House Judiciary Committee, March 2, 2026
Video: https://vimeo.com/1168483395 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1168483395#t=<seconds>s)
Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-02/house-judiciary

This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays.
[0:19:53] There we are. Hit the wrong one. That's okay. All right. Call on two. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna get started here. Gonna call on the vice chair to open us up. Thank you. Let us pray. Dear Lord, we thank you for this home stretch on the House side. We pray for, uh, perseverance, uh, wisdom, and, uh, priorities, uh, this week, uh, leading up to crossover day. Uh, pray for your blessings over these proceedings. In your name we pray, amen.

[0:20:24] Amen. Thank you. All right, uh, here's the deal. Uh, when I got up last week to announce this meeting, uh, I didn't take into consideration Rules Committee. And the rules chairman got up after me, and he scheduled a 11:00 rules meeting, so I got about an hour here. I was gonna have four hours until that happened, and then they announced a chairman's lunch in the middle of all that, too.

[0:20:59] So, uh, we'll get back after chairman's lunch, probably around 1:00, and then get our second hour in for today. So what that means is, um, I've got the rest of the week, uh, we have Tuesday and Wednesday in session. So, uh, if I do anything, it'll be in the morning. It'll be early, probably before 9:00, probably only one hour.

[0:21:29] And then, uh, the next committee meeting we have is on Thursday, right before crossover. That's my best chance to get the rest of these bills heard. So if, if your bill doesn't get heard today, that's kind of the schedule this week, just so you know. All right? All right. Uh, you ready to start yours? Yeah. All right. This is House Bill 899.

[0:21:58] Uh, let's see. It's transfer on death deeds, I believe is the subject matter. Let me get you lit up here.

[0:22:17] Okay, and we've already heard from the public on this. Is that correct? Negative, Chairman. No? There's been no testimony on this bill. All right. Is there anybody signed up? Yes. Okay.

[0:22:28] Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Rep- Representative David Jenkins, House District 136, and I'm here to present House Bill 899, or substitute to House Bill 899, LC number 481796S. All right. Um, I'm joined this morning with, uh, La- LaShea Calloway with the Calloway Law Group, and she's, uh, representing the Georgia Real Estate Closing attorneys this morning. A, uh...

[0:22:59] And she is the primary author of this bill. I will, uh, quickly present, and I'll have her, uh, present the bill, and, uh, and, and we'll hold, b- be best to hold questions until her presentation, and, uh, and she, she can probably answer your questions better than I can. Uh, first I'd like to thank, uh, Rob Leverett and Speaker Pro Tem for bringing this, uh, this into Georgia law in the last biennial. Uh, this has been a very popular, uh, provision.

[0:23:31] Uh, when I talk to my constituents and I tell them what I'm doing, there's always excitement about this, a lot of interest. And, uh, so this is a very good thing, and, uh, I'm, I'm, I'm glad to have an opportunity to work on it. Uh, my wife's, uh, aunt just actually passed away last month, and she decided to transfer her property with a transfer on death deed. We talked to her uncle about it. Um, and, uh, since we were in the middle of, of doing all this, so, so anyway, it was good to talk to him about it. They were glad to have this tool to use.

[0:24:02] And, uh, so it's, it's just important that we, that we get these revisions done and we, we make the improvements we're gonna make today. Um, so how this all began, this, this primarily came from the real estate side of this matter. Um, uh, title, uh, uh, title companies were, were having some, uh, concerns. They brought these to the Georgia Realtors, and, uh, that's where the, the collaboration, uh, began. So y- you know, every day this is cr- creating transactions, so I just wanna emphasize how important it is for the committee to act on this and, and, uh, look at these issues that we need to, uh, we need to address in this bill.

[0:24:41] Uh, this has been a collaborative effort. Uh, I became aware of this right after or right about crossover day last session. And so we began to, to work on the bill. We dropped a version before son- before sunny die last session so that, uh, it could be public record and would f- would facilitate further collaboration, uh, which it has, uh, through the, uh, the recess, and, and we've actually been working on it this session. We were hoping to have something ready to go as soon as we, we gaveled in this year, but, but yeah, the collaboration continued, and we've continued to perfect this.

