Louisiana House Bill HB46

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/15
• Refer: 2/27/15
• Refer: 4/13/15
• Report Pass: 5/4/15
• Engrossed: 5/11/15
• Refer: 5/12/15
• Report Pass: 5/19/15
• Enrolled: 5/27/15
• Chaptered: 6/5/15
• Passed: 6/5/15

Caption

Provides relative to benefits for minor children of certain wildlife agents in the enforcement division of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (EN INCREASE APV)

Impact

If enacted, HB 46 would have a significant impact on the existing state laws regarding pension and death benefits for the surviving dependents of deceased wildlife agents. It modifies specific statutes to allow for the continuation of benefits beyond the age of 18 in cases where the child may depend on those benefits due to particular conditions. This aligns the statutory provisions with the evolving understanding of familial support and dependency.

Summary

House Bill 46 aims to amend the death benefit provisions for the minor children of wildlife agents within the enforcement division of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in Louisiana. The bill seeks to ensure that benefits can be received by children even after they reach the age of majority under certain circumstances, such as marital status. This change would provide a safety net for families of fallen wildlife agents, acknowledging their sacrifices and ensuring they continue to receive prescribed benefits in times of need.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding HB 46 appears to be supportive, particularly among those who advocate for the rights and welfare of the families of law enforcement and protective service members. Proponents of the bill emphasize the importance of supporting families during difficult times, especially those who have lost a primary breadwinner due to their line of duty. However, the bill has not been without scrutiny, as some may question its implications for budgetary allocations concerning state pensions.

Contention

While the bill is largely seen as a positive step towards enhancing benefits for a specific group, it does prompt discussions regarding financial implications for the state. Lawmakers may face challenges in balancing the budgetary costs associated with extending benefits against the potential value those benefits provide to the families affected. Furthermore, it raises important questions about the prioritization of benefits for state employees and how those priorities reflect on broader state policy.