Comité Judiciary de la Cámara de Representantes, 5 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

826 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:08:40

   All right. We'll go ahead and convene the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Gunter will be back shortly. Uh, if I could call upon Representative Silcox to deliver our invocation.

2. 0:08:50

   Let us pray. Dear Lord, thank you so much for today. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the state of Georgia. Help us, Father, and give us wisdom to make wise decisions so that we, we have a, a more just society. In Jesus' name, amen.

3. 0:09:05

   Thank you. Chairman Cheokas, uh, House Bill 1360.

4. 0:09:12

   You need a motion to lift it off the table.

5. 0:09:14

   Well, first, do we have a motion to take that bill off of the table?

6. 0:09:18

   So moved.

7. 0:09:20

   All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. No. All right. All right. Chairman Cheokas, uh, give us an update of any changes since we were here yesterday and, and, uh, you're welcome to address the bill.

8. 0:09:37

   It's the, um, LC59-0396S HB 1360. And mistakenly I gave y'all a piece of paper yesterday, uh, that w- was an amendment to it, and I would like for y'all to disregard, completely disregard that, that amendment. Tear it up, throw it away. And, uh, what... The, the... I think y'all are familiar with the history behind what's going on here. And if y'all have specific questions, I was gonna turn it on to Aaron Kappler to help me describe what's going on.

9. 0:10:14

   All right. Mr. Kappler, do we have the same version yesterday, but the amendment's withdrawn?

10. 0:10:18

    Th- that's right.

11. 0:10:19

    Okay. Do-

12. 0:10:21

    Can we have the LC number one more time?

13. 0:10:21

    Sure. It is LC59-0396S.

14. 0:10:27

    So no changes since the previous hearing?

15. 0:10:30

    That's correct.

16. 0:10:30

    Except for the amendment request is withdrawn. All right. Um, have y'all presented everything you want to about this bill?

17. 0:10:39

    We haven't talked about the language of the bill without the amendment. I'm happy to do a very quick overview of what it does without the amendment.

18. 0:10:47

    Why don't we do a one-minute, give or take, version of an overview?

19. 0:10:51

    Certainly. So the current statute for tax refunds against counties and cities, it's not tax appeal for valuation, but it's for a refund of what amounts were allegedly erroneously paid and desire to be refunded. The statute provides for a may, that a taxpayer may bring a claim to the board of commissioners or local governing authority to consider that. What this bill does is essentially it says they shall. And then it provides a, a period, opportunity for a period for the local governing authority to consider that appeal administratively, and then render an opinion or a final decision on the merits of that appeal prior to any further judicial review.

20. 0:11:30

    Okay. All right. Any further, any further presentation? Um, any questions for the author or Mr. Kappler? Representative Cheokas. Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Silcox.

21. 0:11:43

    Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, does, does this replace or come in lieu of, um, a freeze if someone wants to freeze their as-

22. 0:11:52

    So-

23. 0:11:53

    ... assessment?

24. 0:11:53

    That's a great question. This has nothing to do with the freezing of assessments.

25. 0:11:57

    Okay.

26. 0:11:58

    So the assessment valuation or an appeal of an assessment is an entirely different process-

27. 0:12:03

    Okay. Just wanted to clarify

28. 0:12:04

    ... that this bill does not affect at all.

29. 0:12:05

    Okay. This would be post, post that?

30. 0:12:09

    So essentially what this would be is, say you've paid your taxes for the last two years, and then you, for some reason you feel like you paid too much or you paid something you weren't supposed to pay. You then bring a claim and say, "I want some money back that I've already paid." It has nothing to do with the valuation of the property at all.

31. 0:12:27

    But the valuation would certainly be a, a factor and consideration in such a trial.

32. 0:12:31

    I, I actually don't think so. I think if you're determining valuation, that's under the tax assessment appeal process, which again is entirely different. This is for erroneously paid or illegally paid taxes or fees or some other amounts.

33. 0:12:45

    But that amount would've been based on a valuation.

34. 0:12:48

    Not necessarily.

35. 0:12:49

    Not, not necessarily. So, and I don't wanna get too much into the weeds unless you want me to.

36. 0:12:54

    I want you to get in the weeds.

37. 0:12:55

    Yes, ma'am. Okay. So essentially, there's multiple ways that governments can raise revenue to provide local government services. Ad valorem taxes is one way, and we're all familiar with those, and those are based on the valuation of a property. Many smaller counties and cities, particularly more rural counties like Sumter County that I represent in these cases, they provide local government services in special districts created through the Georgia Constitution Special Districts paragraph, which says local government services may be funded through three things, fees, assessments, and taxes.

38. 0:13:36

    Okay? So for instance, say we have a local county, uh, Sumter County. They provide fire services through fire fees, which are not necessarily based on a valuation. They could be based on square footage, or they could be based on other things that go directly to fire protection. So what ha- what's happening in particularly rural counties, and that's what kinda gave rise to these, these, these, these discussions, there are class action cases being brought against counties and cities, and they're alleging that certain of these types of fees, fire fees, that are used exclusively for fire protection mind you, are illegal because instead of being ad valorem, which is what you were suggesting, they're a different m- method of calculation.

39. 0:14:25

    And they're saying that those types of fees should be ad valorem, essentially increasing ad valorem taxation for these properties. Because if you delete a $50 a year fee- for fire protection and say we're gonna do an ad valorem basis, there are going to be people that are paying more than $50.

40. 0:14:46

    But it sounds like, 'cause you said in one of your sentences a few minutes ago, you said that it could be based on square footage. So to me, that goes back to valuation.

41. 0:14:54

    But it's not a direct valuation. So some of these counties have a fire fee that says, you know, a certain square f-

42. 0:15:01

    May I, may I answer that?

43. 0:15:02

    Yes.

44. 0:15:03

    Okay. Uh, in Americas Georgia, they, they charge us a stormwater fee.

45. 0:15:08

    Okay.

46. 0:15:08

    Okay? It's not based on the value of the property. It's based on the size of the property. It's based on square footage of parking area. It's based on the amount of trees and raw land that, that is, you know, natural land that's able to absorb it.

47. 0:15:23

    Right.

48. 0:15:24

    That's how they do the... That has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of, of that, of my property.

49. 0:15:31

    Okay.

50. 0:15:31

    And I've got several different parcels, and the, those fees are different for each parcel.

51. 0:15:36

    Okay. And it's based on the amount that can be absorbed in that parcel? Okay.

52. 0:15:41

    Actually, what, what they did... Yeah, that's how they decided to do it. Yeah, 'cause they had to update the system.

53. 0:15:46

    So if you have a flood, and everybody paid their stormwater fees, and so they're able to pay for the cleanup with that? Is that the idea, or-

54. 0:15:56

    No, ma'am

55. 0:15:56

    ... they're-

56. 0:15:56

    This was for infrastructure-

57. 0:15:57

    Infrastructure

58. 0:15:58

    ... to prevent the floods.

59. 0:15:59

    Okay. For retention ponds, what have you?

60. 0:16:01

    Mm-hmm.

61. 0:16:02

    Okay. All right.

62. 0:16:05

    Representative Holcomb.

63. 0:16:06

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are there any pending cases now that will be impacted by this, or... 'Cause we have sort of a traditional rule to let litigation play out.

64. 0:16:16

    So, uh, Gr- excellent question. This is a procedural bill because it changes the procedure by which things can be brought. But to answer your question about pending litigation, there's an enormous amount of litigation coming. Every day, not every day obviously, but on a very rapid basis, these cases are proliferating. We started with a couple, now we have a couple handfuls. And what's happening is, and this is why I think it is important for this body to consider now, what's happening is, is these jurisdictions, rather than fearing the risk of litigation, they're acquiescing, settling, paying large sums of money in order to avoid paying the entire annual budget to settle one of these things.

65. 0:17:00

    So they're paying, they're paying discounted amounts to settle, paying lawyers contingency fees, and the class rep a 2.5% bounty to be the class rep. And in exchange for that, they're increasing the ad valorem millage rates. And so would this affect those pending cases? I think there's an argument that it would. I think this is a procedural bill, and I think the general law is procedural bills are retroactive. But, you know, I, I don't know if you can ever put a pause on pending litigation, particularly when they're getting settlements, and they're funding those settlements, creating more litigation.

66. 0:17:38

    And by the way, that's how they're funding plaintiffs, is they're offering these plaintiffs a 2.5% bounty. And so yes, your tax rates are gonna go up, your neighbor's taxes are gonna go up, but you get your 2.5%. That's what's happening. And so it, I think it is a really sense of urgency to consider these matters.

67. 0:17:57

    Well, do you have a sense of what the settlement ranges are?

68. 0:18:01

    Um, I do. And if, if I may, and I mentioned this to the committee yesterday very briefly, I'm a member of a class of one of these cases, in addition to representing some jurisdictions. That case settled for $5 million. The lawyers' fees were 2 million. The plaintiff was 125,000. I got the class notice after the time period to object to that settlement.

69. 0:18:26

    I remember you saying that.

70. 0:18:27

    Yes, sir. And so these can be significant. Now, they're not all $5 million, but they are getting into s- very significant ranges, and I think, frankly, the settlements are increasing because of the risk and the concern about the flood of litigation.

71. 0:18:41

    Okay. And, and what, what was the issue that led to the $5 million settlement?

72. 0:18:47

    So the, the issue of the... I've objected to the settlement untimely. The court hasn't heard the merits of my objection yet. So I don't really know why the city settled that case. I mean, of course, they have a mayor and council, and they decided it was appropriate for their taxpayers. But what they did do and what they have said is that they are replacing their fire fee with an ad valorem tax. And so our taxes are gonna go up in that jurisdiction essentially to pay a 40% contingency fee and a 2.5% bounty.

73. 0:19:18

    'Cause I, I'm paying 100 cents for that settlement, I'm getting 60 cents, 58.5 cents back.

74. 0:19:25

    Okay. All right. Thank you.

75. 0:19:27

    And, and I'd like to add to that, and as a further note, when we were talking about the stormwater fees, you know, if I've got a small parcel of land that's well-maintained and so forth, and they did the ad valorem tax, and so it, it, it just doesn't balance. The, the sewer fee w- was determined by the, by the, by the size of the amount of water that was created on the property rather than the value of the property.

76. 0:19:58

    Charlice Silcox.

77. 0:20:00

    To follow up on Representative Holcomb's question, um, I think you would have a hard time, I mean, to prove that these were erroneously and illegally assessed. I assume that they have an idea of how much maintenance they have to do, for example, for stormwater and retention ponds and that sort of thing. And so I would imagine that there would be records showing that based on the number of taxpayers, it costs this much if divided by the number of taxpayers in the digest, and there you go.

78. 0:20:29

    So-

79. 0:20:29

    So erroneously and illegally, because these people are usually elected to do their jobs, or they're hired by the mayor or city council, and they're just doing their jobs.

80. 0:20:40

    You, you're exactly right. The counties and cities don't feel like they're doing anything wrong That's not what's, that's not really what the allegation is.

81. 0:20:48

    Okay.

82. 0:20:48

    The allegation isn't that these counties and cities are charging stormwater fees and they're not building the infrastructure.

83. 0:20:55

    Mm-hmm.

84. 0:20:55

    They're not alleging that we're charging fire fees and not creating a fire department. That's not the allegation. The allegation is, it's a cottage industry. I use that phrase, but the allegation is, is that because it's a stormwater fee calculated based on square footage of pervious surface-

85. 0:21:14

    Right

86. 0:21:15

    ... or it's a fire fee because n- if your property's on, on lot one, maybe it's further from the water than lot two, but the building is this, otherwise the same, the cost to provide those fire services is the same, even if the value is different. Right? Because, you know, nextdoor neighbors could have the exact same house, more better view. That doesn't change the cost of providing fire protection. So what the arguments are is that by using a method other than ad valorem, it's illegal.

87. 0:21:45

    That's the legal argument. I think they're wrong on that. I think the Georgia Supreme Court's gonna fix that, but we ain't there yet. And in the meantime, what's happening is, again, these counties and cities are literally telling people- ... "We are going to raise your taxes because of these class action lawsuits." Evans County, which is down where I l- close to where I live, Evans County advertised a property tax increase a couple months ago, and they literally said in the notice, "We are raising ad valorem taxes because of class action lawsuits." And so-

88. 0:22:17

    But if they can prove the cost and people keep suing, the, what does, what good does that promote?

89. 0:22:23

    But it's not, it's not proving the cost 'cause the, there's not a lot of Georgia precedent, Supreme Court precedent on this narrow issue of ad valorem, not ad valorem. If you read the Constitution, it doesn't say taxes, property taxes must be ad valorem. That, and we're getting into the weeds a little bit, but the ad valorem requirement of the uniformity provision of the Georgia Constitution was removed in 1945.

90. 0:22:47

    Okay.

91. 0:22:48

    It ain't there. Notwithstanding that, now we're really getting into lawyer stuff, there's a case from 1955 from the Georgia Supreme Court that interpreted the 1877 Georgia Constitution that did have the ad valorem requirement. Okay? So there's, there's inconsistent precedent with the plain language of the Constitution. Again, I think that issue's gonna get resolved. There's a case pending in the Georgia Supreme Court from Chatham County where I think they're gonna answer that question. I hope they answer that question.

92. 0:23:15

    Again, I, it goes to the valuation thing and it just, it, I think it's a difficult, it's a difficult argument.

93. 0:23:21

    I, I think it's a difficult argument for them to make, but they're settling these things and taxes are going up.

94. 0:23:26

    Thank you.

95. 0:23:29

    All right. Um, I know we have one speaker in opposition. Before that, one follow-up question. Sumter County has an airport, right?

96. 0:23:36

    Mm-hmm.

97. 0:23:36

    And then you've got some warehouses like Lee, South Lee Street or whatever, the, the, there was a chopsticks factory there at one point- ... that didn't turn out so well. But inventory, like if a exemption, if there's some software era, er- error and the exemption doesn't get applied, that would be the kinda thing that this refund would be about, right?

98. 0:23:54

    That's exactly right.

99. 0:23:55

    Software error, errors and things like that.

100. 0:23:57

     That's right.

101. 0:23:58

     All right. Um, any, any further questions for the author or Mr. Kaplan? All right. Uh, do we have Jordan Re- uh, thank you, gentlemen. Uh, do we have Jordan Reid from Georgia Trial Lawyers Associ- You're behind the pole. There we go.

102. 0:24:11

     I am.

103. 0:24:11

     All right. Come on. Come on out from behind the column.

104. 0:24:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

105. 0:24:16

     Thank Mr. Reid.

106. 0:24:18

     Uh, thank you members of the committee. My name's Jordan Reid. I'm with the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and, um, there was a lot of discussion about taxes versus penalties, but the core measure of the bill as it was originally introduced was to get rid of class actions, and that's actually what the bill still does. And the purpose of the class action is to make sure that when a lot of individuals have a similar situated harm, like taxpayers, that they can hold their government accountable. This bill, by removing the ability to have a class action, specifically at line 28, would no longer give y'all's constituents the ability to hold the local governments accountable in this method.

107. 0:24:57

     And so we would, uh, respectfully ask the committee to oppose this substitute. Uh, thank you for your time, and I'll take any questions.

108. 0:25:04

     Any questions for Mr. Reid? No questions. Um, I'll, I've got a question. You, you worked here for that gentleman right there-

109. 0:25:12

     Yes, sir, I did

110. 0:25:13

     ... when he was here on this committee, right?

111. 0:25:14

     Yes, sir.

112. 0:25:14

     Legal counsel. All right.

113. 0:25:16

     Thank you.

114. 0:25:16

     Thanks. All right. Would anybody else like to address the bill?

115. 0:25:23

     All right. Do we have any motions?

116. 0:25:32

     No motions. Going once. Going twice.

117. 0:25:41

     Seeing no motions, uh, the bill does not advance due to lack of a motion, second, and affirmative vote. Um, Chairman Gullett. Chairman Gullett, um, okay. I was, I was looking for you. House Bill 289, and I know we've got, uh, some more bills just to give y'all an order. 289 has several witnesses, and then Representative Barrett, are you here for, uh, 1343? That one has a couple of witnesses, and we have started that.