[0:25:18] And, and as we come before you today, we have a lot better bill than we actually did, uh, when session started. So, uh, as we, we started this process, we, the scope of this was not to change this law in any way, uh, uh, but to refine this law and ensure that the provisions that it provided for basically worked. Uh, that's, that's all we set out to do. Um, as w- the collaboration began, you know, we, we, we were, we had some people address concerns with, with really just how this law worked.

[0:25:52] Uh, I wanna go ahead and talk about that 'cause I know there, there, there'll be further discussion on this today, but that primarily stems around the acceptance period provided for in this transfer on death deed law. This is not common, uh, throughout the country. Uh, you know, there are guardrails ar- ar- around this, uh, in different states. Uh, Georgia has this acceptance periods as, as does at least one other state. Um, and, and there are concerns about this, uh, among primarily the probate side that, that have been raised. Uh, basically what, what we determined that number one, this was beyond the scope of what we set out to do, and if there's any legitimate concerns about this, then I would invite anyone to, to bring a bill and, and amend this if, if that's what they feel, feel the need to do.

[0:26:38] But this, that would be a major change in this law that we just didn't set out to do here. Um, the other thing is, you know, when we socialized this, I never really got a consensus on it. At the end of the day, we had people that thought it should be struck and people or, or removed, and people that thought it should remain. So without a consensus, again, a- and, and beyond the scope of what we're doing, it's just something I wasn't comfortable addressing. And finally, it, that's a, it's, it's a very, a complex revision. And, uh, when we started considering that specifically, um, you know, we were well into this process.

[0:27:11] We didn't really have a lot of time left, and y- again, we set out to, to, to bring you a very well-vetted, uh, bill to refine Georgia's transfer on death deed law, and, um, and so that's what we've done. And in any effort to, to make that change this late in the game would not have been very well-vetted. So that concludes my intro. I'm gonna turn this over to LaShea Calloway at this time, and she is gonna present, uh, the bill and answer any questions you may have.

[0:27:40] Good morning, everyone. My name is LaShea Calloway with Calloway Law. Um, again, I'm representing the Georgia Real Estate Association of Closing Attorneys. So, um, this, I'm gonna keep it brief because I know that time is of the essence, and, um, brevity is actually really helpful here. So I gave you guys a key improvements of HB 899 for you to read. It lays out everything. Um, I can tell you that the collaboration team was GRECA, so the Georgia Real Estate Closing Attorneys Association.

[0:28:11] There was Hilary Fentress, which is a VP with, and regional counsel with Fadab- Fidelity National Financial, which is the parent company to Chicago Title, Commonwealth Title, and Fidelity Title in her individual capacity. Attorney Kyle King with the Fiduciary Law section in his individual capacity. Jeff Ledford, the Georgia Association of Realtors, and Greg Allen, Forsyth County Clerk of Courts and Clerks of Superior Court and the Georgia Clerk's Authority. So when Representative Jenkins said that we had a lot of collaboration, we did, before going through and figuring out what we needed to provide, um, to revise this bill.

[0:28:53] Again, the scope was just to make things consistent and conform with Georgia law. We were not setting out to change the law. So that's the scope of the things that we handled. Um, high points, the, the amendments here, or, or I should say the, the way that this came about was the Georgia Association of Realtors, Jeff Ledford, he's here to speak if you g- have any questions for him, heard that there might have been some title insurability issues.

[0:29:24] And so he reached out to Hilary Fentress, which is the VP and regional counsel with Fidelity. She reached out to me. I'm an attorney that handles real estate, probate, and estate planning. So this was a cross-section of my practice areas. She had seen me do a few CLEs on the statute, so she reached out to me, and that's how the collaboration began. Because of my... Although I understand that this bill is in Title 44, which is the real estate section of our code, I still reached out to the fiduciary law community and the elder law community to get their input because that's also my community as well.

[0:30:00] And so we've, they've had since last year, last May since this dropped, to work and collaborate with us. So s- the input that we have is based on the information that we've received over the last several months. So high points, we enhanced clarity and certainty, strengthened execution requirements and capacity protections, improved estate administration and property preservation. We have clearer grantor, beneficiary, and creditor rights.

