the factors a court is to consider when entering a parenting plan.

This bill was scheduled for hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, February 17, 2014 at 3:30 am in 112-N of the Capitol. Ronald W. Nelson and others spoke in favor of this bill (see testimony). On Thursday, February 20, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee amended the bill to remove section 3 that would have set up a two-tier way of handling requests for retroactive child support in parentage cases and other provisions, so that a separate bill may be introduced for further consideration of those issues. On February 26, the House Committee of the Whole approved the bill for final passage. On February 27, 2014, the House approved the bill (123–0), sending it to the Senate.

The bill was introduced into the Senate on Friday, February 28, 2014, and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Committee heard testimony on the bill Wednesday, March 19, 2014, at 10:30 am in 346-S of the Capitol Building, with  Ronald W. Nelson presenting testimony for the Kansas Judicial Council asking for restoration of the section removed by the House Committee. Though the section would result in a substantive change in the law because the preference for joint custody would apply to both divorce and parentage proceedings, the Judicial Council’s Family Law Advisory Committee has concerns that treating the two situations differently based solely on marital status could be a constitutional issue.  The Committee worked the bill on March 20, 2014, passing it out to the Senate floor after restoring the bill to its original form. On March 25, 2014, the Senate Committee of the Whole approved the bill as amended, and the full Senate approved the bill in a late-night session on emergency final action (40–0).

On April 1, 2014, the House non concurred in the Senate amendments, appointing a Conference Committee. The Senate acceded to the appointment of a Conference Committee in its afternoon session that same day.

The Conference Committee met the same afternoon, agreeing to adopt the House version restoring language deleted from section 3 that referred  child custody decisions to Chapter 23, Article 23, but leaving in the bill limitations on retroactive child support in parentage cases where a party seeks retroactive child support of more than 5 years. Where more than 5-years past child support is sought, the burden would be upon the party seeking reimbursement to show that the amount sought was justified by expenses incurred. The Conference Committee Amendments and Report were filed on April 4, 2014 and adopted by the Senate (40–0) in a late session that night. The Legislature took first adjournment on April 6, 2014, without the House considering the CCR. The Legislature reconvened on Wednesday, April 30, 2014.

Addressing the House, Judiciary Committee Chair Lance Kinzer asked that the body return the bill to conference because of an error noticed in the bill. The bill was re-referred to a second Conference Committee and the Senate acceded. On May 1, 2014, the Conference Committee issued its second Conference Committee Report correcting the error. The Senate adopted the second Conference Committee Report (40-0) on May 1, 2014. The House adopted the second Conference Committee Report (123-0) on May 2, 2014, sending the bill on to the governor for signature. The governor signed the bill on May 13, 2014. The new and changed laws in the bill are effective July 1, 2014. The entire Kansas Revised Family Law Code, with 2014 Amendments is available here.

HB2577: Allowing parents to remain anonymous when surrendering an infant under the newborn protection act. (PASSED HOUSE 123–0)(PASSED SENATE, AMENDED, 40–0)(HOUSE CONCURRED 121–0)(GOVERNOR SIGNED APRIL 16, 2014)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)

This bill is scheduled for hearing in the House Committee on Children and Seniors on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 9:00 am in 218-N of the Capitol. Representative Jan Pauls was the only proponent of the bill; no opponents presented testimony. The bill was inspired by (See Wichita Eagle-Beacon, “Wichita case inspires Kansas House to advance changes in Kansas Newborn Infant Protection Act“) On February 21, 2014, the Committee amended the bill to add “other personally identifiable information” to the type of information a person or facility to whom a child is delivered would not be required to reveal about the person who delivered the child, unless there was reasonable suspicion of child abuse, and passed out the bill for consideration by the full House. On February 25, 2014, the House Committee of the Whole approved the bill for passage without further amendment. On February 26, 2014, the House approved the bill (123–0), sending it to the Senate. The bill was introduced into the Senate on Friday, February 28, 2014, and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Committee heard testimony on bill  Thursday, March 13, 2014, in 346–S of the Capitol Building. The Senate Committee amended the bill to replace “child” with “infant” throughout and to clarify a person or facility to whom a child is delivered “shall not reveal” the name or other identifiable information of the person who delivered the infant, rather than that entity not being required to reveal the name. On March 25, 2014, the Senate Committee of the Whole further amended the bill to add police stations, sheriff’s offices, and law enforcement centers to the list of locations where an infant may be surrendered. The bill was considered by the full Senate in a late-night session, and approved (40–0) on emergency final action. On April 4, 2014, the House concurred in the Senate amendments (121–0), sending the bill to the governor. The bill was enrolled and presented to the governor for signature on April 8, 2014.