118. 0:26:14

     Representative Kendrick, um, you've got two, right? Two, two bills.

119. 0:26:18

     I've got two.

120. 0:26:18

     Two new bills that are, that are, uh, quick. Okay. All right. Um, I'll, I'll take a look at those and we'll figure out what to do next, but I know we got a couple witnesses with Chairman Gullett. So tell us about House Bill 289.

121. 0:26:31

     Thank you. Chairman, members of the committee, this is, uh, House Bill 289. It's, um, in 2021, it's early 2019, I started remote online notary, uh, idea and legislation. 2021, this, this body voted, uh, just not this committee, but even the House as a whole, if you were here in the Honest Committee, you voted for that bill, uh, twice Uh, and in 2022, you voted for it, I believe twice. Um, materially the same language, really the only difference honestly is just the dates of implementation of that.

122. 0:27:05

     But a little bit about what remote online notary is and how it works, and then I'll go through the bill, if that's okay. Um, remote online notary is remote, um, is the notarial process through remote means. Um, the process would go something like this. The signer logs into a secure video platform. Um, it's gotta be a purpose-built RON platform, not just like a Zoom call. Uh, the bill defines communication technology in lines fifty-fi- fifty-one through fifty-five. Um, and I'll go through the bill itself too. Um, as an electronic device allowing the, the notary and signer to communicate simultaneously by sight and sound with accommodations for vision, hearing, speech impairments.

123. 0:27:44

     Um, it's a three-party verification, and all three are required. Uh, remote presentation of a valid government-issued ID. Uh, credential analysis, which is a third-party service validating the ID against the public proprietary data. And identity proofing, which is authentication confirming the signer's identity. That's like when you get a credit card and they say, "Which of these, you know, streets did you live on or, or didn't live on?" Um, those types of questions. Uh, step three would be really the, uh, the Georgia-based notary watches the signer execute the document electronically and applies their digital signature and electronic seal.

124. 0:28:19

     Um, the bill redefines, uh, appear and personally appear at lines forty to forty-five to expressly include interaction, uh, via compliant communication technology, which legally satisfies, uh, the, um, personal-- requiring personal appearance, um, part of the statute. And then step four would be, um, slides three eleven through three eighteen. The entire session is recorded and immediately transmitted to a third-party repository. Um, a detailed journey entry-- journal entry is, uh, created at the same time, and both are held for ten years at, at a minimum.

125. 0:28:55

     Um, today, when you get a notary done, there's no journaling required. Um, there is no documentation of what, what was presented to you, uh, what did you... A copy of the ID is not required. Um, even what item that you, you, uh, notarize is required today. So these are large, large enhancements to the security process of, uh, a notary, a notarial act. Um, let's go through section by section here just briefly.

126. 0:29:25

     I'll go fast. Uh, section one point one, really lines twenty-two through thirty-three, this grants the, um, Georgia Superior Court's clerk authority, a cooperative authority, the power to issue technical standards for remote online notary, um, pursuant to Title forty-five. Um, section one point two provides all the definitions referenced in the bill. Um, there are twenty-three new defined terms. Um, I think a few key ones is the communication technology, which is line fifty-one through fifty-five, um, defining that.

127. 0:29:57

     Um, credential analysis, which we talked about, um, line fifty-six through fifty-eight. Digital signature, fifty-nine through sixty-nine. And identity proofing, ninety-six through ninety-eight. Um, happy to go through those if you have questions on that. Uh, section one point three, lines one forty-eight through one seventy-three allows an elec- electronic seal to be used for any electric-- electronic in-person notarization or remote online notarization. So that's just giving you the ability to have an electric seal, um, for an electric in-person notarization or remote online notarization.

128. 0:30:30

     There's some confusion related to IPEN, which is in-person electronic notarization. That's, uh, there was a different bill passed earlier for that, but that's when the notary sit next to you and they have electronic seal on that. A remote online notary means they can be through a communication technology, watching the transaction, recording the transaction, uh, and adding that electronic seal to the documents at that point. Um, section one point four, lines, um, one seventy-four through one eighty-one, um, in documenting a notarial act, a notary public shall sign digitally for electronic in-person or RON by hand in ink or, uh, in all other cases.

129. 0:31:07

     Um, that's an important, uh, part of this too. Section one point five, uh, line one eighty-two through three hundred and thirty-three, this is the core framework for RON. Um, again, standards from the, uh, Georgia Courts, Courts Authority. Um, they must adopt standards for remote online notarization. Um, and it says prior to January first, twenty twenty-six, we will need a, an amendment for that. That's line one eighty-five. Um, and those standards have a, a number of considerations that are required. Um, if you look at line one ninety-five through two eighty-five, that's the appointment as a notary public, um, is a prerequisite for a RON commission.

130. 0:31:44

     So you can be a notary, a traditional notary, but you might not have the RON, uh, uh, the ability to do a RON. That's just an extra, uh, piece of the commission process to become a, a remote online notary as well. Um, the applicant must complete a course, pass an examination, um, and again, line two zero eight has effective January first, twenty twenty-six. Uh, we need to change that. Um, I'll give you those at the very end. Um, application must disclose the specific technology provider repository to be used.

131. 0:32:15

     Um, they must have a two thousand dollar surety bond. Um, they must, uh, re-maintain residential domicile and physical presence in Georgia, which is a big key. Um, and they must, uh, let the court's clerks authority, uh, know of any changes in technology, um, or repository pr-provider. Um, electronic journaling and auto-audio-visual archive, which is lines two eighty-six through three thirty-three. Each RON session must generate a journal entry, um, containing eight required elements. That's, uh, line two eighty-nine through three oh three.

132. 0:32:46

     Again, that journal must be retained for a minimum of ten years. Um, audio visual recording must be immediately transmitted to the repository and retained for ten years. That's line three fourteen through three eighteen. Um, the notary must also maintain a secure personal backup Um, again, security is really, really important in this process, and um, that's why we have so much, uh, language around security. Section 1.5-- uh, 1-5, this is where RON can be performed, um, anywhere in the s- A Georgia-based notary may serve signers located in Georgia, anywhere in the US, or outside the US if the document relates to US property proceedings or transactions.

133. 0:33:29

     Um, that's, uh, lines 334 through 353. Identif- identity verification requirements, that's what we talked about already. Um, that is lines 384 through 389, that all three are required. You can't pick and choose. Fees and credential security, 408 through 420, says a maximum fee of $25 per, uh, online notarization. Um, says upon commission of terminat- termination, notary must destroy all digital credentials. Um, and then unauthorized destruction or theft of digital credentials is a misdemeanor.

134. 0:34:03

     That's line 416 through 420. Um, attorney supervision preserves, this is line 421 through 429. Uh, it says nothing in this article alters the requirement that a licensed Georgia attorney supervise a real estate closing for property in Georgia. Um, a non-attorney remote online notary is prohibited from rendering legal advice or services. That's 427 through 429. Uh, let's see. Effect of RON acts, that's line 430 through 446. Um, public officials and government entities shall accept electronic signatures and RON notarized documents as originals.

135. 0:34:39

     Um, out-of-state, um, RON acts have the same legal effect as, in Georgia as Georgia PerformAct. That's line 440 through 442. Um, and RON is expressly prohibited in wills, trusts, and estates. That's 443 through 446. I'm almost done, I promise. Um, again, this stuff is, is really important to how secure RON is and, and what we wanna do as a state. Um, lines 471 through 515 amends the Fair Practice Business Practice Acts to add an unfair trade practice, um, knowingly presenting a one to four family residential real estate document for recording when the presenter knew it resulted from an unau- unauthorized practice of law.

136. 0:35:22

     Uh, that's line 509 through 513. Um, section 22, 516 through 525, um, any instrument presented to the clerks requiring an official or unofficial witness may be admitted to, um, record if authorized signatures and seals are present, but the clerk has no duty to examine the circumstance, circumstances of witnessing. Um, section 2, uh, 23, lines 526 through 540 provides that the unofficial witness requirement for deed execution is satisfied electronically if the witness is present in Georgia and sees the signer electronically execute, uh, via compliant communication technology.

137. 0:36:00

     Um, and then, uh, section 2-4, lines 54- 541 through 552, records, records of any audiovisual recording of remote online notary process are prohibited from public disclosure under Georgia Open Records Act. Um, so again, the requirements to become a remote online notary public, you must be appointed as a notary public. Uh, you gotta complete a course and pass an exam. Um, you need to submit the application to the, uh, superior court clerk, uh, at the county of your residence.

138. 0:36:31

     You gotta pay a fee that's equal to the not- the, the traditional notary application fee. Uh, once approved, you need to maintain a surety bond of $2,000. Um, you must, uh, maintain a journal with details of each notarization for at least 10 years. Uh, and you must keep the re- the recordings of the, the Notarization Act, the audiovisual recordings, for, uh, 10 years as well. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions. I know I covered a lot, but, uh, I think it's important.

139. 0:37:02

     And again, this is something we've, uh, passed a number of times, just never got it to an agreement, um, at the very end.

140. 0:37:09

     Thank you, Chair Mullet. Any questions for Chair Mullet? No questions.

141. 0:37:14

     All right.

142. 0:37:14

     You mentioned IPEN. Uh, what bill is that, and where, where is that?

143. 0:37:19

     Um, it's not my bill. It's, uh, I don't know the bill number.

144. 0:37:23

     Okay.

145. 0:37:23

     And it, it went through a different committee.

146. 0:37:25

     Okay. But it's in Rules now?

147. 0:37:28

     It's in Rules now.

148. 0:37:28

     Okay.

149. 0:37:29

     Or as far as I know, unless it got moved back, but...

150. 0:37:30

     All right. No questions for Chair Mullet.

151. 0:37:32

     Thank you.

152. 0:37:32

     All right. Thanks a lot. We do have a number of people signed up. Uh, let me start with, uh, Josh Kamen and Amy Huskin. Do y'all wanna testify separately or together?

153. 0:37:41

     Together.

154. 0:37:41

     Okay. Come on up.

155. 0:37:51

     This, I'll pull over here.

156. 0:37:57

     Thanks.

157. 0:37:57

     Thanks for letting us speak.

158. 0:37:58

     Absolutely.

159. 0:37:58

     How are, how is every- how is everybody today? My name is Amy Huskins. I'm a commercial real estate partner at the Atlanta office of the law firm of Duane Morris. It's an international law firm. And I want to thank Representative Gullett again. I was on-- He asked me, and a group of us from, um, real estate lawyers back in 2019, in September of 2019, we have-- I helped write some of this language in here, going that far back. And, um, every single time I would appear in front of all of you over the past many years, sometimes would say, "Well, why is this thing so long?" Well, there's a reason, and that is because there's, um, something called the Model Act.

160. 0:38:41

     It was promulgated by the National Mortgage Bankers Association in 2014 and the, um, um, American Land Title Association national legislative team out of Washington. Uh, the very first remote online notary, uh, law was Virginia, because they had so many service members serving on ships overseas or whatever, and they needed to deed their property to someone, and that's how this c- was created. But the Virginia law was short.

161. 0:39:11

     And the very first law that Representative Gullett and my team, we worked on, was like three pages long. We realized very early on it did not meet the standards that the national banks, the national title companies, national underwriters would accept as a valid bill for remote online notary. And so this thing is very long. I'm gonna stop right there, but just to say, over the past many years, if you keep the bill in its current format exactly as it is, it will work. Okay? And, um, but if, if we remove p- parts of it or add parts to it, I personally, since I've worked on this for so long, would not be in favor of that.

162. 0:39:49

     This bill right now is a really, really good bill, and it will work. And I'm gonna turn my comments over to Josh Kaymen of King & Spalding.

163. 0:39:57

     Uh, hey, hey, folks, Chair. Uh, folks, I appreciate to be here. Uh, my name is Josh Kaymen. I'm here in an individual capacity, but I am the managing partner of the Atlanta office of King & Spalding. I'm a member of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers, um, which is a national organization of the preeminent real estate lawyers in the country. And I've been practicing for 31 years, so, um, to do that. I, I echo everything my colleague here has said. I, I'd note just two things. One, uh, the bill in its current form, uh, is consistent with and matches up with what we see across the country, um, through the American College of Real Estate Lawyers.

164. 0:40:31

     I can say with great confidence that that's the case, and it's something that would be consistent and good for, for Georgia business and, and Georgia law, uh, in its current form. Um, so with that, I defer. Any... A- and we're here to answer any technical questions you have as well, too, by the way.

165. 0:40:48

     Thank you. We do have a question from Chair Lady Silcox.

166. 0:40:51

     Thank you all so much for joining us today. I know that, um, Representative Gullett had two spots at line 186 and 208, where we had prior to January 2026, and I was just curious what your recommendations would be on the correct date for that.

167. 0:41:06

     Uh-

168. 0:41:06

     I can as- I can answer that question. When we first started talking about this, literally going back many, many years, um, this, as I said, the bill in its current format is so wordy. We know that. But there are also, um, additional regulations that nationally these, the mortgage bankers, you know what I mean, like the American Land Title Association, they issue new regulations every year-

169. 0:41:29

     Mm-hmm

170. 0:41:30

     ... on remote online notaries. And so we need to have the, uh, clerk's authority try to, you know, follow. And if there's something that needs to be updated because every single other state is doing it because it's a better approach, then we need to have that. And we had talked about, and you're the, you're in charge here, Representative Gullett, but we had talked about giving at least a half year-

171. 0:41:51

     Okay

172. 0:41:51

     ... to the clerk's authority to make sure that they have their, their, you know, ducks in a row, to, you know what I'm saying?

173. 0:41:57

     Right.

174. 0:41:58

     To, to make sure we have the most current regulations that would follow what's in the, the bill.

175. 0:42:03

     So six months from now, or-

176. 0:42:05

     Or is that what you were thinking, or more?

177. 0:42:07

     2027. Just change it to 2027.

178. 0:42:08

     Okay.

179. 0:42:10

     Whatever the date is he selects is fine.

180. 0:42:11

     Right. I think that'd be plenty of time.

181. 0:42:16

     Any other questions? I've got a question. Okay, so this started from Virginia. How does Virginia compare to Georgia in terms of-

182. 0:42:25

     Well-

183. 0:42:25

     ... attorneys versus title?

184. 0:42:26

     Um, the, Virginia is, is a, a title state, not an attorney state. However, um, part of the issue was they had to go back and amend their entire statute with the Commonwealth of Virginia because it wasn't, it didn't contain enough information, and that's what we don't wanna do here. We wanna... Uh, if you're gonna vote for this and pass it, we want it to be done once, where we don't have to correct it.

185. 0:42:52

     And another question. The, the state bar real estate section, we heard, um, a couple of bills this year, I think, that e- they either asked for or were consulted. Um, have they taken a position on this?

186. 0:43:02

     I'm no longer an officer of the state bar. Uh, I'm just asked to speak because I helped write this thing. I don't... I can't answer your question. I don't know the answer.

187. 0:43:12

     Okay, thanks. Any other questions? All right. Thanks for your testimony.

188. 0:43:15

     Yeah. Thank you.

189. 0:43:17

     Um, we've got three who m- may also be together. Do y'all wanna go together or separate?

190. 0:43:21

     Together.

191. 0:43:21

     Come on up.

192. 0:43:27

     Is anybody from the bar here this second? Tell us.

193. 0:43:30

     Um, friend of friend. Anybody from the bar or State Bar of Georgia? All right. State Bar of Georgia, if you're down the street listening in-

194. 0:43:37

     We're listening

195. 0:43:38

     ... feel free to, to, uh, let Representative Evans or me or anybody on judiciary know. So, all right. Good, good question, Representative Evans.

196. 0:43:47

     The seat is low.

197. 0:43:49

     All right. If you'll please each introduce yourselves, and feel free to, to, uh, uh, testify in the order that you like.