[0:30:31] And I, the second page of this high-level summary of HB 899 goes over each code section and what we actually addressed. So I will leave it open for questions now, um, again, in the light of, uh, in the spirit of brevity.

[0:30:48] Okay. All right. Representative Evans?

[0:30:52] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, for either the author or you, thank you for being here. Um, can you just back up a little bit? 'Cause I feel like we got into the weeds really quick on some of this, and I wanna get the background picture. Like, how does this work now, and how are we trying to change it? And w- why did we need to do that? Just some of those basic questions.

[0:31:11] No, that's a very good question. I appreciate that, and I did skip over that trying to be brief. So the reason why we, th- there was, um, concerns about the, um, title insurance issues. So right now we're having-

[0:31:27] I'm s- And I'm sorry. Can you just tell us how this process normally starts, and how it works now, and how we're changing it, and then why we needed to change it? Because I, I'm not getting the background yet to really understand-

[0:31:40] Okay

[0:31:40] ... the problems yet.

[0:31:41] So the transfer on death deed is a deed that you can use now, um, to transfer property when you pass away. So it's another tool for you to use to avoid probate And so this is something that once you, the way the law currently stands, once you, you do the transfer on death deed now as the grantor, you have to file it before you pass away, and then once you pass away, your property goes to your grantee beneficiary, and they have nine months to accept it.

[0:32:14] So it gives them the offer- the opportunity to accept it or never accept it, and if it doesn't get accepted, it reverts back to your estate or to the grantor's estate. So it's a way for, another way for people to transfer their properties without having to go through probate or setting up a trust. Um, so that was the intent of this law. So, and it's a great idea, and it's definitely handled in about 34 jurisdictions across the country, including Georgia now.

[0:32:46] And more and more states are enacting them. They have different variations of them, but, you know, ours is the t- transfer on death de- transfer on death deed statute works that way. When it was dropped, um, it was primarily... The way that it's being used now is primarily for probate and when people want to add their children to, um, title without losing their step-up in basis. So that's another tax, um, perk with doing this.

[0:33:16] You won't lose your step-up in basis as opposed to what happens now if you add someone, if you add someone to your deed or your child to your deed as joint tenants with rights and survivorship, you will lose that step-up in basis, which is why we typically say before transfer on death deeds, your only way to really preserve that was to do a trust. But trusts can be very expensive. And so this is why, one of the reasons why the transfer on death deed is so celebrated, and a lot of people are excited about it because it gives them another option, another tool, and we love that for them.

[0:33:49] We just need to make sure that it works with the way that the laws are for Georgia and title right now, for the real estate side of things. So the probate side is handled, the estate planning side is handled for the most part. We just need to make sure that it conforms with the current laws for real estate, and making sure that once that person passes away, that they actually receive clear and marketable title, and that's where we're having the issue. So right now, we have people that, based on some inconsistencies in the statute and some parts that were just not addressed, n- the, we have four high-level issues that are going on.

[0:34:32] One, people are losing their homestead exemption. Two, we have homeowners that are having to revoke a TOD in order to just do a refinance, because, like, the way that it looks, and the issue, it comes down to the PT61 form, which is the, um, transfer tax declaration form. If you filed, you normally file that with a deed, um, which is normal. That's fine. And that says that you are transferring title to whomever your grantee is.

[0:35:06] With the transfer on death deed, you're not transferring title yet until the person passes away. And so when people are tr- filing this tra- PT61 now with their actual deed, it's causing issues in the title records, in the indexing, because it looks like the grantee is receiving it now. So that's how we have problems with people losing their homestead exemption. We have people that are getting disqualified as first-time home buyers because it looks like they already own a property based on this transfer on death deed.

[0:35:40] Um, we have people that have to revoke it in order to do, um, a refinance. And so that's adding more complications to something that we can fix very easily, and we fixed this here. Um, the clerks are also, and we have Greg Allen here who can speak if needed to the issues that they're seeing, and it all stems from this PT61. They're suggesting to attorneys that they should not file the PT61 with the actual deed, and it only needs to be filed with the affidavit.