HB2583: Prohibiting the hiring of “Judicial Lobbyists” by the Kansas courts. (DEAD)

In another swipe at the Kansas court system, this bill seeks to prohibit the Kansas courts from hiring any person or expending moneys from the judicial budget to pay anyone “in connection with, or for the purpose of lobbying.”The bill declares that any expenditure for or employment of lobbyists  “are hereby unlawful uses of tax payer funding.”  On February 11, 2014, the bill was withdrawn from Committee on Judiciary and re-referred to the Committee on Taxation; on February 14, 2014, the bill was withdrawn from the Committee on Taxation and re-re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary. The bill was scheduled for a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, March 17, 2014, at 3:30 pm in 112–N of the Capitol Building.

S Sub for HB2588: Child in need of care; juvenile offenders; permanent custodians. (PASSED HOUSE 123–0) Children and minors; relating to children in need of care; placement in juvenile detention facilities; permanent custodians; relating to juvenile offenders; alternative adjudication; youth residential centers and services; risk assessment; sentencing; good time credits(SUB PASSED SENATE 40–0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR PASSED SENATE 38–2)

This bill as originally introduced would amend the Child in Need of Care statutes to provide that a parent may consent to appointment of an individual as the permanent custodian of the child (substituting “individual” for “secretary” of the department of children and families). In addition, it would create a new section in the Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code establishing an alternative adjudication procedure for misdemeanor-level juvenile offenses. The bill is an effort of the Kansas Judicial Council. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing on the bill for Wednesday, February 19, 2014, at 1:30 pm in 152-S of the Capitol. On February 25, the Committee recommended the bill be passed as amended to remove the term “low-risk” from the findings and purpose subsection. On February 27, 2014, the House Committee of the Whole considered the bill and passed it on for final action. On Emergency Final Action, the House passed the bill (123–0). The bill was introduced into the Senate on Friday, February 28, 2014, and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for Wednesday, March 19, 2014, at 10:30 am in 346-S of the Capitol Building. On March 21, 2014, the Committee recommended passage of a substitute bill containing the language of HB2588 as it passed the House, with technical amendments, as well as modified language from Sub. for HB2633, as described below in the background of that bill. The Senate Committee also added a provision restricting placement of a child in need of care in a juvenile detention facility. The substitute bill would:

• create new law and amend existing statutes relating to juvenile placement, the Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code, and the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children.
• create a new section in the Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code establishing an alternative adjudication procedure for misdemeanor-level juvenile offenses.
• would create new law within the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children prohibiting a child alleged or found to be a child in need of care from being placed in a juvenile detention facility unless such placement is necessary to protect the safety of the child and is authorized under certain sections of the Code
• would create new law requiring the Secretary of Corrections to take certain actions and report on such actions to the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice, the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, and the Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight by January 15, 2015
• would amend the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children to remove the Secretary for Children and Families as a permanent custody option upon the relinquishment of parental rights
• would require that when a presentence investigation and report from a court services officer is ordered by a court after adjudication, such report would be required to include a summary of the results from a standardized risk assessment tool or instrument, in addition to the contents required under current law

In a late-night session on March 25, 2014, the Senate passed the substitute bill on emergency final action (40–0). The House non-concurred in the Substitute language April 1, 2014. On April 4, the House and Senate agreed to disagree, and the Conference Committee was reappointed. On April 5, 2014, the Conference Committee issued its report. The second Conference Committee agreed to the Senate version of the bill, modifying it by adding a provision prohibiting adult prosecution of a juvenile less than 12 years of age. The Senate approved the CCR on Final Action (36–2).