198. 0:43:55

     Okay. Uh, thank you, Chairman. I'm Kate Hoskins. I am a partner with the law firm of Boutell & Sorohan, um, here in the Atlanta area. And, um, my primary practice is in residential real estate closings. This is my partner, Joe Kelly. He will speak. And also, I am a past president of the Georgia Residential Real Estate Closing Attorneys Association. Um, this is Mr. Bo Wagner. He is the current president. And so I'm sure they'll have something to say. But I'll lead off, if that's okay. Um, also to thank, um, Representative Gullett for, um, working on this tirelessly for years.

199. 0:44:31

     Um, we've also been kind of part of that process. Um, as residential real estate closing attorneys, we are fully in favor of electronic notarization, um, both in a remote capacity and in person. This will certainly be helpful to our practice, um, and our clients. Um, unfortunately, it will also, um, make it much easier to commit the unauthorized practice of law, and that is, that has been what we have been working with Representative Gullett over all these years to, you know, cl- clarify and work this language so that this particular, um, remote online notary statute also has provisions that would have effective penalties should someone use it for the unauthorized practice of law And, um, Ms.

200. 0:45:22

     Huskins had mentioned the Model Act, and as sh- as she clarified for, um, for you all, the Model Act is a national act through the, uh, American Land Title Association that, um, is very applicable to, um, states that are title states, not attorney closing states, where attorneys have to, um, it's actually the practice of law, conveyancing title. And that is why while we, um, agree that these, um, all the technical provisions are important, um, that exact Model Act is, is not perfect without having some provisions that deal with the unauthorized practice of law, which Representative Gullett did point out that he did add those to the provisions, which, which is great.

201. 0:46:07

     And so the, the only issue that came after that would be, so if someone were to violate, um, the, our current UPL statutes using this, um, actual law on remote online notary, what would be the penalties? And would they be substantial enough to, um, deter from that practice? And, um, yes, it has been a number of years, but, um, again, um, now Representative Gullett has had a brilliant idea-

202. 0:46:38

     Mm-hmm

203. 0:46:38

     ... um, to separate the, um, UPL penalties in a, a separate, um, bill from the remote online notary bill. And so House Bill 1433, um, which not only make ... Well, it makes the, um, penalties for the unauthorized practice of law in Georgia more severe, which I think is something that all attorneys, um, sh- would agree with. And, um, and, and, and goes to protecting many of our citizens in Georgia, some of the most vulnerable, and, um, in, in the state.

204. 0:47:16

     Um, so not only to protect the Georgia consumer to make sure that their, um, closing, real estate closing is done in compliance with Georgia law and by someone practicing law, but also in other applications where I know some of the immigrant populations or, or minority populations have been targeted by, um, individuals saying that they're attorneys and practicing law when they are not. So that was a, that was a great, um, move.

205. 0:47:47

     And so we, we would be in support of the bill if it also, um, the body did pass, um, HB 1433. And if it, for some reason, did not, then our stance would go back to this particular bill, uh, 289, still being a strong remote online notary bill, but needing to have penalties if the, um, it was used for the violation of the practice of law, which would be by someone who's not a licensed attorney in Georgia controlling the closing and conducting the conveyance of real property.

206. 0:48:23

     So does that-

207. 0:48:25

     That's perfect. My name's Joe Kelley. Um, I guess we're the largest real estate, residential real estate. We also have a good commercial practice, so we do a lot of commercial closings. And I've think for years, um, we've always wanted to have remote online notarization. It's excellent technology, and IPN as well. We'll probably be the biggest users of IPN and probably remote online notarization for closings. And so the problem is, over the years, the reason it seemed that we were opposed to it, it wasn't that we were opposed to it, it's just if we can use it, it's like a super highway.

208. 0:49:02

     We're driving cars right now. But you open up this remote online notarization, it suddenly becomes a super highway. It's the Autobahn, and everybody in the country, which there are 46 title states, they wanna go use it. And so they already, these title companies, they're corporations, and they do closings in Georgia, which is, violates the unauthorized practice of law statute. And so really our whole position has been enforcement. And the reason of that is the state bar does not enforce UPL for residential real estate closings or for any real estate.

209. 0:49:36

     And the real estate section is the largest section of the state bar, but gets no attention. And so that is the reason that we've always been in a struggle, even though we want the remote online notarization. It opens up the gateway to these corporations who have already said, "We're coming in," and I have evidence and proof and can give you documents that show that they do that. And so I think it was because of that fight, I do think it was brilliant, um, for you to come out and do that and break them apart, and have that enforcement.

210. 0:50:08

     And it strengthens the enforcement on the UPL portion. It really gives more teeth, and it will push either the state bar or it'll push other law enforcement people or parties that can go in and enforce it. So with that provisions, and this bill references UPL in several places, so it's strong if we can get 1433. Without 1433, as Kate said, um, it would be very hard, and we would, I guess, do whatever we could to then go back and do what we've been doing, which was trying to combine them.

211. 0:50:42

     Separating them was brilliant. Combining them is hard. And so we would have to go back and try to combine them with some substitute or something. So, um, as it is, it's, it's perfect along with 1433. Thank you.

212. 0:50:56

     Thank you, and we'll, we'll save questions for everybody. Um, Mr. Wagner, before you go, um, Ms. Huskin and Mr. Kammen, just heads-up, I'm gonna call you back up when they're done and ask about 1433 just to get a full picture of everything. So take a look at that bill and, and think about your thoughts on that one. All right, Mr. Wagner.

213. 0:51:14

     Sure. Uh, I'm kind of the opposite here. We've got the, the large corporate firms and the, and the very, one of the largest in Georgia. I'm a solo, so literally it is me, my wife as my closer and pre-closer, and a coworker. So I, I've also practiced for about 30 years, and we've seen UPL

214. 0:51:34

     Just like Joe said for years, and it, it almost seems like a victimless crime that, you know, okay, it's easy, somebody just did a closing on somebody's behalf. But we have to clean up messes. We do it right as, as agents of the Georgia Bar and following the rules of the Georgia Bar. We've done everything right, and we make sure that we follow the rules and take care of our Georgia consumers. Meanwhile, what happens when I get a title that's been closed over, like meaning somebody's closed leaving an open loan deed or some other title issue, uh, conveyed the wrong property?

215. 0:52:11

     Are they gonna... How are they gonna be served when they call some out-of-state, you know, national company that's an 800 number? They're never gonna get anybody. So we end up fixing the problems. Uh, either we just kinda eat it as doing business or unfortunately, sometimes it's a mess, we have to charge, you have to get litigators, whatever. But bottom line, it's, it's worse than you would think. Uh, again, all the details are great, but UPL is kinda very, very critical for this whole process, and that's really kinda all I have to add.

216. 0:52:43

     Thanks.

217. 0:52:44

     All right. Any questions for Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Wagner, and Ms. Hoskins? No questions? All right. Thanks for your testimony. Uh, Mr. Kammen and Ms. Hoskins, if, if you'd be willing to come back up or just do a thumbs up or thumbs down on 1433, either, whichever you prefer.

218. 0:53:07

     Okay. Sure.

219. 0:53:07

     All right.

220. 0:53:08

     You want us to talk about 1433?

221. 0:53:10

     Well, I'm, I'm gathering thumbs up. Uh, uh-

222. 0:53:15

     Hi. Okay.

223. 0:53:16

     I guess to summarize what we heard, you got the residential attorneys saying they're okay with this bill if 1433 gets enacted. Um, do you have any thoughts on 1433 from the commercial side?

224. 0:53:27

     Sure. I'll start. Um, w- the, the most current version that I have, um, as commercial real estate lawyers, and we're not residential at all, so we know that there's a, a difference. Um, both of our law firms are international law firms. All of my business, I'm sure yours as well, involves multi-state transactions. And, um, they're always mail-away closings. Nev- no one in my entire career of 35 years, I never ever, ever have a closing in person, ever.

225. 0:53:59

     They're always done... Um, uh, and one of the things I do need to tell you is that you literally have, and Josh can comment on this, um, I had one last week that had 24 properties, some were in London, England, some were in the US, and one was in Georgia. And when you have an electronic means to, um, sign off and let's say it's a billion-dollar deal, and you've got, you've got 24 people on a Zoom call, and they all have to say, "Yes, we're ready to fund," kinda thing. And that doesn't mean that I'm p- practicing law without a license because there's a property in London.

226. 0:54:34

     It means that there's representation by lawyers for every single jurisdiction, every single place, and there's not ever this issue about, uh, in commercial settings of, of all the parties not being represented by counsel. So I say that. I know that that's not necessarily the case with residential. Um, what, one of the things we were really concerned about is, um, a provision that could bring in, um, affiliates. And I'm talking about, um, um...

227. 0:55:07

     I'm sorry, bear with me just one minute. Where is it? The affiliate. Sorry about that. I wasn't prepared for us to talk about it. It, yes, it's, it's paragraph D. It's every officer or agent employee of whoever is potentially, um, uh, committing an unauthorized practice of law would also be guilty of a felony, and that could be a banker in a back room. It could be the secretary, legal secretary. It's very, very, very broad, and we were really upset about that.

228. 0:55:40

     I will just tell you the commercial bar-

229. 0:55:42

     What line is that on?

230. 0:55:43

     It's, I'm just looking at the current version I have. It would be line 29.

231. 0:55:48

     We have it.

232. 0:55:49

     Now, now this is 1433 passed out.

233. 0:55:51

     Yeah, it did.

234. 0:55:52

     It's in rules.

235. 0:55:52

     So you would ask me that.

236. 0:55:53

     So we don't, we don't have that.

237. 0:55:54

     We don't have that.

238. 0:55:54

     But, um, the, we've had-

239. 0:55:56

     But that's the comment

240. 0:55:56

     ... we've had one, the residential lawyers have said they're for this bill if 1433 passes.

241. 0:56:02

     Yeah.

242. 0:56:03

     And I was just trying to ascertain, uh-

243. 0:56:05

     Um-

244. 0:56:05

     ... do y'all like it or not like it or have concerns?

245. 0:56:06

     We do not.

246. 0:56:07

     Okay.

247. 0:56:07

     I'm just saying generally we do not.

248. 0:56:09

     Fair enough.

249. 0:56:10

     So I'll try to be short and bullet-pointy as it goes. It's a thumbs down for us in its current form.

250. 0:56:16

     Okay.

251. 0:56:17

     Um, there are a variety of reasons, but just hitting them, it, it doesn't, particularly with the commercial real estate part, it doesn't fit the practice. It's bad for business. It's bad for bankers. I think you, you'd find that all of your lenders would find it to be, uh, very disruptive and difficult for their business. Um, it creates some draconian penalties that I think will also be bad for business and, and bad for Georgia. And so when it comes down to, to weighing the balances of it, we think a remote online notary bill is great.

252. 0:56:47

     We think this one does, uh, tying it to a UPL bill like this, uh, we should leave it in the purview of the Supreme Court where it's supposed to exist today.

253. 0:56:56

     Okay.

254. 0:56:56

     Any, any questions for the commercial real estate lawyers? Any questions? Okay.

255. 0:57:01

     All right. Thank you.

256. 0:57:01

     Um, Nor- real quick.

257. 0:57:03

     Yeah.

258. 0:57:03

     North Carolina, are y'all familiar with North Carolina statutes about UPL? They've got a lot of banks there and-

259. 0:57:09

     They do.

260. 0:57:09

     Okay. And they've, they've got laws about UPL.

261. 0:57:12

     They're all misdemeanors in North Carolina.

262. 0:57:14

     Okay.

263. 0:57:14

     Unless there was something like in the past month or so. South Carolina does have a, a felony, but it's very, very, very limted-

264. 0:57:20

     Okay

265. 0:57:20

     ... limited in scope.

266. 0:57:23

     So they address banks and in-house work for banks and things like that in those states?

267. 0:57:27

     And right, and it's not-

268. 0:57:28

     Okay

269. 0:57:28

     ... in the current version here in Georgia. Okay.

270. 0:57:30

     Okay. All right. Any, any other questions? All right. Thank you for your testimony.

271. 0:57:35

     Thank you all. I appreciate it.

272. 0:57:36

     Any... Does any, um, Chair McGill, do you wanna, uh, follow up at all or?

273. 0:57:47

     We have a motion.

274. 0:57:49

     Second.

275. 0:57:50

     All right, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? All right. Uh, do we, uh... All in favor?

276. 0:57:58

     Mm-hmm.

277. 0:57:59

     Oh, uh, no, you do have a discussion. Okay. Representative Holcomb.

278. 0:58:02

     Yes. Uh, thank you, Chair. I would make, um, an amendment just to change those dates to 2027.

279. 0:58:09

     Mm-hmm.

280. 0:58:09

     Which I think is line 185 and line 208.

281. 0:58:13

     All right. We have, uh, an amendment. Do we have any second? We have a second to that amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye.

282. 0:58:20

     Aye.

283. 0:58:21

     All opposed? All right. The amendment is on. Any other amendments? All right. Um, we have a motion, uh, to pass the bill as amended. All in favor, say aye.

284. 0:58:33

     Aye.

285. 0:58:33

     All opposed? All right.

286. 0:58:35

     Move the floor.

287. 0:58:36

     Thank you.

288. 0:58:42

     Sorry to cut you off in the middle of that.

289. 0:58:47

     Let's stand at ease for just one second. Let me check this

290. 0:59:10

     vote. All right.

291. 0:59:14

     All right. Rep- Representative Kendrick. All right. Let's, let's come to order. All right. Representative Kendrick, you have, you have two bills, right?

292. 0:59:23

     Yes, they say the same thing.

293. 0:59:24

     I'm gonna let you pick the, uh, the first bill. Which, which bill?

294. 0:59:27

     Okay. Well, okay. Can you hear me? All right. Uh, so I have HB 1016.

295. 0:59:32

     Okay.

296. 0:59:34

     And, um, it is a companion bill to HR 1046, um, because leg counsel suggested that I run it concurrently to change the, um, to change the Constitution. But thank you for this, giving me this opportunity for this interesting discussion on squatters. Um, so I spoke mostly t- to most of you about this bill. But this essentially, uh, would give interested third parties, that is defined under the bill, the legal standings to start eviction proceedings against squatters.

297. 1:00:06

     Um, so in my district, I have DeKalb County, East DeKalb, and South Gwinnett. This is particularly an issue in DeKalb County, uh, where it's just hard to get squatters out of neighborhoods, bringing down property values, safety, and things like that, unless you're an, an owner, a property owner. Um, and so, uh, this bill provides essentially a procedure by which an interested party is narrowly defined. They fill out an affidavit. They give a notice to the property owner and, uh, attach it to, um, the affected property.

298. 1:00:39

     And at that time, if the, um, if the squatter is, doesn't file a counter affidavit, then the sheriff is authorized to, um, essentially put them out of the affected property. And this came to me because there was a incident in, um, DeKalb County in my district where there were squatters that, um, had ran amok, um, of a couple of houses in a, in a, in a neighborhood where peop- where children outside playing. And it brought all this sort of crime and, um, attention to the build- to the, um, community.

299. 1:01:12

     And nobody in the neighborhood had the legal standing to kick them out, k- kick the squatters out, and it took forever in order for them to find the property owners 'cause we're talking about, you know, finding these corporate investors and who actually, um, is, is responsible for it. And so I think it's an interesting discussion to at least have about, um, how we deal with squatters because it's affecting a lot of communities. And, um, I know that there are some that are concerned about property w- rights, but people come to me and say, you know, "What about my safety?

300. 1:01:45

     What about my property rights?" 'Cause squatters do bring down the property value of a neighborhood, and people are worried about safety of, of their children. Um, so that is, uh, essentially the bill. I just wanted to have a good discussion about how can I serve my constituents.

301. 1:02:02

     So, uh, we, we heard them together. Um, we're gonna vote on them separately. If you could just tell us the difference in the two.

302. 1:02:09

     Um, so 10- 10, um, 40- 1046, um, would update and change our Constitution, um, in order to allow... Excuse me. Um, it amends a section on property rights in the Georgia Constitution to expand who has legal stan- standing. And so leg counsel, even though I have the HB, leg counsel thought that it should run parallel because, um, there might be a constitutional challenge to just the statute. If that makes sense.