[0:36:13] But because that's not what's in the law, and we as attorneys normally file the PT61 with a deed, they're still filing it, which is why we're getting the issues that we have now. So that's one of the major things that we fixed or that we addressed with this bill to make it easier for title to be clear and insurable, um, with the way that the law current- and the statute currently stands. So that's how we got here. That's where it started, and that's what we're trying to address.

[0:36:47] Okay, so help me with this then. The transfer of title with the reservation of a life estate doesn't give you enough options. Is that pr- Is that what I'm hearing?

[0:36:58] Correct. Right. Because the difference between, and the distinction between a life estate deed and the transfer on death deed, the life estate deed, you no longer have title to that property. You can't refinance. You can't do a mortgage. You can't sell it. You've given y- away your rights. Transfer on death deed, the grantor still remains completely in control, can do whatever they want. Um, they can refinance if we fix this. Um, but, um, they can refinance. They can still sell the property, and it is revocable.

[0:37:28] Okay.

[0:37:28] There's an, that's the other difference as well.

[0:37:30] Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Um, Representative Oliver. Is that you? You got 13?

[0:37:40] I'm 13.

[0:37:40] You're 13. Okay, go ahead.

[0:37:43] Thank you very much. I think probably most of us at this table, uh, voluntarily contribute to the Legislative Action Committee re- response from the State Bar. Has this bill, last year or this year, been- um, vetted by the either the Fiduciary Law Section or the Real Property Section? Have they used the process of the State Bar to validate the bills?

[0:38:09] No, at this point they, neither one of them have, so both of them were in, aware of it. So, um, again, because of what I do, and I'm a member of the Fiduciary Law Section and the Elder Law Section and R- Real Property Law Section, I reached out to the heads of each of those sections last year and said, "Here's what's going on. Here's what I'm working on. Please provide... Here's the copy of HB 899. We're working on this for, until the next legislative session."

[0:38:36] And last year we passed a bill that did not go through the State Bar Fiduciary Law Section, and this year 899 is coming to make corrections in last year's bill. Is that correct?

[0:38:48] Yes, ma'am.

[0:38:49] Not last year.

[0:38:49] And the cont-

[0:38:50] Year before last.

[0:38:51] No, it was last year. HB ni- 899.

[0:38:54] That's one of the things I'm trying to figure out-

[0:38:56] Oh

[0:38:56] ... is the history.

[0:38:57] So when you say-

[0:38:58] Not last year

[0:38:58] ... last year's bill, so the transfer on death-

[0:39:01] It was biennial

[0:39:01] ... yeah, the transfer on death deed statute was originally passed, and in, I should say was enacted July 1st of 2024. HB 899 was dropped last year in 2025 to address the statute that was passed or enacted in 2024.

[0:39:18] Is it accurate to say there is still controversy within the Fiduciary Law Section about whether this is, uh, a, the best fix or not? Is that fair to say?

[0:39:29] Sort of.

[0:39:30] Sort of. Okay.

[0:39:30] So Kyle King, who is actually, you know, the legislator-

[0:39:33] I know Mr. King.

[0:39:33] Yes. He actually co-signs on this bill and has said he, he's one of the collaborators in his individual capacity because as I, I'm sure you're aware and, um, the committee is aware, the Real Property Law Section nor the Fiduciary Law Section can m- have a standing or opinion on a bill without getting approval first. And even though that they were aware of these, this bill last year, neither one of them s- went and got that approval from the Bar to actually have an opinion or take an opinion or a position on this.

[0:40:05] However, Kyle King, based on the conversations that I had with him last year, he did work on this and he is a part of this bill, so in his individual capacity. I also have a statement from the Secretary of the Real Property Law Section- ... who in his individual capacity agrees with this bill. So neither one of those sections know, but I do have members that are a part of those sections that have, that have approved and, of this bill as it stands right now.

[0:40:35] When you refer to the collaboration, this is gonna be my last question, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't figure out whether the collaboration meant that everybody agreed that this was the fix.

[0:40:47] So yes, um, I can give you, um, an email from Kyle King saying that this is approved by him, and what we have right now, this is approved and he's-

[0:40:58] But you named a half dozen or more different groups.

