Requests the La. State Law Institute to study the potential impact of creating a child support calculation system in cases of "dual paternity" on other areas of law
Impact
Should HCR140 be implemented, its outcome would potentially lead to significant changes in child support calculations and related legal frameworks surrounding 'dual paternity'. The study mandated by the resolution aims to ensure that all areas of law influenced by considerations of dual paternity are comprehensively addressed, which could include aspects of parental rights, duties, and obligations. The resolution emphasizes the collaborative effort required between the Child Support Review Committee and the Marriage and Persons Committee to appropriately extend the implications of 'dual paternity' across relevant laws.
Summary
HCR140 is a House Concurrent Resolution that requests the Louisiana State Law Institute to study the potential impact of creating a child support calculation system for cases of 'dual paternity'. The resolution highlights the need to review how these cases, where a child may have two legally recognized fathers, could affect existing laws and guidelines, particularly in parental authority and other familial obligations. This is prompted by findings from the Child Support Review Committee, which indicated that current guidelines lacking explicit provisions for dual paternity could lead to unintended legal consequences in various areas of law.
Sentiment
The sentiment around HCR140 appears supportive among lawmakers who understand the complexities introduced by dual paternity. There seems to be a general agreement that recognizing dual paternity in child support calculations could bring clarity and fairness to familial responsibilities. However, potential contention may arise regarding how these calculations can affect other legal matters, which suggests a level of caution among legislators. Lawmakers appear focused on the importance of legislative foresight to prevent unforeseen complications in the law.
Contention
While HCR140 does not directly alter any laws, its call for a thorough examination of dual paternity raises concerns among legal experts about how existing family law could adapt to ensure equitable treatment in child support matters. Points of contention may emerge from debates on whether a formal dual-paternity system might complicate legal interpretations of parental roles and obligations across various scenarios, particularly in litigation involving child custody and support. Achieving consensus on the best path forward is likely to be an ongoing discussion as stakeholders weigh the implications of legislative changes.
Requests the Louisiana State Law Institute to study and make recommendations on certain aspects of child support calculations involving net child care costs.
Requests the Louisiana State Law Institute to establish a special committee to study the feasibility of extending child support beyond the age of majority.
Requests the La. State Law Institute to review child support guidelines and laws regarding custody and visitation relative to children with developmental disabilities
Requests the Louisiana State Law Institute to study the prescriptive periods established for disavowal of paternity and revocations of authentic acts of acknowledgment
Requests the Louisiana State Law Institute to study and make recommendations to the Louisiana Legislature regarding state law post-Obergefell v. Hodges.
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; provision related to officeholders raising funds when facing a recall; modify, and require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; funds donated to a candidate for recall efforts; require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.
A concurrent resolution recognizing wild rice as sacred and central to the culture and health of Indigenous Peoples in Minnesota and critical to the health and identity of all Minnesota citizens and ecosystems and establishing a commitment to passing legislation to protect wild rice and the freshwater resources upon which it depends.