PIERRE, S.D. - The House Judiciary Committee waded through a series of bills Wednesday that are designed to ease or eliminate disputes between divorcing parents on such issues as child custody and visitation.
Legislators have heard numerous tales from disgruntled and discouraged parents in recent years about those issues, and agreeing on solutions proved elusive Wednesday, too.
Various laws have been passed to offer solutions, but that piecemeal approach has not been successful, said Rep. Mike Vehle, R-Mitchell.
Vehle was on a 17-member state task force that has studied those issues for nearly two years and is offering a package of bills dealing with divorce.
The interests of children are the primary focus of the legislation, he said.
"The child is what's paramount in all of these discussions," Vehle said. "This is for the people that can't speak for themselves, the children."
Approved unanimously by the committee was HB1088, which would award initial custody of children to the person who has cared for them for the majority of the 12 months immediately before the divorce filing.
Casey Murschel of Sioux Falls, who chaired the task force on divorcing parents, said the current 30-day care period is not long enough to establish who truly has been the parent providing most of the care.
Also getting unanimous approval was HB1097, which gives judges more options when dealing with stubborn parents who violate custody or visitation orders. Current law says they may be fined up to $1,000 and thrown in jail for three days.
Legislators were told that judges feel those sanctions are too strict, and judges often hesitate to use them. The bill keeps those options but also says a judge can order a resisting parent to provide makeup time with the children, require violators to pay the legal fees of their ex-spouses or post bonds, and order counseling or parent-education classes.
Rejected 8-5 Wednesday was HB1089, which sought to say that both parents in custody disputes must confer and "equally participate" in major decisions about their children. Those areas were defined as the children's primary residence, day care, extracurricular activities, medical services, religious instruction and driving.
The bill went on to say that each parent sharing joint legal custody must foster the other parent's relationship with the child.
Opponents said the legislation would create more problems than it would solve. It would allow one disgruntled parent to haul the other into court anytime they disagreed on any issue involving the kids, said Caitlin Collier, lobbyist for the South Dakota Advocacy Network for Children.
Judith Roberts, legal counsel for the state court system, also said HB1089 would lead to more child custody and visitation disputes.
"It will only increase the times that they will threaten to drag each other into court," she warned.
It would be difficult for a judge to decide if a parent has been allowed to equally participate in child-rearing decisions, Roberts said.
Debra Watson, an attorney who served on the divorce task force, urged approval of the bill. She said it would encourage parents to work together for the sake of their kids.
"We want both parents to communicate regarding their children," Watson said.
"This is an attempt to move people a little bit closer," added Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon.
Another task force bill that was killed, HB1091, sought to say that noncustodial parents must be told about routine child-rearing decisions by parents who have custody of the kids. Custodial parents already may decide those things, but the bill would have required them to share the information with ex-spouses.
"Sometimes the law needs to state the obvious, to foster the best interests of the children," Vehle said in support of the bill.
Opponents said parents who don't agree on things would find even more reasons to argue if the bill was passed.
"If they're not getting along, you're just giving them more ammunition to fight," said Tom Barnett of the State Bar.
The committee also killed HB1101, which would have made it clear that judges can order shared parenting, or joint physical custody. Murschel said some judges do not believe current law allows such arrangements.
The bill, which would have allowed joint physical custody even if one parent objects, was defeated 8-5.
Opponents said shared parenting has been tried without success in other states. They also argued that children would suffer if such arrangements are forced.
"If you take two parties who can't get along and the (judge) says, 'I don't care what you think, I'm going to make you do this even if one of you is objecting,' you're not hurting anybody but the child," Collier said.
