Mr. Berger — Referenced as having mentioned SB 627 earlier in testimony.
Cornel Rasor — Said he had a constituent with a child custody problem and connected him with a volunteer.
constituent email testimony — A constituent’s written testimony describes ongoing custody interference and repeated denial of visitation, saying the other parent has harmed the family, law enforcement has provided no help, and there have been 22 denied visits in the past eight months with no consequences for violating the custody plan.
Richard Cheatum — A sheriff name was mangled in the transcript; likely a reference to Representative Richard Cheatum or a sheriff with a similar name, but the context suggests a sheriff consultation. Marked questionable.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Scott is called on during committee discussion of the bill and responds to questions about whether the conduct remains a felony and how crossing state lines would be treated. He explains that the bill still includes a felony provision, references testimony about parents taking children out of state, and notes that existing kidnapping laws already cover the conduct before the chair concludes the exchange and tells him to take his seat.
Richard Cheatum — The chair thanked Representative Church and announced a brief at-ease.
Edward Hill — Questions why law enforcement would need to respond if they are concerned about being adjudicated in the field.
Courtney Chris — Courtney Chris introduces themself as a resident of Caldwell, Idaho, and testifies in support of House Bill 668.
Tate Dillow — Tate Dillow is announced as the next witness to testify, with a follow-up mention placing him in the sequence of upcoming witnesses.
Brienne Lamb — Named as the next witness to testify; surname appears uncertain in the transcript context.
Brianna Lamb — Announced as a witness expected to testify; name corrected from the transcript’s likely misspelling.
Brianna Lamb — After the committee re-established audio, Brianna Lamb identified herself as a Boise County resident and testified in support of House Bill 668. She described how, after years of successful co-parenting, her children were suddenly withheld from regular visitation, leading to a prolonged custody dispute marked by false allegations, a dropped domestic violence report, and an unsubstantiated CPS investigation. She said the lack of immediate penalties caused her family to lose time, future opportunities, family bonds, and savings, and she closed by urging passage of the bill.
Terry McLaughlin — Terry McLaughlin, a father from Nampa, Idaho, testified about his post-divorce custody dispute, saying his former spouse repeatedly violated parenting orders, excluded him from major decisions, and relocated the children to California in violation of a court order. He cited the judge’s own language describing the mother as a gatekeeper and argued that because violations carried no real consequences, the court order effectively became optional.
David Maidall — David Maidall was introduced as the next witness and then began his testimony, identifying himself as being from Meridian, Idaho. He went on to describe a long custody battle, substantial legal expenses, and allegations that his daughter was kidnapped.
Robert Youngberg — Robert Youngberg testified in support of the bill, describing how he has lost years of parenting time with his children due to custody interference and how police and the legal system in Nampa failed to enforce his custody rights. He explained that even when charges were dismissed, no parenting time was restored and reunification efforts were undermined, including setbacks with his youngest child. He said therapists recognized his son’s psychological bind and that he plans to seek a custody modification. He closed by urging passage of the bill, saying graduated penalties and custody restoration would help protect parent-child relationships and deter interference.
Veronica Baez — Veronica Baez first appears as the next witness and then gives a continuous statement addressing the committee’s fiscal concern. She argues that requiring a written report would not create new costs because officers are already responding to calls, and she compares the time and expense of law enforcement welfare checks, custody hearings, emergency motions, child welfare investigations, criminal arrests, and interstate disputes. She concludes that the bill is not a fiscal expansion but a form of cost containment through early documentation.
Christopher Lewis — Christopher Lewis, a former Air Force veteran and Nampa resident, testified about his custody case in which he was awarded full custody after a three-day civil trial, while his ex-wife later received limited monitored visitation. He described subsequent police involvement, abuse allegations, contempt findings against his ex-wife, and being accused of kidnapping despite existing court orders and child welfare records. He also said the mother had been found guilty of parental alienation and stated that he strongly supports the bill because it would have helped prevent the legal and criminal consequences he experienced.
Shane Bithway — Shane Bithway was introduced and then testified about spending eight years in family court and incurring substantial legal costs to maintain contact with his children. He said his parenting time was denied despite visitation orders, that he has one daughter he has not yet met, and that custody disputes become a matter of one parent’s word against the other without proper documentation or enforcement. He argued the bill would help by requiring a simple verification of the child’s location and safety, and he concluded by asking lawmakers to support the bill so parents like him are not left without recourse or their children. The chair then thanked him and asked whether he had driven from Cammyi/Camille, Idaho, for the hearing, and he confirmed that he had.
Robert Mast — Robert Mast was introduced as the next witness and then testified in support of the bill, describing his family's custody case as an extreme example of lost time and saying his son John Mask lost his life through the experience.
Steven Hauser — The chair attempts to connect with Steven Hauser for virtual testimony, then, once connected, asks him to identify himself, state where he is from, indicate whether he represents anyone, and begin his two-minute testimony.