HB2604: Domestic Relations: Repealing “incompatibility” as ground for divorce. (DEAD)

This bill would remove “incompatibility” as a ground for divorce, replacing it with a list of “specific” reasons for which a divorce would be allowed drawn, in part, from a “Covenant Marriage” bill proposed in the 2011 Legislative Session. Divorce or separation could be requested only if: 1. the “respondent” is convicted of the crime of adultery; 2. the “respondent” is convicted of certain person felonies; 3. the “respondent” is convicted of a sex crime; 4. the “respondent” has “abandoned the matrimonial domicile for a period of one year and constantly refuses to return;” 5. the “respondent” has physically or sexually abused the petitioner or a child of either the petitioner or the respondent; 6. “both spouses have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for a period of two years;” 7. “both spouses have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for a period of one year from the date of an order awarding separate maintenance to one of the spouses;” 8. “both spouses have agreed to separate due to no fault of either spouse;” 9. “failure to perform a material marital duty or obligation;” 10. incompatibility by reason of mental illness or mental incapacity of one or both spouses. In addition, the bill would not allow a court to grant an annulment if a marriage is void, although a “voidable” marriage could be annulled; a court could not enter temporary orders for legal custody, residency, or parenting time in any case or grant either party temporary attorneys’ fees or costs; and could only “recommend” that the parties engage in mediation on any issues involved in the divorce or separate maintenance action. Spousal support would be limited to a period no longer than 36 months (no matter the length of the marriage) and the court could not order withholding for those support payments, but could only allow payments for spousal support to be made directly from one former spouse to the other. The court could not order garnishment to issue to enforce a support order unless it held a hearing to allow garnishment to issue and any property accumulated would be required to be divided ½ to each spouse. Finally, any expert who performed any child custody evaluation must report on the “least detrimental alternative” for a custody decision. The bill is a disaster from start to finish. It would bring into Kansas law concepts unknown at anytime in Kansas history, adopting provisions for fault-based divorce drawn from the Louisiana Covenant Marriage statutes. It would not be limited only to those who agreed to enter into “Covenant Marriage;” it would apply to everyone requesting a divorce. It would encourage anyone who filed for divorce to throw all their hate and venom at the other spouse, and would dramatically increase the financial, emotional, and psychological cost of divorce for the individuals involved, for the courts that would hear family law cases, and for the state. (See Washburn Review article, “Legislation to end no fault divorce in Kansas could threaten families” and “There’s nothing ‘small government about Kansas’ stupid divorce bill” in the Lawrence Journal-World)

HB2612: Courts: district judge and district magistrate judge vacancies, time for filling of openings. (PASSED HOUSE 106–17)(SEE S Sub HB2070, SEE S SUB HB2065)

This bill would mandate the time within which nominations for district judge and district magistrate judge could be considered before appointment to 120 days and extend the time for the consideration of any nominations made from 30 days to 60 days. This bill was heard by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 3:30 am in 112-N of the Capitol. On February 21, 2014, the bill was reported favorably for passage, without amendment. The bill was passed by the Kansas House February 27, 2014. (106–17). Introduced into the Senate on Friday, February 28, 2014, the bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead of going through the ‘normal’ legislative process, the text of the bill was incorporated into a Senate substitute, S Sub HB2070, which passed the Senate (32–7).

HB2637: Protection from Stalking; expungement of civil protection orders. (DEAD)

This bill would allow for the “expungement” of actions filed for protection of stalking if no final order in the case was obtained. The bill provides that the expungement may be obtained upon the payment of a $100 filing fee. It does not cover protection from abuse actions and does not apply if an order for protection from stalking was obtained.

HB2664: Domestic Case Management: procedure, orders, requirements. (DEAD)

This bill would make numerous changes to the Kansas Domestic Case Management (Parent Coordination) statutes to tighten up the process and limit the initial term of case management orders. The bill defines the rights of parents in the process, requires specific findings before a court can order parents into case management, including that other methods to resolve ongoing disputes were tried and failed. The bill clarifies procedural protections for parents in case management, sets out parent rights for court access while in case management, requires the case manager to give rationale for recommendations made, and clarifies the procedures a court must use when reviewing case management recommendations. HB2664 is identical to SB389, which was introduced in the Kansas Senate on the same day. Although the bill was not heard in committee before “turn-around,” an “informational hearing” on the bill was scheduled by the House Judiciary Committee for Thursday, March 20, 2014, at 3:30 pm in 112-N of the Capitol Building.