303. 1:02:40

     So 1046 or HR 1046-

304. 1:02:43

     Mm-hmm

305. 1:02:43

     ... is the constitutional amendment.

306. 1:02:44

     Correct.

307. 1:02:45

     And HB 1016 is the enabling legislation or the related legislation that would k- uh, if 1046 is approved, would implement it.

308. 1:02:55

     The, the way it was explained to me, it's not like it, there's an enabling legislation. Es- essentially, if I just pass the HB 1016, leg counsel was worried that there would be a constitutional challenge. So they s- say the same thing, just in a different form. And that m- if that makes sense. It's not enabling and then a constitutional question. It's two parallel bills running together. One just would amend the Constitution, and one might have a constitutional challenge if we just pass it as a statute.

309. 1:03:25

     All right. Any questions for Representative Kendrick? One of the many who had a conflict, uh, uh, asked me to ask, standing, that's, that's the issue, the constitutional issue, right?

310. 1:03:38

     Mm-hmm.

311. 1:03:39

     Standing.

312. 1:03:39

     Correct. Mm-hmm.

313. 1:03:39

     So the, the constitutional amendment is there to address the standing issue.

314. 1:03:44

     Correct. Um, because if we... The worry is if, if we just pass the HB 1016, that in the future there could be a constitutional challenge. So just go ahead and pass the constitutional amendment with it.

315. 1:03:55

     Okay. All right. Um, no, no questions for Representative Kendrick? All right. Would anybody like to testify to the bill? All right. Looks like we've completed our hearing. Do we have a motion?

316. 1:04:09

     Move to pass on this.

317. 1:04:10

     Second. On which one?

318. 1:04:10

     Both of them.

319. 1:04:12

     Okay. Let's, let's take them separately, uh, se-

320. 1:04:16

     We'll do the CR first.

321. 1:04:17

     Okay. HR 1046, we have a motion and a second. All in... Uh, any discussion? All right. All in favor say, "Aye." Aye. All opposed? Looks like it passes. All right. Um, do we have a motion on House Bill 1016? Second. We have a motion and a second on House Bill 1016. Uh, any discussion? All right. All in favor say, "Aye." Aye. All opposed. All right. Thank you. It, it also passes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Um, Representative Barrett, uh, come on up on House Bill 10 or 1343.

322. 1:04:55

     And before we do that, we've got at least two judges who've come today. Um, Your Honor, if you'd like to introduce yourself. We've got, uh, Judge and attendants. Yes, sir.

323. 1:05:07

     Hey, good afternoon. Trey Taylor, Superior Court Judge down in the Dublin Judicial Circuit, obviously Dublin, Johnson, and a chunk of Twiggs County. Glad to be here as always. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.

324. 1:05:18

     Thank you. You're well represented by Chairman Hatchett down there. And then Judge Stephens, who's a former member of this body, and I bet this committee, is out in the hall.

325. 1:05:27

     Good job keeping up with me.

326. 1:05:28

     He is, uh, he is on the go, but, uh, appreciate Judge Stephens attending as well. Any other members of the judiciary here today? I noticed we had, uh, Clerk Greg Allen also from Forsyth County. So, uh, here, Judge Stephens. Judge Stephens, thank you for attending House Judiciary. Did you serve, did you serve on this committee when you were in the House? I did. Yes, sir. All right. Before you were born. What, uh, what, uh- I'm sorry I'm late, but I sent a conflict letter. You probably didn't get it 'til a few miles out. No. Judge, thank you for coming back.

327. 1:05:58

     Good to see you again. Thank you. All right. Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right.

328. 1:06:03

     Mr. Chairman, I've, I've asked our, our esteemed commit- uh, study committee member, Vance Smith, to join me if that's okay with you.

329. 1:06:10

     All right. Thank you. This, this continues the hearing that began a few days ago. And, uh, uh, in a- in addition to, uh, Representative Smith, did we have another one from Columbus, another representative who was active on this?

330. 1:06:27

     Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Tater- uh, Representative Tremaine Reese.

331. 1:06:30

     All right. In addition to serving on the committee, was he one of the ones who brought this issue to the attention of the House and Speaker?

332. 1:06:37

     Yes, sir. Um, in fact, we wouldn't be here today without, uh, uh, Representative Reese, who served as vice chairman of our committee. And in fact, he is, he was the origin of requesting the study committee in the first place on accessibility and affordability of legitimation in Georgia.

333. 1:06:53

     All right. Have you made a lot of changes to this bill since this got heard, uh, a few days ago?

334. 1:06:58

     Yes, sir. I've been-

335. 1:06:59

     Tell us about those

336. 1:06:59

     ... quite a few changes. Uh, yes, sir. Well, um, uh, first of all, there are many people who we just want to thank who've been very involved in this process, especially in the last, uh, few days, especially, uh, the esteemed chairman of the, in, in this room right now. Um, many others, uh, Legislative Council Michael Walker, uh, uh, Superior Court Judge Clint Bearden. Uh, Jim Outman back there. He and I had a great conversation. He's given invaluable input on this, on this process. Uh, Meg Murray, who's been at so many of our meetings.

337. 1:07:32

     Uh, folks from, uh, DHS, Regina Quick, uh, uh, Candice Brose. Uh, uh, Cheryl Karunas from the Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia. Um, the esteemed, uh, judge back there who joined her the other day. I think it was interesting, His Honor back there talked about being late, and that speaks to one of the issues raised in this, in this redraft of this bill, which is about timing of expedited processes, et cetera.

338. 1:08:01

     Mr. Chairman, the origin of this, um, of this legislation was the House Study Committee on Affordability and Accessibility of Georgia's Legitimation Process. This bill isn't intended to try to solve the myriad of complex issues with child custody and, and those things. Uh, but rather, the name of the study committee kind of says it all, House Study Committee on Affordability and Accessibility of Georgia's Legitimation Process. The bill that we've created, uh, preserves the contested legitimation process that's already in place.

339. 1:08:40

     Um, this bill was brought forth by... It's signed by Speaker Jon Burns, uh, Minority Leader Hugley. Uh, I think they understand the, the, the profound problem. We have about 125,000 children born in Georgia every year. 46% are born out of wedlock. Over the summer, uh, Representative Smith and I and many others heard countless stories over three different meetings around the state a- about the challenges. We've heard so many fathers tell us, uh, "I've never even heard of legitimation before this." And so we, we really stepped back and said, "What's really going on with this process?" And, and what we came away with was there's an educational challenge, and, uh, and that should be the cornerstone of what we're trying to do here.

340. 1:09:29

     We need to create... We need to have the state create excellent educational materials, and that's part of this bill. We thought we need to have consistent, a, a, a consistent approach with consistent forms across the state. So whether you live in Savannah or in the, uh, or in Dublin, you're, you're, or, or, or in, in Metro Atlanta, you're still, you, you're ha- you have access to consistent forms. If you look on Florida's Department of Revenue, uh, website, you'll see, uh, the forms right there, and they're easy to get, and they're consistent.

341. 1:10:01

     Uh, so the, uh, just create some consistency. Um-

342. 1:10:09

     The, the primary thing we, w- we heard over and over is, "We've, we've never heard about, we didn't even know the process existed." Then we, o- once we did, you know, and sometimes years and years after, um, you know, a, a father who's living there with the mother, with the children, and he's very involved in their lives, and all of a sudden things happen, relationships become frayed, and they blow apart, and then the father finds out, "You're not even the legal father of these children." And we've heard this over and over, and the process can be, can be intimidating for them, and it can be an expens- it can be expensive as well.

343. 1:10:44

     They've gotta f- learn about it. They've got to go out, find a family practice attorney, start spending money. They've gotta se- uh, they've gotta serve the mother. They've... And it's a long and arduous process and can be very expensive. So what we've tried to do with this is, is come up with a process, a court-centered expedited legitimation route. It's limited to uncontested cases with both parents' consensus and with DNA, uh, results, uh, which are attached at filing.

344. 1:11:15

     It preserves the superior court authority, provides normal processes, uh, when parties are, are not in agreement. It, it preserves those normal processes that already exist. It doesn't encroach on that whatsoever. It prioritizes DNA testing. Um, there are standardized statewide forms, uh, for voluntary acknowledgement of paternity and legitimation. It, it, it syncs up sort of legal father definitions across juvenile and superior court codes. Uh, it definitely strengthens the educational component with comprehensive materials in a statewide.

345. 1:11:49

     And the goal is to have a sort of a statewide campaign explaining things like the putative father registry, uh, legi- legitimation prerequisites, uh, court processes, uh, and distinctions between paternity and legitimation, those things. Our goal today with this, believe it or not, pretty simple piece of legislation is not to, not to try and be the end-all be-all, but rather make a, an incremental step forward, uh, i- to create a streamlined process. And our goal today is hopefully to keep this thing moving, because people have delved into the space throughout the years, in and out, in and out, and it seems like very little progress is made.

346. 1:12:29

     So what we try to do is come up with a very simple approach to doing this so we can keep it moving, get it over to the Senate, keep working on it. And, and for our friends who, who... Because we've heard so much feedback. Some folks say, "Well, it just doesn't go nearly far enough. We, we wanna look just like Florida's Good Dad Act, for example." Um, th- that's a, that's, that wasn't the goal of the study committee, but is certainly worth considering in years future of, of the other steps that need to happen. There's Senate Bill 404 right now in the Senate.

347. 1:12:59

     It, it, it, it speaks to, um, uh, you know, child custody proceedings, joint legal and physical custody, uh, as the, as the default, um, in, in child custody arrangements, things like that. It's, it's sitting there. It hasn't gone anywhere. This is a, uh, this is an attempt in a very straightforward, very clear manner with a lot of input from a lot... People are a lot smarter than I am, frankly, um, to come up with a solution that I think is workable.

348. 1:13:27

     Thank you, Representative Barrett. Anything to add, Representative Smith?

349. 1:13:29

     Oh, no. I, I just wanna say we, we had some great meetings. We were in Atlanta; Columbus, Georgia; um, Augusta, Georgia. A lot of great te- testimony. Two hours we'd give in each meeting, and we went over pretty much every meeting. And, uh, I think this is just that first step in trying to come up with a good, good solution. And, uh, appreciate it being on the committee and appreciate the opportunity to speak.

350. 1:13:53

     Thank you. One thing that was pointed out to me on uninsured motorist rates is the statewide percentage doesn't accurately reflect what it is in regions. So some areas, it's much more than 46%. Is that something that you heard?

351. 1:14:05

     I, I would agree with that, yes.

352. 1:14:06

     All right. Um, any questions for Representatives Barrett and Smith? Representative Evans.

353. 1:14:13

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are you s- 40- you're saying 46% of Georgia's children are born out of wedlock?

354. 1:14:21

     46% of 125, approximately 125,000.

355. 1:14:26

     46 out of... Say that again.

356. 1:14:28

     Right.

357. 1:14:28

     Sorry.

358. 1:14:29

     46 out of 125,000.

359. 1:14:31

     46 out of 125,000.

360. 1:14:33

     Approximately 50,000 kids a year. There are prob- there are, uh, about 5,500, 600-

361. 1:14:39

     I see. I see. I see

362. 1:14:39

     ... legitimation petitions a year.

363. 1:14:41

     Okay. Okay.

364. 1:14:42

     Yeah.

365. 1:14:42

     Um, and I just can't remember if we already talked about this from the, one of the prior hearings, but did the, um... I'm not sure what the appropriate section of the bar would be, family law section. Was there any, were they involved in the, the work group over the summer? Did they have a pin in this other, like, prior to us getting to session?

366. 1:15:06

     We had a lot of feedback from a lot of, a lot of superior court judges, a lot of family practice attorneys, juvenile court judges. Um, and I, I can certainly provide you all their names, although I don't know if they'd want me to do it right now.

367. 1:15:19

     Who had the, who had the pin, so to speak?

368. 1:15:22

     Uh, the pin came from legislative council.

369. 1:15:25

     Okay.

370. 1:15:25

     We, we crafted what our objectives were, and we kept it very simple. We said, "We wanna look at the code. We wanna come up with a strong educational component, standardized forms, and an expedited process that, that can just make this simpler and more affordable for uncontested cases only."

371. 1:15:44

     Okay. Thank you.

372. 1:15:45

     And, and, and, uh, I, I would say Chairma- uh, uh, Vice Chairman Rees, who's also an attorney, certainly had a pin in this and, uh, was, was completely involved from start to finish, even from the inception of the idea, and he's the one who spoke, uh, approached the Speaker of the House. I was just honored to get to work with him. It was a great bipartisan effort all the way through. We worked beautifully together.

373. 1:16:08

     Were there family lawy- lawyer practitioners- on the committee. I, I don't know if we have any in the House, but sometimes there's non-legislator members of study committees. So do we have any of that, or were they present during the-

374. 1:16:21

     Yeah

375. 1:16:22

     ... the work?

376. 1:16:22

     I w- like, we relied on the, the Barton Center from Emory University-

377. 1:16:26

     Mm-hmm

378. 1:16:26

     ... as an example, but a fair amount. Um, so we had a lot of family practice lawyers involved. We had a lot of family practice test- uh, practice lawyers, a, a, a test- uh, speak to us, speak to us individually. We spoke- I spoke to the Chief- former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Um, we had a lot of feedback. Now, were they there drafting the bill? No, they did not draft the bill.

379. 1:16:48

     And does the Barton Center approve of this draft?

380. 1:16:51

     Uh, the Barton Center, uh, uh, has some issues that they like better, some things... They- uh, our, our, our legislation, Chairman- uh, Vice Chairman Reese and I felt strongly about the, the DNA testing. Um, they, they've more nearly liked the idea of Florida's Good Dad Act. "Here, sign this piece of paper. You're the- you become the legal father." And it's, it's- does not require that extra step. Vice Chairman Reese was very emphatic. He was sitting right there in that chair, uh, while my friend from the Em- the Barton Center was sitting in that chair right over there, and he was fairly emphatic about that, as was I, that we, we felt this is an alternative process.

381. 1:17:29

     It's not to replace, but rather is, is a simplified, streamlined process. But to do that, it's a voluntary thing. If you, if you don't wanna do that, simply go through the normal legitimation process. We just... In fact, I thought it was funny at first when I was asked to be the chairman of the committee. I thought, "Well, I'm not a lawyer, and this is a very d- this'll have some legal challenges." But I thought, when I consider the average person that shows up at the hospital and they don't have a chi- and they're- they have a child out of wedlock, and what they're up against, because this is a con- a complicated process in Georgia, I think honestly Georgia needs a further tweaking, a lot-

382. 1:18:10

     Mm

383. 1:18:10

     ... to bring us forward, but, uh, but we're not there yet, and I- and I'm pragmatic, and we didn't wanna overreach because we felt like we didn't want to have happen with this effort that it's happened time and time again in this state.

384. 1:18:25

     So is that the meat of the bill, like in section two, subsections D and E, like adding that... Is subsection E what you're referring to as the, um, the expedited process?

385. 1:18:36

     I think the meat of the bill is section four.

386. 1:18:38

     Okay. What's the difference between that sub D and sub E in section two?

387. 1:18:55

     They refer to the same provision.

388. 1:18:59

     Two s-

389. 1:19:00

     Same provision

390. 1:19:00

     ... definitions. I can't answer anything. I'm not a lawyer. I l-

391. 1:19:05

     Yeah, I'll have to r- r- defer to Legislative Council on that actually.

392. 1:19:11

     Well-

393. 1:19:11

     Representative Evans, run that section by me again.

394. 1:19:13

     Um-

395. 1:19:14

     Section-

396. 1:19:14

     Subsection D, and I mean, we're adding a subsection... We're adding a code section to line 30, and then we're adding a whole other way, a whole other way to have a definition of a legal father in subsection E. And I, and I understand and, you know, it- sometimes it's a compliment to be called a lawyer, sometimes it not. It just depends. And, and I'm not... And I don't, I don't mean to say that everybody- a lawyer has to draft these bills or, or everything, but, like, this is your bill, and there has to be a reason why we're adding these sections.