[0:41:01] Yeah, th- there, yes, everyone else agrees with this from-

[0:41:04] And, and-

[0:41:04] ... the, the fixes to this

[0:41:05] ... if I may, the, the only contention I'm aware of is beyond the scope of this bill. Uh, it relate, it relates to the acceptance period provided for in Georgia law, which is not something that we... Again, it's a fundamental change that we didn't seek to address in the first place. Uh-

[0:41:23] Is the, is the nine months acceptance still in this bill, or no?

[0:41:26] It is. Uh, it, that has not been changed. But however, there w- there's a lot of, uh, of procedural, uh, matters on how that is executed, uh, and if you wanna speak to that, but, uh-

[0:41:39] Well, the question, uh-

[0:41:39] ... but that, that still exists, yes

[0:41:40] ... that question that delays probate for nine months, is that correct?

[0:41:43] The, that, that could. It, they have nine months to accept the property or, or not accept the property, so they could, they could, any, anytime within that period they could do that.

[0:41:52] And if I may, it doesn't necessarily delay probate. So there is an acceptance period... Someone can still file for probate as soon as someone passes away or whenever they want to. This is not something that precludes anyone from filing for probate. In fact, because of the collaboration that I had with the Fiduciary Law Section and the, um, probate attorneys, we actually included options for personal representatives to handle the estate, um, if they want to.

[0:42:23] Is that in the bill?

[0:42:23] It's in the bill, yes. This is part of the revisions that we've provided to give more options for the probate side of things. So it gives them more opportunities to preserve the property. In case someone doesn't accept, they have that opportunity, and we, and we've also given them a way to recover any expenses that they pay out if someone does redeem it. So this is a pretty comprehensive revisions to what we already have without necessarily changing the law.

[0:42:58] So that's where Representative Jenkins is very adamant that we did not wanna... The scope was just to revise and edit as opposed to, um, doing an overhaul of the statute. And the nine months s- um, acceptance period is more, going more into an overhaul. Like, that one actually needs comprehensive time spent on going into, if we remove it, how do we want this to look for Georgia law?

[0:43:29] And that was something that was outside the scope of this particular bill, particularly because the issues that we're having right now that are present, that are actually happening, are dealing with the real estate side of things. The nine months acceptance period is more speculative. We haven't seen any issues with that right now, so that wasn't why this bill came about. Why it came about was because of the issues we are experiencing right now, and that's what we were addressing. But we did carve out some additional items for the personal representatives and probate.

[0:44:06] That it?

[0:44:07] Yes, sir.

[0:44:08] Okay. All right. Um, Chairman Sil- Silcox. Chairman.

[0:44:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for bringing this bill. I think this is a very interesting concept, and I, I guess I just... I wonder about if you have a sen- a situation with joint ti- joint tenants with right of survivorship and they want to do this, I guess both of them would have to do, would have to do it. I mean, I guess I'm, I'm just envisioning nightmares for the clerks if s- if one of them filed one of these deeds to give the property to the kids, but the other one didn't agree.

[0:44:45] I mean, I- I'm just thinking of the, the races and the-

[0:44:49] Right

[0:44:49] ... craziness.

[0:44:50] No, I appreciate your question. And so it, it's already addressed in the current statute-

[0:44:54] Okay

[0:44:54] ... so we didn't change anything there. So as of right now, um, I believe it's 44-17-5, it says that it defines joint owners with joint tenants with rights of survivorship in the beginning of the article, in 44-17-1. And then in 44-17-5 it says that it's one of those last to die, um, is how it works.

[0:45:19] Okay.

[0:45:20] And so whoe- like, because obviously when you pass away- ... you don't have rights to give anything to someone, especially when the, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. So that's already captured in the current statute, which is why we didn't address it with this-

[0:45:33] Okay

[0:45:33] ... legislation.

[0:45:33] Okay, great. Thank you.

[0:45:34] You're welcome.

[0:45:36] All right. That's all the questions from the committee. Anything else y'all wanna add before we step down?

[0:45:42] I- I'm, I'm good.

[0:45:44] Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Um, Sarah Mancini.

[0:45:55] Ah, there you are.

[0:45:56] Mm-hmm.

[0:45:56] Okay.

[0:46:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman-

[0:46:04] Okay

[0:46:04] ... members of the committee.