HB2665: Children; Repealing the Kansas Code for Care of Children; Enacting the Kansas Code for Minors (DEAD)

This is another in the series of bills meant to address the desires of a small group of disgruntled family law litigants to gut Kansas statutes protecting children and families and providing for state action when children are threatened with abuse or neglect. Among other things, the bill would repeal the Kansas Revised Code for Care of Children, which was drafted by the Kansas Judicial Council over a period of years, and replace it with a model more desirable to the sponsor disaffected litigants. It replaces the term “best interests of the child” throughout existing Kansas statutes with the negative term “least detrimental alternative.” Running 128 pages, the bill would make wholesale changes to Kansas law more to the liking of disaffected litigants than to the needs of children and families.

HB2684: Courts; allocating moneys from driver’s license fees to the judicial branch nonjudicial salary adjustment fund. (PASSED HOUSE 93–30)(See S Sub for HB2338)

This bill was heard by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 3:30 pm in 112-N of the Capitol Building. The Committee passed the bill out on February 20, 2014, without amendment, for placement on the House Consent Calendar. On February 21, 2014, the bill was moved from the Consent Calendar (No Debate) to General Orders (Debate). On Final Action, the bill passed the House (93–30). Introduced into the Senate on Friday, February 28, 2014, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. On March 20, 2014, the Committee recommended  that the hill be passed and placed on Consent Calendar. On March 24, 2014, the bill was removed from the Consent Calendar and was placed instead on General Orders. The bill was bundled with other “court-related” funding bills and legislative initiated limitations on the powers of the Kansas Supreme Court, in the “Omnibus Judicial Budget Bill.” (See S Sub for HB2338)

HB2696: Child in Need of Care (CINC) code; supervised visits by family members when child is seriously ill or injured. (DEAD)

This bill would mandate that, “whenever a child under the age of 18 years is taken into custody pursuant to the revised Kansas code for care of children and the child requires emergency medical care or hospitalization, or is otherwise seriously ill or injured one or more of the child’s family members shall be allowed at least one supervised visit with the child within 24 hours of the child being taken into custody.” The bill was referred to the House Committee on Children and Seniors and heard on Tuesday, February 18, 2014, at 1:30 pm in 152-S of the Capitol Building. On February 25, 2014, the Committee recommended passage of the bill, with an amendment to clarify that its provisions would apply where a child requires care or hospitalization immediately upon being taken into custody. On February 28, 2014, the bill was stricken from the Calendar by Rule 1507.

HB2699: Crimes, criminal procedure and punishment; allowing corporal punishment; excluding corporal punishment by parents, step-parents, and others from criminal statutes dealing with battery; domestic battery; endangering a child; abuse of a child (DEAD)

This bill is as amazing as it is offensive. It would allow child abuse under the guise of “correcting” a “child.” It would specifically exempt from criminal prosecution various actions by certain people against a child. It would allow “corporal punishment” by a “parent, step-parent, legal guardian or custodian” or person given authorization by a parent” against the “child” (defined as any person who is still enrolled in high school even though over the age of 18 years!). Under the bill, “corporal punishment” is defined as: “up to ten forceful applications in succession of a bare, open-hand palm against the clothed buttocks of a child and any such reasonable physical force on the child as may be necessary to hold, restrain or control the child in the course of maintaining authority over the child, acknowledging that redness or bruising may occur on the tender skin of a child as a result. As used in this subsection “child” includes a person over the age of 18 who is enrolled in high school.” This is another horrible bill that garnered national attention (see CNN story, “Spanking bill in Kansas causes controversy” and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, “American States: Meth Labs of Democracy). House Committee Chair John Rubin indicated the committee would not be hearing the bill – much to the relief of Kansans exhausted by too much focus on irrationally suggested legislation.

HB2704: Insurance; Mandating coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorder. (DEAD)

The bill was originally assigned to the House Committee on Insurance, but on February 19, 2014, was withdrawn from that committee and re-referred to Committee on Taxation. On February 20, 2014, the bill was withdrawn from the Committee on Taxation and re-referred to the Committee on Insurance. The bill was not considered, but another bill allowing for Autism Insurance coverage, HB2744, passed the Legislature and was sent to the governor.