397. 1:19:45

     I th-

398. 1:19:45

     And I don't-

399. 1:19:46

     I think I can speak to-

400. 1:19:47

     ... feel like deferring to Legislative Council on that

401. 1:19:47

     ... I think I actually can speak to that. I, I-

402. 1:19:49

     Okay

403. 1:19:49

     ... actually, 19-7-22 is what we have currently, and what we're trying to do is 19-7-22.1, which is the s-

404. 1:19:57

     Is that the expedited thing?

405. 1:19:58

     Yes.

406. 1:19:59

     And then what's E do?

407. 1:20:02

     Mr. Chairman.

408. 1:20:06

     And so that starts on line 106?

409. 1:20:09

     No, I'm, I'm just in section two.

410. 1:20:10

     Line... You're on line 30-

411. 1:20:11

     The definition of legal father

412. 1:20:13

     ... line 31, right?

413. 1:20:13

     Yeah, the definition of legal father on line 20, and it- there's- there used to be four ways, and now we're adding a fifth, and then we're adding a, an or to, um, one of the four.

414. 1:20:37

     Chairman, I can speak to that.

415. 1:20:39

     You're gonna have a turn in a minute. And, and, uh, that's Jim Outman, adoption attorney.

416. 1:20:50

     Why don't, why don't we move on if you can't answer it? Uh, and when you've referred to Vice Chair, that's Vice Chair Teddy Reese, who is an attorney and worked on the study committee.

417. 1:20:59

     That's correct.

418. 1:20:59

     Was Vice Chair of the study committee.

419. 1:21:01

     Yes.

420. 1:21:01

     Okay.

421. 1:21:02

     Sadly, my, my attorney Vice Chairman is not here today because he's been sick and may be in the hospital.

422. 1:21:07

     But he participated in the-

423. 1:21:08

     Of course

424. 1:21:09

     ... uh, preparation-

425. 1:21:09

     Absolutely

426. 1:21:10

     ... of the bill. And then since this bill came before the committee, you've talked to Superior Court judges, juvenile court judges, and practitioners, and this is the product of that.

427. 1:21:19

     Yes, Mr. Chairman.

428. 1:21:20

     All right.

429. 1:21:20

     Study committee.

430. 1:21:22

     All right. Any other questions for Representative Barrett?

431. 1:21:26

     Well, I do, but they kind of stem from the definitions and, and why we're doing this, so, I mean, I guess I'll defer until somebody can answer those questions.

432. 1:21:34

     Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have, uh, two, two witnesses. We have, uh, Mr. Keith Holmes from Fathers, Inc.

433. 1:21:54

     Good afternoon.

434. 1:21:56

     Good afternoon.

435. 1:21:57

     Um, Chairman and members, thanks for having me. I won't belabor a lot. Uh, Senator Berry here, he kind of went over a lot. But I do wanna highlight certain things that, um, I think needs to be enhanced and things that need to be pulled out of it. Uh, first of all, like he said, my name is Keith Holmes. I'm here representing, um, Kenneth Braswell, wh- who serves as the CEO of Fathers, Inc. For, for nearly 11 years here in Atlanta, Georgia, and over 21 years, uh, nationally, our work has centered on strengthening fa- families and helping fathers slow-- show up, stay involved, and do what's right for their children.

436. 1:22:35

     Um, we were at those meetings in Augusta, we were at those meetings in Columbus and here in Atlanta, right? And so we kind of wanna talk to you from a practitioner's standpoint, right? And so what we do, uh, through General Warriors Academy, we kind of, um... Our responsibility with fatherhood ecosystem, we work with thousands of fathers and co-parents navigating realities of paternity, legitimation, and child support, custody, and parenting time. All right? I want to begin clearly FI supports and attend, um, behind House Bill 1343.

437. 1:23:14

     Georgia must modernize the process by which unmarried fathers establish legal fatherhood. The current pathways is unnecessarily confusing, often costing and too dependent on whether fathers have legal knowledge, money, time off work, and emotional stimulus to navigate this process, and many fathers do not understand until it's too late. We heard Senator Berry, um, kind of allude to this earlier, that a lot of guys that comes, um, to us don't know. Just not fathers, mothers as well do not know until it's too late that they are not, um, legitimized and don't understand the legitimation process.

438. 1:23:52

     They think that just because I signed the birth certificate, I was there at birth, that legally this kid is mine, and it's not until it's too late till they, they realize it. All right? At the same time, we are here because we believe HB1343 still presents a serious risk unless amended. This cannot be treated as a incremental experiment. The Georgia children cannot be testing ground to policies, trial and error. This bill, if it becomes law, will shape families in real time, it will create outcomes that are difficult to reverse once the damage is done.

439. 1:24:30

     We have to get this close to right as possible. Right now, let's frame the problem in plain, in plain language. In Georgia, a paternity and legitimation are not the same. Paternity answers the question, is he the biological father? But legitimation answers the question, is he legally f- the father with standing to ask court for custody and parenting time, right? So biolog- biologically, this could be his father, but legally he's not if he's not legitimized, all right?

440. 1:25:04

     Most people do not understand this distinction. Like I mentioned earlier, many parents believe signing a birth certificate revolves fatherhood, resolves fatherhood. Many fathers believe I am the birth... I'm on, um, I am on the birth certificate, so I'm good. The mother believes at the same time, then conflicts happen or se- se- separation happen, and everyone learns the hard way that biologically and paperwork do not equate to legal standing for the father. This confusion breeds conflict, delays stability, and turns parents into opponents, all right?

441. 1:25:37

     And children p- pay for this delay. So yes, Georgia needs to reform this bill, also needs to hear the truth in plain language. Here is what we support at HB 1343. We support any approach that reduce barriers and makes the process clearer for families. We support early legitimation education at hospitals because the moment right after birth is often the best time to set families up for accurate information and prevent misunderstanding that can last for years.

442. 1:26:10

     We support safety guardrails because parenting pathways must take serious the wellbeing of mothers and children. There, those are the strength of the bill, right? So not to belabor, I, I have a, a couple of more points that I wanna hit on. Um, but for the reason we are testifying and those strengths will not protect families unless the structure created by HB 1343 is tightened.

443. 1:26:40

     All right. So the first part, the first point we wanna hit on that we would like to see some changes, due process must be written into a statute and not assumed. And for the administrative pathway is being proposed, families deserve to know in plain language how mothers is notified, how she can respond, and what happens when parents disagree about facts and how evidence is considered. Whether this is a hearing contested situation, how appeals work, and how mistakes are corrected. Legitimation changes legal status, it changes standings.

444. 1:27:14

     It has long-term consequences. A process that is not transparent will not be trusted, and a process that is not trusted will not be consistently, used consistently, right? So it has to be thorough, it has to be clear, it has to be understanding for everyone. All right? The time window for eligibility cannot create a new cliff. So we can't say, "Well, he has to do it in this timeframe," because then you limited the guys who are incarcerated, the ones who are poor, the ones who, who are deployed in the military, the ones that didn't even know that they had a kid, right?

445. 1:27:49

     So

446. 1:27:54

     Georgia, if Georgia build fast... If you build a fast lane that only works for some, it would de- de- it would depend, deepen e- inequality and frustration for others. That will push more families back into the same overload court system we claim we are trying to relieve. All right? Uh, just a few more points and I promise you I'll enclose the confusion. So the bill must be oversold to the public Confusion is already clear in a public conversation about HB 1343, as we heard from the senator himself.

447. 1:28:30

     It's already confusion there about legitimation, about the bill or whatever. So families hear responsible, responsible fathers and assume this is parenting time. It is not. Family hears legal father and assume that it means rights are secured. This is not necessarily true in practice. Custody and parenting time remains court determinations based on best interest. If this bill becomes law, Georgia must simultaneously invest in statewide education that clearly explains what the bill does and what it doesn't do, or who else will simply create a, or we will simply create a new cycle of misunderstanding, right?

448. 1:29:12

     So we want the bill to be able to be clear, precise for someone in Brunswick, someone in the Chatham County, all over the state of Georgia, where it could be, uh, statewide, used statewide and be understood. All right. Last point, last couple of points. Child support cannot be a shadow purpose that understands the public-facing purpose. Any policy that operates under the premise of we can find dads to bill them without offering a fair pathway to parenting time is deeply concerning. Fathers are not asking to be rescued from responsibility.

449. 1:29:47

     Most of the fathers we serve want to be right and support their children, but responsibility without relationship creates resentment and disagreements. Right to responsibilities should travel together when it's safe and in the child best interest. If the pathway runs through systems strongly associated with enforcement and associated punitive measures, Georgia must build safeguards and measuring so fathers do not experience HB 1343 as one more bill, um, one more pay first, parent later policy.

450. 1:30:24

     All right? So in closing, the bill must align with the broader policy landscape, including parenting discussions. We support SB 44 overall direction towards shared parenting when it's safe and appropriate, but lawmakers must understand how this bill interacts. If HB 1343 increases the number of fathers, we recover legal fathers more quickly, and SB 44 shift presumptions in custody cases.

451. 1:30:57

     The combined effect can either stabilize families or either accelerate conflict faster. Alignment matters, safety matters, clarity matters, due process matters. Chairs and members, we are here to, uh, we're not here to throw stones. We are here, uh, to get it right and help Georgia. Uh, and that's me speaking from a practitioner standpoint. Thank you for having me.

452. 1:31:19

     Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Any questions for Mr. Holmes? I have a question for you. You said you attended the committee hearings, study committee hearings?

453. 1:31:26

     Yes.

454. 1:31:27

     Okay.

455. 1:31:27

     So we went to a, uh, Fathers Incorporated, just it was a group of us. We went, we was here, we was in, um, Augusta, and we were in Columbus, Georgia.

456. 1:31:35

     Thanks for testifying in that. Uh, one thing to shed a light on, it's my understanding that, um, pretty much all the committees, they heard that more than 50% or slightly over 50% of children born are born within a marriage, and so they're automatically, they got two parents, uh, that way.

457. 1:31:52

     Yeah.

458. 1:31:52

     And then, um, as far as the legal proceeding of, uh, legitimation or paternity, of those remaining, approximately 46% of the kids born out of wedlock, it's single digits of, of that 46 that proceed forward and are the subject of a petit- a petition for legitimation or paternity, right?

459. 1:32:10

     Mm.

460. 1:32:10

     It's, it's a very small amount right now, right?

461. 1:32:13

     I don't, I don't want to speak directly to the exact numbers, but it seems like the onboard, I don't know the exact numbers of that case, but I do know that it affects a lot of guys or dads that comes through our ecosystem that we work with on a day-to-day basis, so.

462. 1:32:26

     Understood. Okay.

463. 1:32:27

     All right.

464. 1:32:27

     Thank you.

465. 1:32:27

     Thank you.

466. 1:32:28

     No questions? All right. Next witness, Mr. Outman.

467. 1:32:33

     Meg had her, her testimony. Can she go first?

468. 1:32:36

     Well, are y'all together?

469. 1:32:38

     Well, I was gonna follow her because she's been making a good point, and then I want to follow that one.

470. 1:32:41

     Why, why don't y'all come on up together if y'all are in touch? How about that? And just, uh, introduce yourselves and...

471. 1:32:50

     Thank you, Chairman.

472. 1:32:51

     Absolutely.

473. 1:32:52

     Uh, I've been before this committee, this is the 50th year that I've been here. I was here first on what passed as the Adoption Act of 1977, which was the first recognition of the rights of biological fathers of children born out of wedlock, following the Supreme Court case in Stanley v. Illinois in 1973. So I feel very confident in what I'm telling you about this bill and about the issues.

474. 1:33:23

     I would hesitate to guess if I separated the committee's members, many or if all of whom are attorneys, and asked them to differentiate between legitimation and paternity, I would bet my paycheck maybe ha- pa- over half or more won't be able to do that. It's a subtlety that's not understood. The shorthand is paternity gives you the right and obligation to pay child support. Legitimation gives you parental rights to seek custody, visitation, and whatever.

475. 1:33:56

     Both adoption and legitimation originated in the same legislative act in March of 1856 in this state. It was enacted to cure the bastard stigma of the child born out of wedlock. When I say bastard, when I started to practice the law, that's what the code said. Child born out of wedlock is a bastard. We've softened those words and as we've moved forward, and it's out of wedlock now. But I, I come with a vested interest in making sure this bill works.

476. 1:34:29

     I had the opportunity and pleasure last night, Representative Ree- uh, uh. Barrett. Wait a minute. Barrett. Barrett called me and said, "Can we talk?" We spent, what, over an hour and a half, or nearly an hour and a half on the phone last night from 10:00 to almost 11:30. I emailed him again today. He emailed me the, the discussion draft that he was then working on, which is not this, uh, 49-2782, but I was given a copy beforehand, so I, I came in the room so I could comment specifically to it.

477. 1:35:02

     This morning, I gave him back line by line suggestions of some changes. The comment I want to make about the definitions is, builds on what this witness wanted to, wanted to testify, so I wanted to build on her comments. So if I could now yield to Meg, I would suggest that that be the next. Please introduce yourself.

478. 1:35:25

     Hi, my name is Meg Murray. I live in Forsyth County. I am a board member of Equally Present. We advocate for the equal involvement of both parents in a child's life, for that's their best interest. I testified here before. I'm gonna make it short since I've already testified, but I'm gonna abstract this a little bit. I am not a lawyer. I am not a judge. I'm a Georgian. I am a mother. I'm a family member. And I strongly believe in this country and in this state, and the way that we keep our country and our state moving forward is through stable families.

479. 1:35:57

     However, after going through the family law system with my son, I realized that we have a huge problem with stability in our family laws. So this bill is not just about, uh, uh, about something as simple as trying to create an administrative process. This bill's about our children, our families, our parents, quality of life in Georgia. And if you didn't know it, Georgia's ranks amongst the bottom for raising a child, amongst, amongst the bottom for having a child, and is the worst state in the country for being a parent- or father.

480. 1:36:27

     The one thing that, uh, that happens in the, in this state is that when a father acknowledges paternity, he gets absolutely no rights to his child. However, uh, and that was my understanding and what I've been told is basically a biological right. But when mothers have a child, we, um, we, uh, we know who the, right? And without surrogacy, right? We won't talk about those. But that mother is known to be the biological mother. She gets full rights to the child. But these days, when a father is assu- is established to be the biological father through s- our certainty of things like genetic testing, we do not extend that same recognition.

481. 1:37:03

     Georgia treats biological connection as sufficient for one parent and irrelevant for the other. That's the fundamental il- inequality that this state really needs to address. When I looked at this bill, I noticed a couple things, and one thing that still really bothers me, and I have not seen the new administrative process, but I've worked in this for seven years. I know the process. I know when it was separated custody and administra- and, uh, legitimation, and I know the timeline that that creates. Um, so now I forgot what I was gonna say.

482. 1:37:34

     Um, oh, the, the problem with this bill, if you look at the very first li- uh, first paragraph, which to me is one of the most important paragraphs, not the administrative process, I know how the existing process works. You can walk out of that hospital and get a consent or a legitimation and apply for custody that day. But the way it's written right now, you have under Title 15, which again, I had to get advice on this, is under the juvenile court, you have now added the definition of legal, legal father. So when you go through juvenile court and you have a juvenile action, you now can go directly to custody request.

483. 1:38:09

     However, if, um, under the superior court, the le- definition of legal father is different. So you end up with the same man, the same paternity finding regarding the same child, is a legal father in one Georgia courthouse and not a legal father in another. His legal status depends entirely on which court his case is in, not on any fact about him, his relationship with his child, or his child's best interests. And the interesting thing about that, so if I am a father, which I understand there, there's an interest in, in, in, uh, holding fathers responsible, but I don't see that in the people I deal with.

484. 1:38:48

     They all want to be responsible. They just don't know. Most of them don't even know they have to have a child support order. The problem you have there, and here's the consequence, is a dad who ends up having to have a juvenile court action gets to actually have a faster path to custody than a responsible dad who's been there at the hospital, who's taken care of the mother, who may be living with the mother. He has to go through paternity and then legitimation.

