Senator Quinn is seeking to move this bill through the legislature at warp speed before the Senators can hear from the opposing side.
The Louisiana Legislature just convened on March 30, 2010.
They suspended the rules and dispensed with the first two readings of this law on that day.
They assigned it incorrectly to the Judiciary A (civil law) committee and not the Judiciary C (criminal law) committee.
The committee posted their meeting notice and this bill was not on the list. It was still not on the list as of 4:40 p.m., the last time I checked their agenda for bills of interest.
The committee chairperson (Senator Quinn) added 4 of her bills to the agenda at 5:07 p.m.
The committee convened at 10:00 a.m. the following day, March 30, 2010. The committee meeting lasted about 22 minutes. They committee members commented on what a 'quiet, quick and peaceful meeting it was'.
The Louisiana Sunshine laws, from which the legislature is exempt, requires 24 hour notice of all meetings and their agenda.
The Louisiana Senate Rules (13.73) requires that they post their notice and agenda by no later than 1pm of the day before the meeting.
There does appear to be a clause that allows the committee to add agenda items if their is no objection from the other committee members. However, even then, they are obligated to give the public an option to comment before voting. They did not make such an offer.
There were only two witnesses for any of the bills heard that day - both for the same bill. That was the judge and the court administrator for the bill that was written to change the rules for that court. So they were there by special invite.
The department of social services via Robbie Endris did make a brief appearance. They asked that their two bills (added to the agenda by Quinn) be deferred. They respected the rules requiring notice.
This left 2 Quinn bills: SB236 and SB475.
SB236 removes 15 years of fathers progress in the area of custody.
It changes only a single word, the word SHOULD to MAY.
This changes the intent of the test. The test goes from a positive test (getting shared custody unless reason is found not to grant it) to a negative test (not getting shared custody unless reason is found to grant it).
This is not acceptable.
There were no witnesses to support this change in the law.
There were no problems cited to explain why this change was needed.
The committee chairperson claimed to have called the LSLI Child Custody committee chairperson the week before.
She further claimed that this committee chairperson has phone polled her committee - A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW - and received a positive response from 6 members; an objection from 1 member; and a non response from 3 members.
LSLI committees are required to hold public hearings with agendas and notice. They are required to vote publicly on the proposed change. They are required to issue a report to the full body.
The full LSLI body is required to also hold a public meeting on the issues. They are also required to vote on the issues. They are also required to submit the report to the legislature - this report states the reason that they are making the change.
The second proposed law, SB475, makes a mockery of the child support felony laws. See the article above.
The Senate suspended the rules and read the bills for the third time on the following day, March 31, 2010.
So these bills are up for a full Senate vote on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.
Please help spread the word.
We need your help to get the word out.
At the hearing, Senator Quinn stated that "Anybody can pay a $5 fine (on a $100 arrears)".
However, her law does not require a 5% fine.
Her law requires AT LEAST a 5% fine (plus reasonable attorney fees all paid to the 'victim')
So by voting for this law, the Senate Judiciary A subcommittee removed the $500 fine cap and instituted in its place a minimum fine.
So Judge can fine a defendant who owes $100
instead of a from $0 to $500
he can fine him anywhere from $5 to $1,000,000,000.*
* There is no cap, add as many additional zeros as you like.
Any provision for someone who loses their job or the like?
And weee felony charge getting guns rights taken away (if that wasn’t already done by the vindictive ex-wife).
I think criminalizing fathers is stupid. Once the father is arrested what happens to his job or ability to obtain a job.
No I am not a father and I would spend all my money on my kids if were anyway.
Clearly what we have here is a runaway court system which by default declares the man GUILTY for every instance of divorce regardless of who initiates the divorce or the circumstances of the divorce.
These outrageous judgments are NOT in the ‘best interest of the child’.
How does destroying the father’s life and career benefit the child? How does suspending the father’s license and putting him in jail benefit the child?
I had a perfect record. I have never been arrested for anything my entire life. I had a credit score close to 800. A perfect citizen and member of the community.
Now I am on a kind of Sheriff’s probation. I am facing jail time, have a credit score of 300, suspended driver’s license and cannot get a new job. All because of a marriage and a lopsided runaway court system. I have done nothing to deserve any of this. It is not because of anything I ‘did’.
It was all just done ‘to’ me out of a clear blue sky.
How does any of this ‘benefit the child?’ How does destroying me help anything.
My ex, on the other hand, has no obligations or accountability of any kind whatsoever.
As I said, from her point of view it is all a dream come true. And, although she loves it, even she has expressed a little confusion.
Even she has indicated that the situation is way past her expectations and she did not expect either the overly generous bounty they have given her or the Jesus like flogging they are giving me.