HB2705: Compulsory school attendance; crime of truancy; material change in circumstances in residential custody. (DEAD)

This bill is apparent the result of an angry parent who thought the other parent of their child should have made the child attend school. The bill includes two major provisions: First, that the “Failure of a custodial parent to comply with compulsory school  attendance as required by law shall be deemed a material change of circumstances” — apparently to change the child’s residence to the other, “non-offending” parent.  Second, it would declare “unlawful, with no requirement of a culpable mental state,” “the failure of any parent [or person acting as a parent or] any child,” “to comply with compulsory school attendance as required by law.” Any violation of the statute would constitute a class B misdemeanor. 

HB2712: Domestic battery; mandating domestic violence offender assessment upon first conviction. (DEAD)

This bill would make changes to the conditions for probation or punishment for conviction of domestic battery as well as direct additional considerations a court must consider in deciding upon punishment or probation. It would require that “as a condition of any grant of probation, suspension of sentence or parole or of any other release, the offender shall be required to undergo a domestic violence offender assessment conducted by a certified batterer intervention program and follow all recommendations made by such program, unless otherwise ordered by the court or the department of corrections.”  The bill would also require that when “determining the sentence to be imposed within the limits provided for a first, second, third or subsequent offense under this section, a court shall consider any current or prior protective order issued against such person.” On February 19, 2014, the bill was withdrawn from the House Judiciary Committee and re-referred to the House Committee on Taxation. On February 20, 2014, the bill was withdrawn from Taxation and referred to Judiciary. The bill is scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, March 5, 2014, in Judiciary in 112-N of the Capitol Building. The bill died at the end of the 2014 Session for lack of consideration.

HB2716: Adoptions. (DEAD)

This bill proposes to make numerous changes throughout the Kansas Adoption Act, including: 1. Removing provisions specifically addressing parents giving up their children who are minors, implicitly placing them on equal footing with adult parents who are asked to sign over their rights to their children. 2. Provides that, “knowingly accepting consent or relinquishment from a mother before 24 hours after the birth of a child in violation” of the statute would be a class A nonperson misdemeanor. 3. Would disallow payment for the “reasonable living expenses of the mother which are incurred during or as a result of the pregnancy” by adoptive parents or by an adoption agency. 4. Direct that if an attorney knowingly participated in an arrangement that was not allowed by the statute, including payments not allowed by the statute, the “court shall file a complaint with the disciplinary administrator for any violation of this subsection by an attorney licensed in this state.”5. It would change the time within which an adoption hearing must be held, with adoptions arising out of child in need of care proceedings to take place within 60 days of the filing and other cases to be heard within 30 days.   The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Children and Seniors and set for hearing on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, at 9:00 am in 218-N of the Capitol Building, but the hearing was cancelled. The bill died at the end of the 2014 Session.

HB2718: Parentage; creating putative father registry. (DEAD)

This bill would create a putative and unknown father’s registry in Kansas. The proposed statute is based on putative father registry laws in some other state, including Montana, Tennessee, and elsewhere. It is not drawn from the Putative Parent registry provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act (2002). The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Children and Seniors and set for hearing on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, at 9:00 am in 218-N of the Capitol Building, but the hearing was cancelled.

HB2719: Uniform Power of Attorney Act. (DEAD)

This bill would implement the Uniform Power of Attorney Act, completed by the Uniform Law Commission in 2006. If enacted, Kansas would become the 14th State to have the Uniform Power of Attorney Act (other enactments are in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, with 2014 legislative introductions in Hawaii, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington State). The Uniform Power of Attorney Act provides a simple way for people to deal with their property by providing a power of attorney in case of future incapacity. While chiefly a set of default rules, the act also contains safeguards for the protection of an incapacitated principal. It would replace the Kansas Durable Power of Attorney Act. The bill has not been set for hearing and is not likely to be considered with the Senate adopting an alternative “Kansas Power of Attorney Act,” SB355. 