485. 1:39:13

     So that is the one thing that I, you know, I, I'm, I can... You looked at the administrative process. So the fact you have that, and I, it, it seems to me it's very confusing. I can see that it would be confusing in the courtroom. I've been t- I'm a court watcher. I've been to h- hundreds of cases. A lot of judges don't understand the difference in these rules, and so it becomes complicated. Now, you've got one definition of legal father and one definition of not, so I can see a bunch of confusions there. What we advocate for in Equally Present, of course, is that we believe that once a paternity is established, a father should be given lival- legal rights and should have the right to pursue custody.

486. 1:39:51

     We're not asking for you to give dads the child out of the hospital door. We're asking you to give that father the same rights. And more importantly, we are asking for our children. This is the country where we believe in God-given inalienable rights. A child has... Sorry, this is very challenging for me because, you know, if I look around, you know? If you didn't have your grandchild or you saw your son have to go through this, you would be where I am. We have unalienable rights. Our children have an unalienable right to their mother and to their father, and our mothers and our fathers have an unalienable right to their child.

487. 1:40:28

     We should not be starting from this state from a point where fathers have to earn that right. We should be starting from a point in this state where fathers are given the right, which you could then take away. And my husband looked at this and he said, "This is innocent until proven guilty." That's what we need to do from this state. So that is my biggest problem, one of the concerns I had with this bill. Um, and so, uh, I'm gonna divert to, to, uh, Mr. Outman, 'cause I'm sure he has a lot more understanding of the legal process than I do.

488. 1:40:58

     But I do want to put that frame there, because it is really important. We don't... We need in Georgia to have laws that create stable families. As I told you before, I'm a university professor. I deal with 20 to 40-year-olds. They are not getting married because our marriage process is a disaster and a mess for them. They're not going to get married. You're gonna continue to see these numbers which we've seen in Georgia for years. A lot of them are living together, and many of the men I work with, and I've worked with hundreds, they strive for the traditional family life.

489. 1:41:31

     They just don't want to under, enter the complexities of the legal system, and the, what we've done is created a complex legal system.

490. 1:41:40

     Thank you, Ms. Murray. Mr., Mr. Outman, real quick, would...

491. 1:41:43

     Yes. I, I wanted to pick up on the fact that in-

492. 1:41:46

     Well, I, I've got a question for you there.

493. 1:41:47

     Yeah.

494. 1:41:47

     It seems to me from hearing from Ms. Murray, she indicated that young people are having more children out of wedlock. Is that fair to say that that number has increased over the years?

495. 1:41:55

     In 2005, when administrative legitimation was put in, it was around 40.1, 40.5 to 43, somewhere in that range. It's consistently... I looked at the, all the CDC data since 2000, and it's always been in the 40s, but I think it is climbing-

496. 1:42:11

     Okay. Thank you

497. 1:42:12

     ... unfortunately.

498. 1:42:12

     All right. Please proceed.

499. 1:42:14

     Um, I wanted to pick up on her comment about the, the definition in section two, and this goes to Representative Evans' question to the sponsor of the bill. That definition, he said in his opening mo- remarks that it harmonizes the definitions. Quite to the contrary, the definitions are in here. The, there are four places the definition. This one's the only one that's different in that it says paternity gives you le- legitimation in the puda- in the juvenile court.

500. 1:42:45

     So whereas the juvenile court, if the child is the subject of a dependency proceeding and the father comes to juvenile court, proves his paternity, he may initiate a legitimation positio- petition under 19-7-22 existing law in the juvenile court. He can't get custody and visitation without it being referred back to the superior court, but he can, can legitimate. I've been in the court where the, that's been granted.

501. 1:43:16

     Unfortunately, I've been in there when the juvenile judge never asked the question, "Is this legitimation in the best interest of the child?" And that's the stat- sta- statutory-

502. 1:43:26

     You haven't, you haven't heard that before?

503. 1:43:27

     I have not heard that. I, I mean, I'm not saying they don't do it as... I've been in there to where I heard-

504. 1:43:32

     All right

505. 1:43:33

     ... her say, "You want to be legitimated? Granted."

506. 1:43:36

     Well, and have you-

507. 1:43:37

     And the res-

508. 1:43:37

     Have you been in front of Chief Judge, uh, YoungHyde Du in Gwinnett County-

509. 1:43:41

     No

510. 1:43:41

     ... in, uh, juvenile court?

511. 1:43:43

     No.

512. 1:43:43

     Okay. She is the one... She frequently does that, and she is one of the ones who helped harmonize juvenile issues relating to this bill with the other issues.

513. 1:43:53

     Okay. But, uh, when I asked Representative last night, Barrett last night did he know what the reason was section two is different, he didn't answer me. We were, we were covering many things, so I don't... That's not blaming you that... But I didn't get an answer last night. I've asked it again this morning in an email and haven't gotten an answer.

514. 1:44:13

     All right. Please, please proceed with your testimony.

515. 1:44:14

     Okay. The, the fact that the, the issues of the com- that the committee brought forth on affordability and accessibility, accessibility's never been a problem. Every, every court in this state can handle a legitimation action. Affordability is a somewhat of a misnomer. They may have had bad experiences to where an attorney says, "Well, I'll charge you $10,000 to do that," and that's un-affordable. But the process is very simple. The petition requires name of the, the petitioner, the name of the child, date of birth, and name of the mother.

516. 1:44:48

     Mr. Outman, that's present law, right?

517. 1:44:49

     That's present law.

518. 1:44:50

     Okay.

519. 1:44:50

     It's very easy.

520. 1:44:50

     Real, real quick. I'm, I'm hearing-

521. 1:44:52

     Yeah

522. 1:44:52

     ... from folks-

523. 1:44:52

     Okay

524. 1:44:52

     ... that we've got some folks who've gotta go.

525. 1:44:53

     No knowledge of the law-

526. 1:44:54

     I, I, I-

527. 1:44:55

     ... I agree.

528. 1:44:55

     We got some folks who've gotta go at 3:30, so-

529. 1:44:57

     Okay

530. 1:44:57

     ... try to wrap this up. If you could, uh, conclude your remarks about the bill, not the present state of the law, but-

531. 1:45:03

     Okay

532. 1:45:04

     ... uh, LC number 49-27-82s, which is the product of feedback-

533. 1:45:10

     Right

534. 1:45:10

     ... you gave Representative-

535. 1:45:11

     Right

536. 1:45:11

     ... Barrett yesterday-

537. 1:45:11

     Okay

538. 1:45:12

     ... as well as others.

539. 1:45:13

     I commented on section two. I think the last lines on 30 through 32 need to be struck. Uh, so that I would, I would propose an amendment.

540. 1:45:22

     Why?

541. 1:45:22

     Because it differentiates the definition of, of legal father for the juvenile court only, bypasses... I mean, it makes paternity legitimation in juvenile courts when, as, as she testified, that sets a separate standard. If your c- child gets into dependency, you can legitimate him. If the child doesn't end dependency, you've gotta go to s- superior court. Well, right now you have to go to the j- the court. You can, you can go to either court if the j-

542. 1:45:50

     All right. Please, please proceed.

543. 1:45:50

     But it's a definitional differen- uh, difference. In section

544. 1:45:58

     line 75 of the, of the, uh, 29-27-82s, I had suggested the text, existing text from 19-7-22 as to if the child, if the mother does not reside in the, in Georgia, how it be handled so that you don't have where it's filed. There's, there's text in 19-7-22 that picks up right after the word mother resides and says, "Provided however," and it provides that it's filed in the chi- in the county of the father if the mother isn't in Georgia.

545. 1:46:33

     That ought to be in here. Otherwise, you've gotta... So I pointed that out to them, and they didn't put it in there.

546. 1:46:38

     Okay.

547. 1:46:39

     On line- 101 to 105 is where we're talking about the forms for the first time. I would suggest that such forms include an explanation and everything else that's telling it to put that for the, uh, responsibility of DHS or to, to go to little paragraph, little I in the hole, the hole in the corner, in, in the hole at the bottom because that's where the responsibility of the forms are.

548. 1:47:05

     All right.

549. 1:47:05

     It's not... It doesn't need to be in when the petition is filed.

550. 1:47:08

     Okay.

551. 1:47:09

     Um, in line 110, between 109 and 110, where the condition's about granting the petition, I would suggest that the petitioner has not abandoned his opportunity interest. The opportunity interest has been part of our law since Laroe v. Robertson, the US Supreme Court in '83, and, and Baby Girl Eastern in '87 in this state. And it's a judicial doctrine that, uh, the, the... Bunlon v. Mathena, the latest Georgia Supreme Court case that, that I brought, uh-

552. 1:47:43

     Point well taken. Just keep-

553. 1:47:44

     ... reaffirmed that that's the first step.

554. 1:47:46

     Keep-

555. 1:47:46

     Mr. Chairman?

556. 1:47:47

     Sure.

557. 1:47:47

     Can I ask a quick question?

558. 1:47:49

     Sure. Representative Evans.

559. 1:47:50

     Thank you. And I, I know that time is tight, and I know we're moving, but this is a, this is a big deal. Um, for the reasons that the witnesses said, this is about parental rights. And I want fathers to have every right either, but I want to make sure we do it right so that we don't make it worse. And, and I just don't like the way our witnesses are being treated because it sounds like to me these are, these are the folks that go into court and do this every day. I want to hear from them 'cause I want to understand this. And so I, it just... And, and also, Mr. Altman is really trying to walk us through the bill and tell us where things might need to be better, but he doesn't even have a copy of the current bill, so he's not even talking about the same line numbers we have.

560. 1:48:26

     Well, he, he-

561. 1:48:26

     And so it's just really counterproductive

562. 1:48:27

     ... he does. I, I'm-

563. 1:48:29

     Okay. You have the-

564. 1:48:30

     Speaking to this version

565. 1:48:31

     ... 2782S?

566. 1:48:32

     Yeah.

567. 1:48:32

     Okay. Because it didn't seem to me that the-

568. 1:48:33

     Yeah. I'm sorry.

569. 1:48:34

     And, and Mr. Altman-

570. 1:48:35

     I can make that clear

571. 1:48:35

     ... does this draft have, uh, did c- did Representative Barrett incorporate a lot of your feedback?

572. 1:48:43

     Yeah, probably 85% of them.

573. 1:48:45

     Okay.

574. 1:48:45

     And these are just the little nits, and they're not major.

575. 1:48:48

     Okay.

576. 1:48:48

     But they, to, to Representative Evans' point, I think if they were made, we have a-

577. 1:48:53

     Okay

578. 1:48:53

     ... th- this committee passes out a, a very good bill.

579. 1:48:55

     Okay. And re- real quick, you're, you're an adoption attorney, right?

580. 1:48:59

     I'm an adoption attorney.

581. 1:49:01

     Okay.

582. 1:49:01

     Uh, I'm here on behalf of the Georgia Council of Adoption Lawyers. I'm also a 55-year member of the State Bar of Georgia, so.

583. 1:49:08

     Okay. But in legitimation and paternity, you said you, you haven't done that in Gwinnett County in recent years.

584. 1:49:13

     No.

585. 1:49:13

     Okay.

586. 1:49:13

     No.

587. 1:49:14

     All right.

588. 1:49:14

     I mean, I'm involved in legitimation cases because in an adoption code, you have to give notice to the biological father that he has 30 days to, to, to do something.

589. 1:49:23

     All right.

590. 1:49:24

     And so I'm... And then I've been through legi- legitimation cases after the fact he's done it.

591. 1:49:28

     Understood.

592. 1:49:28

     And my partner prosecutes legi- legitimate cases, and he says that they're simple.

593. 1:49:33

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, please proceed-

594. 1:49:35

     Uh-

595. 1:49:35

     ... in your analysis of the bill.

596. 1:49:36

     I, I think the opportunity interest ought to be added to one of the things that the court has to find. Uh, subsection G on lines 125 through 128 requires that the clerk of the court keep a separate book with the orders entered by the... And, and I, number one, our d- our clerks don't keep books anymore. They're, they're electronic dockets. And I don't... I question why this, this order needed to be maintained in a separate place, and I think that ought to be deleted. On line 132, uh, she, it says, "Biological father may seek determination in matters involving the same child or claims," I would put pursuant to se- uh, code section 19-7-22 because that clarifies where he has that, already has that authority.

597. 1:50:24

     And in 22.1, we're sort of tossing it out, but it's right above. So again, a cross-reference that makes it very clear. At the end of line 149, uh, yeah, this is amending the, the, uh, parental power statute that says that a mother of a child born out of wedlock has, is the sole legal parent and has all power unless the father legitimates. But we need to say pro...

598. 1:50:54

     and, and proceeds to get visitation, custody, or both because otherwise he doesn't have those rights. And it sounds like he, a- as you read it, it sounds like he's imbued with just by legitimation with parental power. But he only has the right to seek parental power. So that's a nuance that members of our council have had mothers, uh, affected by because the police officer's been at the door saying, "Well, the, the father's coming under this section," and he legitimated, but he'd, has no custody order.

599. 1:51:28

     Well, he doesn't have a right to the child. And, you know, police officer doesn't know the law at that point. He's not there f- he's there to, to honor this complaint. So that's a, that's a nuance that would tighten that up and make it clear who has which rights. Um, section seven of the bill, uh, the, the, they provided however language at the end says that we're gonna require vital records to maintain a, a notation on a birth certificate that a father has sought genetic counseling. Well, what if he didn't?

600. 1:51:59

     What if the results come back no? They got to take it off the... And if they come back yes, that's, it's not a fact. Why are we amending a birth certificate to note genetic testing? I don't think that serves any purpose. It involves another, another department, the Georgia Department of, of Public Health, Vital Records. They've got to maintain those things. They've got to respond. I think that's a cost to them, and I don't see it benefiting anybody. The, at the end, uh, one cl- one section omitted, uh, I thought legislative counsel would've done a search on where 19-7-22 appears and seen the addition of 19-7-22.1, uh, which is done several times.

601. 1:52:39

     But in code section 19-8-9B it says 19-7-22 and the phrase "or 1972.1 needs to be added," that's a restriction on the mother's right to consent to a legitimation after she's placed the child for adoption. That's where the two, adoption code and legitimation code come together again. But that's an important reference because you've left out, you've done the, the parallel cite everywhere except that one code section. I'll say, too, that preamble, Representative asked me to look at the preamble and make my comments.

602. 1:53:15

     I think the, the fact that ... Uh, let me get back to the preamble. Uh, on lines five and six, it talks about provide for rules and regulations, procedures by the Department of Public, of Human Services. That was in the preamble when there was an administrative draft that they were preparing the rules and regs. The reference to rules and regs has been deleted, so I think that needs to be deleted. Uh, and then the reference on, on line seven through 10 about, uh, maintaining a, a birth certificate notation, uh, if we took section seven out, would need to be taken out of the preamble.

603. 1:53:53

     I appreciate ever so much the committee's attention to this. I agree with Representative Evans. I worry that if this rushes forward without these type of changes, you've got something that you know when you passed it out of this body that it had problems, and that's not been this body's style.

604. 1:54:10

     I'd like to close with one final statement. I'm sorry, but you are all are missing the point. You're making this process even more complicated, more lines, more restrictions, more administrative rules. Children, babies need to bond with their fathers. As it stands right now, the way this process plays out, it takes months and months, and I think that we are doing a disservice to our children to continue to add hurdles to fatherhood.

605. 1:54:43

     And I'm gonna close with this, because I am married to a disabled veteran of American War, and as we went in to a military action in Iran, and I think of those men who are there fighting, if they're not fighting for their families, what are they fighting for? You don't seem to understand that unless we create rules and allow both parents to step up from the time the child's born in order to have custody and legal rights to that child, we are not creating stable families.

606. 1:55:19

     Thank you.

607. 1:55:20

     Thank you. I think we have some questions for the witnesses. Um, Chairman Leverett, Representative Momtahan. All right.

608. 1:55:28

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I have a question. I don't know really who this is to, to be quite candid. I just have on lines 54 and 55 it says, "The biological father means the male who impregnated the biological mother resulting in the birth of a child." And so I think to Representative Evans' point, we're trying to understand this very complex bill, or, or rather a bill that has a lot of implications.

