Bill Summary – FastDemocracy

Judiciary Committee
                          JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
    Bill No.:    HB-6505
        Title:   AN ACT CONCERNING COURT OPERATIONS.
 Vote Date:      4/9/2021
Vote Action:     Joint Favorable Substitute
   PH Date:      3/15/2021
    File No.:    594
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Judiciary Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill represents the annual legislative package from the Judicial Branch. The bill amends
various statutes that facilitate court processes during the pandemic; updates terminology;
changes the process for adopting Judicial Rules and creates efficiencies in the court process.
The bill allows family court litigants the opportunity to resolve family matters without the need
to physically appear in court, updates language from "detention" to a more clinically
appropriate description, "Juvenile Residential Center," permits the court to make certain
findings without requiring the physical presence of the parties in court and permits the court
to make certain findings without requiring the physical presence of the parties in court.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
The substitute language modifies the requirements for a child custody affidavit that allows a
party to submit for a determination without a hearing as well as allows individuals to enter a
juvenile residential center physically or virtually. It also requires an arbitration award in a
dissolution of marriage be incorporated into a court order and be enforceable as with an
agreement incorporated into an order and required any award related to child support to
comply with legal requirements for support. It also removes provisions that imposed time
limits for issuing decisions on short calendar matters and authorizes the Commissioner of the
Department of Agriculture to issue citations for infractions and violations under the
Commissioners jurisdiction.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
State of CT Judicial Branch, Superior Court Judge, Michael A. Albis; as Chief Administrative
Judge of the Family Division, limited his comments to the sections of the bill pertaining to the
Family Court Division and explained the following changes: 1. By permitting family court
litigants the opportunity to resolve family matters without the need to physically appear in
court increases efficiency & reduces cost & wasteful time spent in court especially for Pro Se
litigants; 2. The requirement for an applicant for a temporary restraining order to appear in
person to submit an affidavit under oath has been eliminated; and 3.If certain conditions are
met, family support magistrates may approve an agreement to modify a child support order in
IV-D support cases without a hearing on the record.
Board of Pardons and Paroles State of CT, Chairman, Carleton Giles; supports sections 51
and 52 for which the Board has cognizance of and take no position on the remaining portions
of the bill. Sections 51 and 52 amend Sections 54-108f and 54-130e to clarify that the Board
of Pardons and Paroles (Board) may, but is not required (as it currently is), to revoke
Certificates of Rehabilitation (Certificate) and that neither the Board and the Judicial Branch
Support Service Division (CSSD) are required to continue monitoring the criminal activity of
any person to whom the Board or CSSD have issues a provisional pardon or Certificate, but
who is no longer serving a sentence.
Office of Victim Advocate, State Victim Advocate, Natasha M. Pierre, Esq.; supports Section
29 of the proposed bill. Public Act No. 19-187 requires that in any case a juvenile, transferred
to the adult criminal docket, to be private and confidential. It is noted that this was a complete
violation of the constitutional rights of the crime victim. It is stated that Section 29 will restore
the constitutional rights of crime victims and their families in such cases, by insuring they are
not excluded in such proceedings and be able to obtain information about the criminal case
and the defendant.
State of CT Judicial Branch, Chief Justice, Richard Robinson; supports the section of this bill
that will make it easier for members of the public to have access to the courts, improve
processes and makes courts more efficient. He is pleased the Judicial Branch is close to
reaching an agreement with AFSCME who represent the court recording monitors. It is stated
that the Judicial Branch was not included in the drafting of section 55, 52-408 permits the
arbitration process to settle issue relating to child support, visitation and custody. There is
concern that an arbitration award for child support, even if confirmed does not constitute a
child support order for the Uniform Interstate Family Act. It is stated that it is unlikely that an
arbitration award, which includes an agreement to pay child support, would be sufficient for
the IV-D child support services, as well as the full scope of the statutory enforcements.
Substitute language is requested by the Office of the Chief Public Defender to Section 51 of
this bill, which the Judicial Branch also endorses.