HB2744: Insurance; autism insurance (PASSED HOUSE 114–3)(PASSED SENATE 38–2)(GOVERNOR SIGNED  APRIL 16, 2014)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014)

This bill was introduced after the bill introduction deadline and after the deadline for “house of origin consideration” (‘turn-around’) on March 5, 2014. The bill was referred to the Insurance Committee and scheduled for hearing on March 10 (proponents) and March 12 (opponents) in 152–S of the Capitol Building. (See Kansas City Star, “Proposal mandating insurance coverage of autism takes shape in Kansas“).  The House Committee amended the bill by reducing the maximum age for ASD coverage from less than 18 years of age to less than 12 years of age; increasing the number of hours of ABA coverage per calendar year for the first 4 years from ASD diagnosis and no later than age 5; expanding the time frame during which certain providers of autism services may be reimbursed without licensure under the ABA Licensure Act; delaying the licensure requirement for autism services providers to qualify for reimbursement; exempting individuals qualified to provide services under the HCBS Autism Waiver administered by KDADS from such licensure requirement and to qualify for reimbursement; and exempting licensed occupational therapists acting within the scope of such license and scope of practice from licensure under the ABA Licensure Act. The bill was passed out of committee as amended to the House floor. On March 20, 2014, the House Committee of the Whole considered the bill, making additional amendments to the bill:

•  reducing the maximum age for ASD coverage from less than 18 years of age to less than 12 years of age; 
• increasing the number of hours of ABA coverage per calendar year for the first 4 years from ASD diagnosis and no later than age 5; 
• expanding the time frame during which certain providers of autism services may be reimbursed without licensure under the ABA Licensure Act; 
• delaying the licensure requirement for autism services providers to qualify for reimbursement; exempting individuals qualified to provide services under the HCBS Autism Waiver administered by KDADS from such licensure requirement and to qualify for reimbursement; and
• exempting licensed occupational therapists acting within the scope of such license and scope of practice from licensure under the ABA Licensure Act.

On March 20, 2014, the House Committee of the Whole further amended the bill by clarifying language regarding the provision of ABA services, adding speech-language pathologists and audiologists licensed by KDADS to those exempt from the licensing requirements to practice ABA, and making technical amendments. On March 21, 2014, the House passed the amended bill (114–3). The bill passed over to the Senate, where it was introduced to the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance. The bill was passed out of committee three-days later, recommending passage. On Final Action, the Senate approved the bill (38–2), with Senators Pilcher–Cook (R-Shawnee) and Tyson (R-Parker) voting “no” sending the approved bill to the Governor for signature. (See Capital–Journal, “Child Autism treatment bill sent to Kansas governor“) The bill was presented to the governor, and he signed it on April 16, 2014.

HB2759: Health Insurance: Inclusion of coverage for autism spectrum disorder (DEAD) HB2761:Including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (DEAD) Concurrent Resolutions Proposing Amendments to the Kansas Constitution: HR5019: Relating to Attacks on the Courts: Allowing the governor to appoint supreme court justices and court of appeals judges, subjecting nominations to senate confirmation, with lifetime terms and abolishing the supreme court nominating commission. HR5026: Constitutional amendment repealing section 16 of article 15 of the Kansas constitution

This proposed constitutional amendment would repeal the Kansas Constitution “Mini-DOMA,” which defines “marriage” as a relationship only between one man and one woman.

HR5027: Constitutional amendment relating to appointment of supreme court justices; requiring the supreme court nominating commission to submit all qualified applicants to the governor.

This proposed constitutional amendment is yet another attempt to attack independent Kansas courts, by requiring that the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission submit to the Governor all names of those persons who applied for any open Kansas Supreme Court judicial position. This bill is an attempt to “run-around” the Kansas merit selection process, taking merit out of the process and allowing the Governor to choose who he wants, regardless of which candidate is determined the best or most qualified by the Nominating Commission.

SCR1601: Constitutional amendment revising article 3, relating to the judiciary; allowing the governor to appoint supreme court justices and court of appeals judges, subject to senate confirmation; abolishing the supreme court nominating commission. (PASSED SENATE 28-12)

This attack on independent Kansas courts was spearheaded in the Kansas Senate. The Senate Committee of the Whole amended the resolution to make several clarifications to the explanatory statement that would appear on the ballot. The Amended Resolution passed the Senate by the required two–thirds vote (28–12) on January 30, 2013. The Resolution was introduced in the House on February 1, 2013, where it failed to gain attention by the end of the session.