609. 1:56:03

     And so even that, that question there, maybe, and I'm not a lawyer, right? So maybe you can answer this, so this is very easy. But if it means a male who impregnated the biological mother, I think of things like IVF, I think of things like surrogacy, I think of things like in any other way that a male couldn't impregnate is if ... Can somebody an- can somebody satisfy me to tell me that-

610. 1:56:31

     I, I-

611. 1:56:31

     ... that we're not gonna make it legitimize a IVF doctor or ...

612. 1:56:37

     I can answer your question, sir. And this definition's been in the code since 1990. And if you go down to line A, "Has legally adopted the child," your IVF situation, the father will get a parentage order or an adoption order making him the father of the child that was not his sperm.

613. 1:56:58

     That could, that could be, uh, modified but that's, that's separate from this bill , but it, it's a nuance. And I'll be glad to take that back to people thinking about that because it'll, it, it's a very good, good point for the IVF community. And actually our artificial insemination says that, would come under the legally married to the mother at the time the child is born. That would also bring that IVF father in too. So ...

614. 1:57:28

     All right. Well, a further question I guess, that is, but under legal father, that's a different definition.

615. 1:57:35

     Correct.

616. 1:57:36

     And, and maybe I'm reading it wrong. I, I have no idea. But that's just a different ... We're listing out the definitions. I don't know that the definition matches what we're trying to do here. Uh, I think you may be, it may be too broadly defined here to capture the person that you're trying to, to capture.

617. 1:57:55

     The, the definition of biological father in 7, 19-7-22.1 A1 I don't think needs to be in there because we never deal other than we use ... Well, we use as reference to he's the one who impregnated the mother, so the DNA test will prove that they are the parents of the child. So that's why they put it in here.

618. 1:58:14

     That's great. On line 68 we use the term bio- I think there's other places too where we use biological father.

619. 1:58:21

     Right. And it comes back to that definition.

620. 1:58:23

     The biological father's affidavit. And so if we're talking about the biological father in lines 85 and 68 and so on and so forth in the bill, I, I think we, we need the time to contemplate what a biological father means, right? Is that by, you know, genetic testing? Is that ... And I know I'm not trying to slow roll what y'all are trying to do here, but again, trying to contemplate some very complex things in a world that's becoming everly, you know, ev- ever so complex.

621. 1:58:54

     And so, uh, I, I don't know. I, just for the committee, I mean, just y'all can discuss maybe, uh, I'm losing it here, but I, I just see that as a big gaping hole in, uh, in this legislation.

622. 1:59:10

     I would agree it's a hole. I wouldn't characterize it as g- big and gaping, sir. Only it'd be a nuance there. But adding the fact of, of IVF and, uh, consent through artificial insemination, if you modify this in both se- 19-7-22.1, and it appears already at 19-72 point, 19-7-22. So ... But that'd be another reason why there's a lot of complications with this bill.

623. 1:59:39

     Thank you. Representative Evans.

624. 1:59:41

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I was wondering, Mr. Altman, if you had prepared any sort of, um, red line, or do you have the additions that you talked about written out that maybe you had given to, um, Representative Barrett that we can use to consider amendments or whether ... I, I don't know what the word ... I know you-

625. 2:00:00

     I brought-

626. 2:00:00

     ... the chairman said maybe 3:30. I don't know if that could be done earlier.

627. 2:00:04

     I brought a red line against the-

628. 2:00:06

     Mm-hmm

629. 2:00:06

     ... the, uh, 49s to 776, which was the previous version. Sent this to him this morning, and many of these changes are in the bill, but not all of them. So I went through and spoke to the ones that aren't.

630. 2:00:23

     I, I wonder if you could just maybe circle-

631. 2:00:25

     Right

632. 2:00:25

     ... just like the ones that are not in yet, and we could try to work on them.

633. 2:00:28

     Yeah, I can do that.

634. 2:00:30

     Okay. That would help. And then, I mean, I want the author to know, and, and the s- and to stand in for our good friend, Representative Reese, who we're all praying for, w- we ... And, and to, to those that are here in the audience, we want to, to get a solution. Um, because I don't like to hear that we're the worst state in the country for fathers, and I, th- this is very disturbing to me, but that's not a reason to do something quick and hastily and ill-advised. And so, uh, that's my struggle right here. I don't think anybody at this table wants to vote against the bill, but none of us ...

635. 2:01:02

     And I, I don't mean to speak for everybody, but I just, I feel sometimes I think we can feel each other , and I just feel like maybe we, we don't wanna, we don't wanna, we don't want this to die. We know the time is getting late, but this is not going to be good law and it's not gonna help anybody. And so I'm just trying ... I guess I'm really more thinking out loud with the chairman if there's any way for us to, um, to g- to get us a, another sub and, and, and try to come back.

636. 2:01:29

     Well Rep- Representative Evans, I have emailed, I've emailed that to you, and I think there, we've got a hard copy also.

637. 2:01:35

     Mm-hmm.

638. 2:01:35

     And, um, we do have another witness, uh, Cameron Buzz, who's next. But real quick, um, do you have any questions for them before-

639. 2:01:43

     Well, I-

640. 2:01:43

     We can recall them maybe if y'all want to think that through.

641. 2:01:45

     Yeah. Well, the last thing for Mr. Altman is just to circle the things that are not in it and just pass it over to me and let us try to work on it.

642. 2:01:51

     I'll do my best.

643. 2:01:52

     Okay.

644. 2:01:52

     Okay.

645. 2:01:52

     This does not move the needle.

646. 2:01:54

     It is not.

647. 2:01:54

     Um-

648. 2:01:55

     I don't know what's-

649. 2:01:55

     All right. I would invite Mr. Altman to take Repres- Representative Evans up on that good request and continue to ... If you can note and, uh-

650. 2:02:04

     I'll-

651. 2:02:04

     ... get your changes in there, um, we'll have that available. And-

652. 2:02:08

     I, I will do so.

653. 2:02:09

     All right.

654. 2:02:09

     I thank the committee ever so much.

655. 2:02:11

     All right. Cameron Buzz.

656. 2:02:13

     Carrington Buzz.

657. 2:02:13

     Uh, Carrington Buzz.

658. 2:02:23

     Let's step up.

659. 2:02:28

     All right, Ms. Buzz.

660. 2:02:30

     Uh, good afternoon-

661. 2:02:31

     Thank you

662. 2:02:31

     ... Chairman and, um, committee. I want to first thank, um, Representative Reese and, uh, Representative Barrett for their, um, attention, care, their openness, and their consideration in addressing this issue.

663. 2:02:44

     And that's Representative Teddy Reese.

664. 2:02:45

     Yes.

665. 2:02:45

     Right. Yeah, right. All right.

666. 2:02:47

     Um, I, I do want to, um, clarify a couple things. So, um, first, I do want to clarify that Georgia is the only state that has this two-step process for establishing parentage for a father. Um, every other state has, um, coupled paternity with parentage, which at, is that, for the attorneys, that bundle of rights that go along with, um, being, um, like a lawful owner of something. Um, the way that this...

667. 2:03:18

     So I, I also want to clarify that, um, this is not the Good Dad Act out of Florida. Um, the Good Dad Act and parentage are two separate and distinct things. Um, the parentage, uh, the Good Dad Act, which Barton doesn't have or hasn't offered a formal position on, is putting the cart before the horse. Um, 'cause what this is doing is, what we are trying to do is establish rights, so then that way, should something like the Good Dad Act come into being, um, a father has his rights established.

668. 2:03:50

     Um, legitimation has historically functioned as a way to establish, um, parentage for unmarried fathers, and so it doesn't come with this automatic conferral of rights that, let's say, a married father has. Um, so as a result, they are situated in somewhat of a second tier of parentage because it requires them to take an additional step for them to have legally recognized rights as a legal father. Um, so that creates a situation where a married father and an unmarried father, despite them being just as involved, place them at a different starting point.

669. 2:04:27

     So right now, the key policy question is whether or not the law should maintain or reduce this procedural distinction. So should we make it easier for people or for men to be fathers in a legally recognized, um, way as to where they are privy to the rights and responsibilities of parentage? Our goal is to clarify how the statutory framework operates. Again, this is more so about making those, those very tricky distinctions between parentage, legitimation, and, um, parental rights.

670. 2:05:00

     Um, ultimately, the focus is to ensure that children have safe, stable, permanent parent-child relationships. Um, I do want to be available for any questions if anybody has any.

671. 2:05:15

     Thank you, Ms. Buzz. Now tell me again, are you from Emory Barton Law Child Law Center?

672. 2:05:19

     I'm from Barton Law and Policy Center.

673. 2:05:20

     Okay. Thanks for all the good you do. Um, it's my understanding from the committee that, um, the statistics they heard were about 50% or so of kids are born within a marriage.

674. 2:05:32

     Yes.

675. 2:05:32

     And then of those, 46% or more who are born out of wedlock, only about 10% or less of them avail themselves of the presently available legitimation or paternity. Is that consistent with what you've seen?

676. 2:05:43

     I don't know the legitimation statistics 'cause there's no central repository.

677. 2:05:48

     Okay.

678. 2:05:48

     So I wouldn't be able to tell you with certainty, unfortunately.

679. 2:05:51

     Okay. And w- would you agree that the current legitimation and paternity proceedings, I mean, those are full-blown legal proceedings that are somewhat cumbersome?

680. 2:06:00

     Mm-hmm.

681. 2:06:01

     And, uh, and they're mainly designed for contested situations where the dad's going in a different direction or the mom doesn't agree with the dad, and so the court proceeding is there to, to adjudicate it.

682. 2:06:12

     Well, the way that the statute works now, it doesn't make a distinction between, um, contested or non-contested. So it's just that if a unmarried father wants to be recognized as a legitimate father, they must avail themselves to this, this judicial proceeding.

683. 2:06:27

     Okay. And in other states, you said there's kind of a one-step process where you've got paternity and parental rights and things like that.

684. 2:06:36

     Yes.

685. 2:06:36

     All right. So this bill gives kind of a middle ground between rights of a father during a marriage and then the legal proceeding in legitimation or paternity. Is that fair to describe this legislation?

686. 2:06:50

     Can you say that again?

687. 2:06:51

     Sure. Is it kind of a middle ground where it doesn't equate to marriage, um, and it's not a, a, a legal proceeding, uh, where there's a disagreement and an adjudication? This is designed more for one with those young people who, for whatever reason, choose not to marry. Everybody knows who the dad is, and this is a way to make that, uh, allow that couple to designate the dad in a little bit easier of a proceeding than a full-blown court proceeding.

688. 2:07:18

     I don't think I would classify it as that.

689. 2:07:20

     Okay.

690. 2:07:20

     Um, because the way that this structure sets out is, um, it still doesn't confer, um, legal rights. So essentially you would still have to go through all those judicial proceedings. So I wouldn't classify this as any type of middle ground.

691. 2:07:37

     But it does at least identify who the father is for other proceedings.

692. 2:07:43

     That's a complicated question because, um, y- you would be able to sign acknowledgement of paternity, which recognizes biological fatherhood, which then, uh, I think, um, Meg already mentioned, attaches, um, the responsibility of child support. So I don't know if I would classify it as that either.

693. 2:08:02

     Where does that occur?

694. 2:08:04

     What?

695. 2:08:04

     Other states.

696. 2:08:06

     What, what, what does where?

697. 2:08:07

     The acknowledgement of paternity.

698. 2:08:09

     Where can it occur?

699. 2:08:10

     Correct.

700. 2:08:11

     Um, so states can have them occur in the hospital, so, um, or they can be available at that state's, like, vital records office. So it's similar to the structure that Georgia has.

701. 2:08:21

     Okay. But right now you've got, you know, about 50 to 60,000 kids a year where there is no establishment of paternity, right?

702. 2:08:31

     I didn't... No, not paternity. I think the issue is legitimation.

703. 2:08:35

     Correct. But-

704. 2:08:35

     So those are two separate and distinct issues.

705. 2:08:37

     The dad's the plaintiff on pater- or legitimation. The dad is the defendant on paternity, right?

706. 2:08:45

     Not necessarily.

707. 2:08:47

     Okay. In general. You know what? Uh, we've got some other questions. Uh, Representative Evans.

708. 2:08:54

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, uh, do you th- do you have or does Barton have a position on whether w- we would be better served perhaps to also have a one-step process like all of our other states in the union?

709. 2:09:11

     So Barton's position was to essentially step back and look at the survey of states, um, as well as any type of model legislation. And so during the study committee meetings, I often spoke about the Uniform Parentage Act, which, um, is adopted in- I want to say maybe 25, 26 states. Don't quote me. I, it's-

710. 2:09:33

     Mm-hmm

711. 2:09:34

     ... it's a changing number, but many other states also model their law off of that.

712. 2:09:39

     And is this anywhere similar to that?

713. 2:09:42

     I want to preface with I haven't seen-

714. 2:09:44

     Sure

715. 2:09:44

     ... this most recent copy.

716. 2:09:46

     Sure.

717. 2:09:46

     Um, but based upon the previous versions I've seen, no.

718. 2:09:54

     Okay. Thank you.

719. 2:09:55

     Representative.

720. 2:09:57

     Sorry.

721. 2:09:58

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the author and the committee who worked so hard on the study committee. Um, I feel like one of the angles that's kind of intersecting that I haven't heard much discussion of yet is the fact that, as I understand it, non-marital children are more often born to lower-wealth couples, and that's a population that's gonna have a barrier to accessing legal services and g- getting to court and doing all the, the, um, you know, all the custody and, and all of that, um, parts of this.

722. 2:10:36

     The other states that have done this one-step process, is it a outside of court administrative process?

723. 2:10:47

     Um, yes.

724. 2:10:50

     Okay. And does that outside of court administrative process allow, like, does it confer, uh, custody and visitation and all those legal parenting rights?

725. 2:11:02

     So for states that have adopted the, the Uniform Parentage Act, um, it essentially, the, the, the reason the Uniform Parentage Act was created was to essentially, um, convey that regardless of a parent's marital status, they are on equal footing.

726. 2:11:16

     Mm-hmm.

727. 2:11:17

     And so for states that have adopted that, that is implied within the law is that essentially there is no difference between whether or not a father was married or unmarried. They are on the same footing. So whatever rights a l- a married father would have, an unmarried father would have them as well.

728. 2:11:35

     Okay. So, and I m- I might have zoned out a little bit, but, um-

729. 2:11:38

     No, I get it. It's a long day.

730. 2:11:41

     It is. Um, so are they still having to then, like, go to court and lawyer up and all, and all of those sorts of things in order to get their parental rights?

731. 2:11:52

     So I want to say this with I haven't... I, I... Within, like, the survey of the states-

732. 2:11:57

     Mm-hmm

733. 2:11:57

     ... the ways that it operates is that, um, the parents essentially co-parent-

734. 2:12:03

     Mm-hmm

735. 2:12:03

     ... and then should there be a disagreement-

736. 2:12:07

     Mm-hmm

737. 2:12:07

     ... they would be able to pursue custody arrangements the same way as if there's a divorce, you would do a custody.

738. 2:12:15

     Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you.

739. 2:12:18

     Chairman Leverett.

740. 2:12:20

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not, I'm not sure where we are on time. If, if we have a little time or we need to get out of the room or-

741. 2:12:28

     I think as Chairman Smith would say, uh, we've, we've gone 250 years, uh, with the status quo and we can finish the drill, but, um, uh, I, I know we're gonna lose members at some point.

742. 2:12:39

     Well, I, I maybe we're losing them already. Um, so, it... Well, thank you for your testimony, and thank you for the work you do. So I, I, I just wanted to make sure, I, in a long, long time ago, frozen in the mists of time prior to, uh, you know, civilization, I did some of this work. And my recollection, and I want, was hoping that you could help me with the current state of the law. The current state of the law, which you've referred to, I think, is that paternity is a different issue from legitimation, which is also a different issue from custody and visitation, as I recall.