State of CT Office of the Probate Court Administrator, Probate Court Administrator, Beverly
K. Streit-Kefelas; supports Section 15 which amends sections 45a-78 and 51-14 to permit the
Office of Probate Court Administrator to conduct public hearings rather than the Supreme
Court on Probate Court rules of procedure. It is stated that this change is made from a
collaboration between the Judicial Branch and the Probate Court Administrator.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV), Director of Public Policy and
Communication, Liza Andrews: states support for section 17 but has concerns regarding
section 22 that impact final agreements in custody cases. It is stated that the new language
                                                                             Page 2 of 4 HB-6505
strays from the traditional court canvas regarding fair and equitable decisions in the best
interests of the child as it appears to potentially preclude victims from bringing up past abuse
should they ever need to modify the resulting court order in the future. It is stated, there are
times where a victim will make an agreement related to custody in a good faith belief that it is
equitable, and in the best interest of their children and that ending the court proceedings is in
the best interest of their children. It is also stated that circumstances can change related to
care and custody of children, particularly when domestic violence is present and possibly
continuing even after a divorce and/or custody agreement has been reached and, in these
situations,, potentially precluding victims from pointing to past abuse in relation to parental
fitness is neither safe for the victim nor the children.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Needle/Cuda, Partner, Alex Cuda; opposes sections 51 and 52 and takes no position on the
remaining provisions of the bill. It is stated that during the pandemic it became necessary for
the Judicial Branch to utilize affidavits for testimony in many cases. It is stated that by
permanently changing this process, the public would be denied protections such as cross-
examination. It is also stated that reliance on administrative paperwork and not on Judicial
consideration could lead to a crisis of Constitutional dimensions.
Council 4 AFSCME Local 749, Colleen Birney; requests that Sections 42 and 43 be removed
to preserve the status of court recording monitors as state employees. It is stated that this
group represents over 200 court recording monitors throughout the state and these monitors
have the responsibility of record keeping in the courts as well as producing accurate
transcripts of what is said in court and other responsibilities as assigned. It is also stated that
if no final agreement is made with the Judicial Branch on behalf of the court recording
monitors before this legislation is approved, the position of court recording maybe privatized.
Stratford, Connecticut Resident, Jeryl Gray; opposes this bill stating disappointments with the
system and addresses lines 414  425 regarding fees to the Probate Court for seeking on-
line access for any documentation. It is also stated that the court system is well funded and
does not to be charging any additional fees for these services.
CT Court Reporters Association, President, Christine Mannix (CCRA)  opposes this bill
stating that court reporters could work remotely during the pandemic by Executive Orders 7K
and 7Q. It is noted that the attorneys and stenographers were more efficient and were able to
perform more work daily, due to lack of travel time. It is stated that as the end of the
Executive Order nears, the stenographers would like to see this law codified, so they may
continue to work from home, when necessary. It is also noted that there are concerns with
Section 42(4) lines 2942-2943, or any other entity that anyone, if designated by the right
court employee  can provide transcripts.
Connecticut, Activist, Mayce Torres; opposes this bill sharing personal experience with the
Connecticut legal system, stating that the state and judges breaching HIPAA rights by
publishing healthcare information.
Litchfield County Bar Association, Family Practice Section, Co-Chair, Regina M. Wexler;
opposes this bill stating the input of the statewide Family Section of the Connecticut Bar
Association (CBA) during the drafting process was not sought. It is stated that the notice of
                                                                            Page 3 of 4 HB-6505
the public hearing was not enough to allow for proper testimony to be delivered. It is stated
that while the use of affidavits may have been necessary during the pandemic, it is not
considered a good viable long-term solution. It is also stated that the affidavit process does
not allow any cross-examination.
Connecticut Legal Services Inc., Attorney, Lorraine Carcova; opposes Sections 16-24 and
supports Section 17 stating that it leaves the most vulnerable self-represented litigants
unprotected by the Connecticut Judicial system. It is stated that self-represented parties are
at particular risk for abuse of the court process by opposing parties who resort to intimidation
and coercion and access to justice must ensure the availability of protections that can only be
provided by Court review. It is stated that a new Section should be added providing additional
penalties for of a false financial affidavit. It is also stated there are concerns with Sections 19
through 22, which carves out an exception for domestic violence but the delineation of who
would qualify for the exception is too narrow. It is also stated that financial affidavits are of
concern and in many couples, one partner is ignorant of the financial situation of the other
and creates incentive for omitting or supplying false information on the financial affidavit.
Reported by: Rick ONeil, Assistant Clerk                 Date: April 15, 2021
                                                                           Page 4 of 4 HB-6505
Statutes affected: 
Raised Bill: 1-56r, 10-220k, 20-14h, 20-14i, 51-14, 51-60, 52-212a, 54-130e, 54-209, 54-228, 52-408
JUD Joint Favorable Substitute: 1-56r, 10-220k, 20-14h, 20-14i, 51-14, 51-60, 52-212a, 54-130e, 54-209, 54-228, 52-408, 22-4c, 22-61j
File No. 594: 1-56r, 10-220k, 20-14h, 20-14i, 51-14, 51-60, 52-212a, 54-130e, 54-209, 54-228, 52-408, 22-4c, 22-61j
File No. 726: 1-56r, 10-220k, 20-14h, 20-14i, 51-14, 51-60, 52-212a, 54-130e, 54-209, 54-228, 52-408, 22-4c, 22-61j
Public Act No. 21-104: 1-56r, 10-220k, 20-14h, 20-14i, 51-14, 51-60, 52-212a, 54-130e, 54-209, 54-228, 52-408, 22-4c, 22-61j