House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee
Key Moments
Heather Scott — Asked whether she has the answer to the question about the bill's impact on courts.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott is invited to respond to negative testimony and questions about her bill. She says the discussion has gone off base and explains that the bill is intended to address co-parents with custody. She then clarifies that the bill still allows a judge to act if the custodial parent has advised that records should be disclosed, while also addressing concerns that a child’s information could include another parent’s address and related details.
Heather Scott — Heather Scott first argued that parents should begin with access to their children’s information and that parental rights should be presumed unless a parent is deemed unfit. The discussion then moved into the procedural handling of her bill, including support for sending it to General Orders and her agreement to that step. She then introduced House Bill 859, explaining that it was a section pulled from a larger comprehensive bill and that it creates a process to restore parenting time when a parent’s custody or visitation has been restricted because of abuse allegations that are later found unsubstantiated or insufficient. She described the bill as intended to avoid punishing parents, preserve the court’s best-interest role, and help restore missed parenting time so children can maintain stable relationships with both parents.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott is discussed as an active participant in the task force and related legislative work. The witness first references her mention of the task force survey, then praises her hard work in this area, notes prior collaboration with her on House Bill 668, and concludes by asking to continue working with her to improve the bill.
Heather Scott — The chair indicates the testimony is concluded and addresses Representative Scott.
Heather Scott — The chair says testimony is concluded and the discussion is moving to wrap-up; Representative Scott is addressed.
Heather Scott — Thanked for her work on the committee.
Heather Scott — Acknowledged as wanting the best interests of children.
Heather Scott — Asked what was being voted on during the roll call.
Heather Scott — Asked for clarification on the vote.
Barbara Ehardt — Votes yes; surname slightly misspelled as Ehart in transcript.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Ehardt asked about the presumption that parents have a natural right to raise their children, questioned how judges justify restricting parents with no criminal background from seeing their children, and raised the broader problem of many parents being unable to see their children. The exchange centered on how such custody and visitation disputes should be addressed, especially from a legislative perspective, with the witness responding that he was not a judge and encouraging her to review the specific cases she is hearing.
Barbara Ehardt — Asks the witness whether other states are moving to the new standard.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt moves to send House Bill 859 to general orders and speaks in support of the bill, arguing it would reduce court time and help address false or unsubstantiated allegations. She shares a personal example about family members affected by such allegations. The discussion then shifts to an alternate motion by Representative Scherz to hold the bill in committee, followed by a vote in which Representative Ehart is noted as voting no on the motion to hold the bill.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Ehardt asks questions about the bill, including whether Representative Wheeler spoke with Representative Redmond and clarifying her reference to strikeouts in the draft. After clarifying her question, she indicates she is satisfied with the response.
Dan Garner — Votes yes.
Dan Garner — Voted no on the motion to hold in committee.
Dan Garner — Representative Garner is called on to proceed, and the committee clarifies that Garner will handle all the bills.
Dale Hawkins — Votes yes.
Dale Hawkins — Dale Hawkins supported the motion but noted the discussion had drifted from the bill’s original narrow intent involving custody disputes between two parents. He cited Idaho Code 16-202 and argued that Idaho law already clearly defines 'parent' in multiple places, making the bill’s definitions unnecessary. He concluded that the definitions are already well established in Idaho law and supported moving the bill forward, with a later remark affirming that Hawkins was correct about the definition of parent.
Dale Hawkins — Voted no on the motion to hold in committee.
Ted Hill — Called during the roll call; no response captured in this section.
Ted Hill — Called during roll call; vote not captured in this excerpt.
Mike Pohanka — Called during the roll call; no response captured in this section.
Mike Pohanka — Called during roll call; vote not captured in this excerpt.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts is recorded voting yes in a roll-call vote.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts asked follow-up questions about the bill’s evidentiary framework and the court’s role in reporting. He first asked the chairman to expand on why the court should not become a reporting party, then later asked whether the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard is commonly used in family law.
John Shirts — Voted yes on the motion to hold in committee.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts makes consecutive procedural motions to send Senate Bill 1308 and Senate Bill 1293 to the floor with due pass recommendations.
Don Hall — A brief, garbled exchange references Representative Stone/Don Hall, with a simple confirmation response captured and no substantive discussion.
John Gannon — Called during the roll call; the chair asks for repetition, but no vote is captured here.
John Gannon — Representative John Gannon participates in a continuous Q&A with the witness and chair, first asking whether the term "parent" is defined in the code and receiving a response referencing biological parentage in the paternity statutes. The discussion then continues with Gannon being identified as having another question and following up on whether the issue involves a transcript cost or a docket sheet/record, keeping the exchange within the same broader hearing discussion.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon is cited as being right about the amount of work put into the task force.
John Gannon — Responded that Hawkins was correct about a statutory definition of parent.
John Gannon — Explained that the definition of parent in that chapter is too narrow and is the problem being discussed.
John Gannon — Argued that the statutory definition is broad but limited to Chapter 16, creating a problem for the legislation.
John Gannon — Said the committee needs to clean up inconsistent use of the term 'parent' across chapters and titles.
John Gannon — Supported the motion to send the bill to General Orders and noted concerns about the code's protection language.
John Gannon — Supported the motion and argued that current law's 'notwithstanding' language may not provide enough protection.
John Gannon — Continued explaining that the separate section may not be covered by other code provisions and raised concerns about the definition of 'parent.'
John Gannon — Said he is willing to work with Representative Scott on a more workable version of the bill.
John Gannon — His comments were echoed by Jason Spillman.
John Gannon — Acknowledged Representative Ehart and Senator Nichols for their work on the issue.
John Gannon — Voted yes on the motion to hold in committee.
John Gannon — Says he would have moved to hold the bill in committee but withdraws the motion.
Francis Stern — Francis Stern, a Boise family law attorney, parenting coordinator, and mediator, testified that the bill would cause harm by removing existing protections that allow a parent’s address to be redacted from children’s records. She argued that the change could expose private information even in cases involving protection orders or a history of violence, and gave examples of how a noncustodial parent with a violent background could obtain records after the waiting period. Stern said the bill’s court-order safeguard is too burdensome because it requires written findings of substantial harm, gives no notice mechanism, and would be difficult to obtain within the bill’s 14-day timeline. She also warned that the proposal would create financial and staffing burdens for the courts and state budget. In response to questions, she explained that the undefined “substantial harm” standard is hard to meet, that courts already balance parental rights with children’s best interests, and that even parents without criminal histories may have other issues requiring court intervention and protective restrictions.
Francis Stern — Francis Stern is reintroduced as the next witness and invited to continue as before. He identifies himself as a Boise attorney and begins his testimony, noting his long legal practice and transitioning into discussion of existing family law remedies.
Brandy Holliday — Second witness scheduled to testify.
Tyree Strong — Third witness scheduled to testify.
Tyree Strong — Tyree Strong is called as the last person signed up to testify, then introduces himself as a family law attorney in Coeur d'Alene and owner of Strong Family Law. He explains that his practice focuses on helping survivors of domestic violence and testifies in opposition to the bills.