Stephen Houser — Stephen Houser, a Meridian, Idaho resident speaking for himself, described his ongoing custody battle following a February 2020 divorce. He explained that although he had a graduated custody plan that reached 50-50 joint custody, he has spent years trying to enforce it while facing repeated barriers, including being told to hire a lawyer and not having the money as a college student to spend thousands of dollars on legal action. He said his ex-wife has effectively demanded money outside the court system in exchange for access to his son, and as a result he has been largely kept out of his child’s life, saying he has not seen his son since he was six. He concluded by expressing support for the bill.
Mr. Houser — Chair thanked Mr. Houser for his testimony and asked for questions.
Robert Garza — Robert Garza testified in support of House Bill 668. He identified himself as being from Dallas, Texas and described his roles with Americans for Judicial Accountability, RobertGarza.us, and National Family Justice. He explained that, based on his work with families and lawmakers across more than 45 states, custody interference is a widespread national problem, and he concluded by respectfully urging the committee to support the bill.
Mr. Garza — Committee thanked Garza and asked if there were questions.
Herb Lewis — The chair introduced Herb Lewis as the final testifier, and Herb Lewis then began his testimony by identifying himself as Herb Lewis from Nampa, Idaho and a grandfather, setting up his discussion of the issues he planned to address.
John Shirts — Representative Scherz asked whether the bill would make certain cross-state conduct an infraction, and the ensuing exchange continued to address that question, with the speaker responding directly and then reassuring Scherz as the discussion remained focused on the same point.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts declined to make an alternative motion and then continued explaining his opposition to the bill, arguing that the proposed changes would weaken the existing statute by turning a felony into an infraction, reducing enforcement, and potentially gutting the law. He suggested the change may have been a drafting error, cited a prosecutor’s experience with serious sentences under the current statute, and said he could not support making the penalty lighter because he did not believe that was the sponsor’s intent.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins was called on for questions and then responded by thanking the chair and speaking in support of the bill, praising the task force.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Scherz speaks in support of the motion, explaining that the bill should still allow felony treatment in the most egregious cases. He adds that the issue appears to have been unintentional on the drafting side and supports sending the bill to general orders while preserving the felony provision.
Marco Erickson — Introduces House Bill 696 and identifies himself as being from District 33, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Marco Erickson — Was asked to clarify the scope of his interviews with women affected by the issue.
Marco Erickson — Said he interviewed women who were outside the prison, not those inside, due to internal issues.
Marco Erickson — Explained that he interviewed women outside the prison, described the bill as the easiest and quickest fix, and said future changes may strengthen internal investigations.
Marco Erickson — Was asked to respond to the interpretation of the bill.
Marco Erickson — Thanked for bringing the bill.
Marco Erickson — Referenced as the representative the witness spoke with, though the transcript says 'Representative Error.'
Barbara Ehardt — Addresses Representative Erickson with a question after making the motion.
Dori Healey — Asked Representative Erickson to clarify whether he interviewed women who were still inside the prison and those who had left.
Chris Mathias — Chris Mathias asked about a concern raised by an interested party that the bill might be read to make a hug between a corrections officer and an inmate a life felony. He then received a direct response clarifying that this would not be the case.
Dr. Mary Mosley — Was called to testify next.
Mary Moseley — Testified as president of the American Association of University Women of Idaho and urged support for the bill, citing reporting on alleged abuse in Idaho prisons.
Audrey Numbers — Audrey Numbers was called to testify and then introduced herself as being from Boise, Idaho, speaking on her own behalf. She testified in favor of House Bill 696 and raised concerns about incarcerated women in Idaho.
Bonnie Pfaff / Bonnie Faf — Next witness was called, with the name uncertain in the transcript.
Bonnie McKay Faf — Testified in support of House Bill 696 and said expanding the definition of sexual contact would strengthen protections.
Andrew Weissker — Andrew Weissker, speaking remotely from Meridian, Idaho, introduced himself and stated that he was representing himself. He then testified in support of House Bill 696, identifying his support in the context of his personal experience as a survivor of sexual abuse while in custody of the Idaho Department of Corrections.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon is referenced first in a procedural exchange where he is identified amid a motion to approve the minutes, and later in a substantive discussion where he asks how often a sentencing enhancement might be used in Nampa and receives a response from the captain.
John Gannon — Representative Ganon supported the motion but raised strong concerns about the bill’s fiscal impact, arguing that the fiscal note was inadequate and did not sufficiently explain incarceration costs tied to enhanced penalties. He walked through rough calculations using examples from Nampa and statewide projections, suggesting the costs could reach into the millions, and then corrected his math while reiterating that a six-month enhancement at $100 per day would cost about $18,000 per case.
John Gannon — Raises a concern about the fiscal note and the cost implications of the bill.
John Gannon — Mentioned as having been emailed information about the money/cost issue while absent.
Bruce Skaug — The chair introduces Representative Bruce Skaug and invites him to the podium. Skaug then begins his presentation as the sponsor of the bill, identifying himself and his district.