743. 2:13:16

     Yes.

744. 2:13:17

     So if I establish paternity, that's sort of a first rung on the ladder to get to the other ones, but that, that isn't a necessary and sufficient condition to get me all the other stuff. So if I had filed to legitimate a child, the primary result of that is the child could inherit from me, and that was a first stepping stone toward getting visitation and custody. Paternity itself basically gives me no rights to the child, just obligations. I have a duty of support.

745. 2:13:47

     Correct.

746. 2:13:47

     Okay. So far I'm good. See? I can remember this stuff.

747. 2:13:51

     You're doing great.

748. 2:13:51

     I hope you'll tell my wife.

749. 2:13:54

     Tell her to call me.

750. 2:13:55

     And then, it, so customarily, you try to combine a lot of that in, in multiple counts into one case, and that was all done in superior court, was the way I recall it. So it, it seems like this process is also in superior court. Even though it's called administrative, it's still a court proceeding. And it, I, I guess the, the thing, and I apologize to the author. I didn't have a chance to share this earlier, but it, it seems that you're basically just using the same process you currently have right now in superior court, just by consent.

751. 2:14:25

     This contemplates everything being by consent, but there are a couple of additional requirements of things that have to be filed with the petition, like, um, uh, genec- genetic testing and then sort of the affidavit where the father makes all these statements. Um, would, would you say that's a fair characterization of the differences between this process and what you currently can do under current law if you've got an agreement?

752. 2:14:49

     So I haven't read this version.

753. 2:14:51

     Okay. Okay.

754. 2:14:51

     I, I, I only have the two substitutes that were discussed last time, and it sounds like these are very different, so I wouldn't be able to weigh in on-

755. 2:15:00

     Okay

756. 2:15:00

     ... this most recent one for you.

757. 2:15:01

     Um, I, I will just say to me, it doesn't really seem like this is doing anything more than you currently could do under the law if, if, 'cause this contemplates the, the mother consents to all of this. And this seems to be sort of just doing the same thing, just setting out a couple of different requirements, and it would provide for standardized forms that folks could access. Um, so I, I, I guess to me it's not really an ad- to, to me, an administrative legitimation would be done in a different venue besides the superior court-

758. 2:15:32

     Okay

759. 2:15:33

     ... and might be a little more streamlined. It, but this isn't, uh, in my view, this isn't much more streamlined than what you currently could do now if the, if, if the mother consents to legitimation, visitation, and custody So, uh, uh, so you, so that, um, I guess I'm the one testifying now. So I apologize. Um-

760. 2:15:51

     I, I'm happy to get back to you once I, I read it, um, to-

761. 2:15:55

     So i- uh, is there a movement in a lot of states now to try to consolidate all those steps into one thing? Li- like paternity, le- uh, legitimation, custody and visitation.

762. 2:16:08

     S- so Georgia is the only state that has the second step of legitimation. So what happens in vir... I, it, I want to say in every other state, um, once you sign an acknowledgement of parentage or paternity, you are then recognized as the legal father, and you would be able to avail yourself to all the rights and responsibilities, as opposed to first you be- first paternity, which is responsibilities, then this process of legitimation, which is then rights, and then this other process of, like, custody.

763. 2:16:42

     Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah, I, I, I, I will, I will concede that does seem to be a bit tedious, but, uh, my assumption is it was structured that way for the protection of the mother, so that she could initiate paternity, which would impose obligations. And if the father wanted these other rights, th- that burden was on him to initiate that process. That's my assumption. I, I don't know the-

764. 2:17:05

     The assumption of, like, the, the concept of legitimation?

765. 2:17:09

     The, the, the, the need for a separate proceeding, which, um, would, to my knowledge, usually went hand-in-hand with visitation and custody in terms of you would, you would always seek those together, and you could do them in one lawsuit. But, uh, my assumption is whether or not you're the father and should be obligated to pay custody is sort of one set of considerations from the mother's perspective. Then whether you also are declared a legal father and have rights of visitation and custody is, is gonna be a different concern from the mother's perspective.

766. 2:17:44

     And so that's just my assumption as to why they have been treated separately and why they are separate claims, so to speak. I, I think it's an interesting discussion as to whether they should be all be consolidated in some fashion, but I think that's already kind of feasible, because usually most of these hearings, I think, involve all of those issues if, if you've got a decent lawyer as a, as a mother or as a father. Um, but I, uh, but I'm intrigued by what you were saying about potentially changing the separation of those issues and making one of them result in all of it.

767. 2:18:17

     But, uh, to me, it's still, someone's still gonna have to make a decision as to the details of all that.

768. 2:18:22

     Right.

769. 2:18:22

     What is visitation? What is custody? How much is support? All that kind of stuff.

770. 2:18:26

     And, and those would proceed through a standard judicial process. Like, should, let's say, they are, the parents are co-parenting, great. They break up, and they want to formalize a schedule. They would still utilize the judicial process as any other, like, a, a married couple would do.

771. 2:18:44

     Right. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Well, thank, thank you again for, for your testimony.

772. 2:18:48

     Thank you.

773. 2:18:50

     Chairman Leverett, thank you for shedding light as a lawyer legislator who has, uh, worked in this area. Appreciate that so much.

774. 2:18:57

     Uh, just enough to be dangerous, Mr. Chairman.

775. 2:18:59

     One, one question I'd like to ask about, Ms. Buzz. Uh, DNA tests, I know there was a good bit of discussion, it sounds like, in the study t- uh, committee about that. What is the landscape on that, and your thoughts on that? That's included in this bill.

776. 2:19:12

     No other state requires DNA testing.

777. 2:19:14

     Okay.

778. 2:19:14

     Tennessee had a bill which they, they tried, but that bill did not advance. And instead, what the, the, the bill ended up doing was allowing for a father to, um, seek paternity testing before they signed the con- the, the acknowledgement of paternity. So no other state has a mandatory DNA requirement.

779. 2:19:39

     Okay. Would you agree there was a good bit of, uh, testimony or deliberations about that in the study committee? Some discussion on that?

780. 2:19:46

     There was discussion.

781. 2:19:47

     Thank you. All right. Any other questions for Ms. Buzz?

782. 2:19:52

     Thank you for your testimony.

783. 2:19:53

     Thank you.

784. 2:19:54

     Um, Representative Townsend, do you want to testify on that bill?

785. 2:19:58

     Uh, it is totally up to you guys. I, I'd be representing a constituent. She sent, Chairman Gunter asked her to send her email in. She was, came up from Brunswick, Georgia to testify last week, and the committee was canceled. So Chairman Gunter asked her to send her statement in.

786. 2:20:12

     Sure.

787. 2:20:13

     And, um, I was gonna read it during, during the committee meeting, and you guys are dropping like flies. And so I'm not sure what the will of the committee's gonna be. But it's basically what happened to her story and her family.

788. 2:20:25

     Okay.

789. 2:20:25

     And that's what she was gonna read, if that's okay to read.

790. 2:20:27

     Sure. Absolutely.

791. 2:20:28

     Okay, I won't do it justice, as she can do it a lot better than I can. But this is from Daryl Moore. She's a consti- a constituent of Brunswick, and this is what happened to her family. "In October 2013, our 18-year-old son informed us his 16-year-old girlfriend was pregnant. We had a friend who worked in an attorney's office who kept telling us we need to have the baby legitimized. We, like most folks, didn't know that just because a man signs a birth certificate doesn't make him his father. In Georgia, you should hire an attorney. Yes, you can still fill out the form, but it's not easy, and go before the Superior Court.

792. 2:21:01

     Not easy and expensive, nor expedient either, but you know it will be done properly. I'm writing today to request you pass HB 1343 to allow for a voluntary DNA test for the hospital serve as a m- as the paternity and legitimization of the child without having to go through the courts. Georgia is one of the only states that require this, and it's a difficult and expensive process. This is important so the father can have custody, visitation, and input on critical life decisions. It is also important regarding main matters of religion, school, medical, and sports decisions." The rest of the story.

793. 2:21:35

     "Our son Cole died in October 2016. Caden, his son, was not quite three years old, so thankful to have him had legitimized because Cole was able to..." be a father during the short life, 21, he was by far the best thing that could possibly have happened. Cayden talks about him to this day and knows he was loved. He died in a motorcycle accident. We as grandparents have had no options to request visitation even though we have been Cayden's, have been in Cayden's life since birth.

794. 2:22:05

     He has lived with us and part of our daily lives for several, it is now 11 years, and we, we, we see him on a regular basis. That is not always the case for many families. Grandparents and extended families are so important to the lives of grandchildren. It takes a village and most of the time that's the best interest of the child. Child would not have been entitled to an inheritance. The child would not have been entitled to Social Security benefits. As his mom married, the husband would become the legal father of Cayden. For item five, if this mo- mom died, he would have had to live with the husband, which in the case would not be Cayden's choice.

795. 2:22:38

     Child refines his or her need of medical history, the process for finding the father would be more efficient. Another example of this bill is so important, I'm closing up. An attorney I spoke, as, a- an attorney I spoke with representing a man that had been in the daughter's life for nine years, paid child support, had visitation, all worked out between he and the mom. The child had never, was never legitimized. The mother marries. The mother decides the father can no longer see the daughter. Dad hires the attorney and seeks legitimization and is granted custody to see the daughter every other weekend plus.

796. 2:23:14

     He should never have g- been denied the ability to see his daughter. How devastating that must have been for the child and the father for the time they were kept from each other. Please consider passing HB 1343 to make the process easier for the fathers to become involved in their children's lives. Thank you. Daryl Daniel Moore, Colesville.

797. 2:23:33

     Thank you, Representative Townsend. Any questions for Representative Townsend? All right. Representative Cheokas, if you would like to, to respond to the testimony.

798. 2:23:43

     Okay. Um, our, our attorney, my new attorney friend made excellent points. He also indicated we added 85% of what he, uh, had recommended to the legislation before you. This legislation i- is not intended to try and solve all of Georgia's visitation and custody problems. That would, that's a bigger issue and, and, and far exceeds the scope of the study committee that was established, which was affordability and accessibility of legitimation.

799. 2:24:13

     This takes nothing away from the existing process. It does offer another venue, a- another path to go forward. Um, imagine that... And I think the other day Mrs. Murray said, "My son didn't know about legitimation." Imagine at the hospital or the birthing center if they actually knew about it, if they had the educational materials. What if at the hospital they had the ability, uh, when they're all happy and together, and he had the ability to have access to standardized forms that were simple to fill out and excellent educational materials, which included everything from getting married as an option, but if, if you don't legitimate, this is what can happen, et cetera.

800. 2:24:52

     We're not trying to be the Good Dad Act in Florida. You know, the voluntary acknowledgement of parentage, uh, uh, paternity in Florida has nothing to do with DNA testing. They sign the form and, and that's the voluntary acknowledgement of parentage. Whether or not we need some version of something like that, absolutely we should be studying all of those things. This does not take a thing away, but it adds another process, a simplified process, an educational process with the educational materials and a path forward.

801. 2:25:24

     Now you have a baseline. The courts have a baseline. This is not an administrative legitimation. We contemplated doing that through the Department of Human, DHS, and we opted to say it needs to stay with the courts. So it doesn't usurp the courts. It doesn't remove it. What it does do is establish a baseline. Here's, here's, here are two people that acknowledge he's the father, and here's a, a DNA test to go with it. So there's, it's unambiguous as to who the father is, and now there is a, essentially a, a file built with the courts, retained with the courts.

802. 2:25:58

     Whether or not it's a book or, or, or it's, it's, uh, electronic, that can be sorted out quite simply right here in this room with people sitting at this table. The question is, do we want to add another path to, to educate folks, to make them aware, to make it easier for them, to make it less expensive, something they can do right there up front, or do we want to just go back to what we're doing? That's a simple question to me. Progress, not perfection today.

803. 2:26:29

     I'd like to keep this bill alive. I'd like to see in the Senate and see it continue to be perfected over the next, uh, in the remainder of this session. If we don't like the final product, we, we, we'll make sure it doesn't get passed, or we can just go away for nine months and don't do anything. This thing has had, this issue has had fits and starts for years. The entire administrative process, uh, uh, was completely undone in 2017.

804. 2:27:01

     This is not an administrative process. This is a process to make it simpler for people to become aware of the courts and the process and to give them access quicker and easier. I imagine we can even tweak it to how do you go to the next level? Check the box. We'll set you up for the hearing for visitation and custody. But at least there's a file built and we know who the father is. Let's avoid all the problems. If you don't want to do a p- a, a DNA test, go back to the original process.

805. 2:27:32

     If you do though, it eliminates so many other issues right up front so that... Well, you know, know what's painful? Is for a nine-year-old to find out that's not really their dad. That's painful too. So I think this is an elegant, simple solution to create a new path and certainly to open up the conversation for the next study committee, which moves us more nearly to our own version of the Good Dad Act, but maybe not exactly Florida's version or Alabama's version, our version.

806. 2:28:07

     But this is a meaningful step in the right direction, and the fact that we're having this conversation today is proof positive of that. And the fact that this gentleman is right there, and Mrs. Murray is a very dear friend of mine. She lives right down the street from me. We're, we're friends. I am... We talked about this three or four years ago, before I was even elected, and I am sympathetic to that. I do believe that we're innocent until proven guilty, and the way the process works now, it kind of does.

807. 2:28:37

     Hold, hold that thought. You've got a question from Representative Westbrook.

808. 2:28:40

     Yes, sir.

809. 2:28:40

     Sorry, sorry. One more question. Um, one of the recommendations that came out of the final report was publishing the forms, um, like we do with a lot of probate forms. So public- so if you go to your county's court website, you can see exactly. Did that make it into the final bill? I feel like it wasn't in an earlier version.

810. 2:29:01

     We ha- we have in this b- in this version that they will pro- provide the forms through DHS.

811. 2:29:07

     Okay.

812. 2:29:07

     It, it, it is not, it doesn't have time periods. It has a time period for the f- for this to be enacted, but-

813. 2:29:13

     And it's DHS and not your county courthouse website.

814. 2:29:17

     It's DHS because we want it to be consistent. When you go to the Department of Revenue in Florida, it's right there. It's form 543, blah, blah, blah.

815. 2:29:24

     Right.

816. 2:29:25

     And it's, and there are two different forms, and it's just right there, and it's intuitive and simple to get to. And I felt that's what we need to be doing in Georgia. We, Columbus, uh, and Muscogee County does a beautiful job with, with... And, and Representative Vance, uh, can probably, Chairman V- can speak to that better than I can. Uh, we, we spent some time over there and, uh, as did you. And I, I forget what w- the Legitimation Station is what it's called. They do a great job. The problem is they're one circuit in the State of Georgia, and many other places don't do a, a less great job.

817. 2:29:58

     So this is designed to, to help eliminate some of the, the vagaries of, uh, which judicial circuit is really busy, which one isn't, who can get the things in a timely matter, who can't. This, this is an elegant, simple first step.

818. 2:30:15

     Nothing further.

819. 2:30:16

     All right. Um, Mr. Altman, were you able to make some revisions?

820. 2:30:21

     I gave, uh, Representative Evans some notes.

821. 2:30:23

     Okay.

822. 2:30:23

     She left the room.

823. 2:30:24

     Let's, let's do this. It's 4:00. Let's stand at ease until 4:05. Let's see what we have, uh, capability of doing. Everybody stand at ease. We'll, we'll, uh, recess till 4:05.

824. 2:30:37

     If I may, I'll make a-

825. 2:36:14

     All right, let's, let's call this back to order. Um, it, it may be briefly before 4:05, but, uh, I, I regret to announce, uh, we have lost quorum, so this bill is gonna stay, uh, on the table in the committee. We do not have any, uh, hearings scheduled in the future. I would like to thank the author, Representative Barrett. I would like to thank the vice chairman of the study committee, Representative Reese, uh, for working so hard on this. I would like to thank all the professionals who've worked on this, uh, who've testified both to the study committee and this committee.

826. 2:36:47

     And, uh, I would point out there's more time left in the session. Y'all keep on working on this, um, but we are not able to take any action today. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.