Abuse in Cases of Separation

Plain English: This amendment updates the bill to clarify which reports count as evidence of domestic violence, requires courts to make specific written findings when abuse is proven, and adds rules about who pays for safety evaluations.

• The court must list specific facts on record if it decides a parent committed domestic violence or child abuse based on certain official reports.
• Courts can now consider testimony from therapists, school staff, and other witnesses when reviewing evidence of abuse submitted by parties or investigators.
• If the court orders an evaluation for safety concerns involving alcohol or drugs, the party involved must pay all costs for that evaluation and any recommended treatment.
• The bill is updated to use clearer language about restricting parenting time instead of limiting it.

• Some parts of the amendment text are cut off or contain formatting errors (like 'MAKE findings'), making those specific instructions unclear.
• The exact legal definitions for terms like 'intoxicating substances' depend on other laws not included in this text.

Plain English: This amendment removes several specific sections from the bill that listed examples of domestic violence acts.

• It deletes references to four specific legal codes on page 4, keeping only two of them.
• It removes a line and renumbers following items on page 7.

• The amendment text lists exact lines and code numbers to delete but does not explain what those laws or examples actually say in plain English.
• Because the specific content of the deleted sections is missing from this document, it is unclear exactly which types of harm are no longer included.

Plain English: This amendment requires courts to specifically investigate and document cases of domestic violence, child abuse, or sexual assault that led to a child's conception before deciding on parenting time and decision-making rights.

• Courts must now determine if domestic violence, child abuse, neglect, or sexual assault resulting in the child's conception occurred when these issues are raised or suspected.
• If such acts are proven, courts cannot give both parents equal decision-making power unless they find it is safe for the victim and child to cooperate on decisions.
• Courts must list specific facts supporting any restrictions on parenting time, including details about abuse or assault that led to the child's conception.
• The amendment adds a reference to a model code from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges to help courts handle these cases consistently.

• The provided text is cut off at the end, so it does not show all details regarding section (1.6) or any other changes that might follow.
• Some specific legal terms like 'preponderance of the evidence' are used in the bill but may need further explanation for full understanding.

Plain English: This amendment would stop courts from using a parent's religious beliefs or disagreement with their child's sexual orientation as proof of abuse to limit parenting time, unless the behavior causes actual harm.

• Courts cannot decide that a parent committed child abuse just because they hold sincere religious, moral, or philosophical beliefs.
• Courts cannot restrict a parent's visitation or decision-making rights simply because they disagree with their child's sexual orientation or gender identity.
• These protections only apply if the parent acted in good faith and did not cause real harm to the child.

• This amendment was voted down by the House Judiciary Committee, so it does not become part of the final law.
• The text uses specific legal terms like 'objective, demonstrable harm' that might need a judge's explanation to fully understand in real cases.

Plain English: This amendment changes the bill to use the word 'treatment' instead of specific phrases like 'individual therapy'.

• Replaces the phrase 'INDIVIDUAL THERAPY' with just 'TREATMENT' on page 20.
• Changes 'INDIVIDUAL THERAPEUTIC TREATMENT' to simply 'TREATMENT' in another spot on page 20.

• The amendment text does not explain why this change is needed or what specific types of treatment are now included.
• It is unclear if removing the word 'individual' allows for group therapy or other forms of care, as the full context is missing.

Plain English: This amendment requires a judge to make specific findings that shared decision-making is safe before allowing it in cases involving abuse.

• Courts must now prove that mutual decision-making can happen without coercion, intimidation, or retaliation.

• The amendment text only shows the new language added to page 3 of a report and does not explain how this change affects other parts of the bill.
• It is unclear from this short excerpt exactly which types of cases or specific legal situations these rules apply to.

Plain English: This amendment adds a rule stating that courts cannot treat religious beliefs or disagreement with a child's sexual orientation as proof of abuse, unless there is clear evidence of physical harm or emotional damage to the child.

• Courts are forbidden from deciding someone committed child abuse just because they hold sincere religious, moral, or philosophical beliefs.
• Courts cannot limit parenting time based on a parent disagreeing with their child's sexual orientation or gender identity.
• The amendment clarifies that courts can still consider evidence if the conduct causes actual physical harm to the child.

• This amendment was voted down and did not become part of the final bill, so these changes were never enacted into law.

Plain English: This amendment adds a rule stating that courts cannot use evidence of sincerely held religious or moral beliefs to decide if child abuse occurred, unless those actions cause clear physical harm or emotional damage to the child.

• Courts are forbidden from using a parent's sincere religious, moral, or philosophical beliefs as proof of child abuse or neglect.
• Judges cannot limit parenting time or decision-making power based solely on these sincerely held beliefs.
• The amendment creates an exception allowing courts to consider evidence if the conduct causes objective physical harm or serious emotional impairment to the child.

• This amendment was lost during the legislative process and did not become part of the final bill.
• The text does not define specific examples of what counts as 'objective, demonstrable harm' beyond general terms like physical health or emotional development.