Requires certain factors be considered when a court orders visitation between a minor child and an incarcerated parent. (8/1/14) (EN NO IMPACT See Note)
Impact
The passage of SB 248 represents a significant adjustment to how visitation rights are handled within the judicial system. By drafting a statute that requires courts to consider a comprehensive set of criteria, the bill aims to balance the rights of incarcerated parents with the welfare of the children involved. This marks a move away from a more arbitrary or case-by-case basis for visitation, which can lead to inconsistent outcomes. The bill directly impacts laws associated with parental rights and family law by integrating child welfare principles into decisions regarding visitation.
Summary
Senate Bill 248 focuses on establishing clearer guidelines for visitation rights of incarcerated parents with their minor children. The bill mandates that courts consider multiple factors when determining such visitation privileges, ensuring that decisions are made in the best interest of the child. Key provisions include assessing the prior relationship between the parent and child, preferences of the child, the willingness of the custodial parent to facilitate visits, and the potential psychological effects of in-person visits. The inclusion of specific considerations signals a shift toward a more structured approach in legal determinations concerning incarcerated parents.
Sentiment
The reception of SB 248 was generally positive among legislators, evidenced by its unanimous approval in the Senate where it passed with 33 votes in favor and none against. This broad bipartisan support suggests a collective recognition of the importance of maintaining family bonds, even when one parent is incarcerated. However, there may still be ongoing concerns by rights advocates who argue for the need to ensure that the conditions of visitation do not induce further trauma or stress to the involved children.
Contention
While SB 248 aims to address a significant gap in the legal framework concerning visitation rights, potential points of contention arise around the implementation of the stipulated guidelines. Critics may argue that the effectiveness of the bill heavily relies on the subjective interpretation of 'the best interest of the child' by the courts, leading to variability in rulings. The emphasis on visitation conditions and the evaluation of past relationships raises questions about how they may affect the overall accessibility and frequency of visitations for families, which could ultimately impact the emotional wellbeing of both children and incarcerated parents.
Provides for parental authority of married persons, obligations of children, parents, and other ascendants, and provisional custody by mandate. (1/1/16) (EN NO IMPACT See Note)
Establishes the Council on the Children of Incarcerated Parents and Caregivers and repeals the termination of the Children's Cabinet (EN NO IMPACT See Note)
Prohibits visitation rights between a family member and a child if the court finds that the family member's criminal conduct resulted in the death of a parent of the child. (gov sig) (RE1 NO IMPACT GF EX See Note)
Requires proof of identification from parents for an unemancipated minor child to obtain an abortion based upon parental consent and requires court-ordered counseling if it is suspected that the minor is a victim of criminal sexual exploitation. (8/1/17) (RE SEE FISC NOTE LF EX)
Provides for consideration of certain child care expenses for purposes of child support when the expenses are incurred by a parent receiving job training or education. (8/1/14) (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)