[0:46:05] If you can, be brief and-

[0:46:07] Absolutely. I will try to be as-

[0:46:08] Tell us what you don't like about it. So-

[0:46:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sarah Mancini with the National Consumer Law Center. Although we're a national organization, I'm based here in Georgia, and I've practiced real estate in Georgia since 2007, mostly representing low-income homeowners who are trying to avoid foreclosure. Transfer on death deeds are a very important tool for low and moderate income homeowners, especially those who live in rural areas and areas that are legal deserts, or people who don't have access to lawyers. And the idea is to give them a simple tool, um, that is friendly to people who don't have access to an attorney to convey their home to their intended heirs.

[0:46:46] In 31 out of 34 jurisdictions that have transfer on death deeds, the transfer is effective immediately upon death without the need for this post-mortem affidavit. Only Georgia, Oklahoma, and Hawaii require some step after the death in the recording of an affidavit, and what we worry about with that affidavit requirement is that transfer on death deeds will fail because the people who are intended to benefit from this law are not likely to know about this requirement and not likely to record that affidavit within the nine-month period.

[0:47:23] Now, that nine-month obligation, that affidavit requirement, is in the statute now, but HB 899 makes it much more complex and enmeshes that requirement in more sections of Georgia Code. Out of an eight-page bill, roughly five pages of it are imposing more obligations in the affidavit requirement and more complexity. Our particular concerns on behalf of low-income homeowners are on page four, starting at line 87, there's this...

[0:47:54] So page four, starting at line 87, the personal representative of the estate must give a notice to the TOD beneficiary, and it references another section of the probate code which has a six-month deadline. So the problem is, if they have to give this notice within six months of being appointed as the personal representative, that could fall outside of the nine-month period for acceptance. So we're very worried about the TOD failing, and again, the grantee under the TOD not knowing they have to record this affidavit.

[0:48:28] They also have to know the legal description of the property and have a death certificate attached. So there are many burdens here. Also, the intent of this bill is that there may not be a personal representative of the estate. There may not be an estate at all. So we're putting obligations onto the personal representative when the intent is to convey the home outside of probate, um, in order to make it easier for low-income people and to not have as much heirs property created where probate is never filed.

[0:48:59] Second out of three points, on page four, starting at line 92, it says that the representative of the estate may make mortgage payments and tax payments and may obtain a lien, uh, against the TOD beneficiary for those expenses. Again, this is complexity. It creates risk. We should default to a system where the grantee under the TOD gets the home, and that they can renounce or disclaim that interest if they don't want it. Instead, the current structure of the law in Georgia, and this makes it more s- more complex, is that we're assuming they don't want it, and we're giving the personal representative all these obligations.

[0:49:37] And finally, the third point I want to make, the one that is the most concerning to us, starts on page five at line 112, and where if there is a risk of foreclosure, the personal representative can record a document that would then shorten the acceptance period to four months instead of nine months. this section is ambiguous. W- it's not clear what it means to be at imminent risk of foreclosure. There has to be some notice from the creditor, but it doesn't seem to be the Georgia non-judicial foreclosure notice.

[0:50:08] It's not clear. And there's also no deadline to record that document shortening the notice period, so it could be shortened after the four months have run. It could be shortened one day before. And we think this is creates enormous risk for TODs failing. We also think that this limbo period in the Georgia law, it creates extra burden on estates, and this is just not the way to reform Georgia's TOD statute.

[0:50:33] Okay.

[0:50:33] Thank you.

[0:50:34] Any questions by the committee? Uh, Representative Holcomb.

[0:50:40] Th- thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not my area of the law, so when you say this creates enormous risk of TODs failing, what does that mean?

[0:50:49] So, Representative, if the TOD fails, if someone doesn't record the affidavit within the nine-month period, or four months if it gets shortened in this way, then it's just as if the TOD did not exist, which means we're going back to a situation of intestate succession and possibly creating more heirs' property, more fractured ownership. So if we care about the issue of heirs' property in Georgia, we really owe it to the people that this bill, that this law is meant to protect to do it right, and not to frustrate the intent of the grantor by having it fail to take effect.

[0:51:22] Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

[0:51:24] All right. Um, Representative Leverett.

[0:51:27] Yes, sir.

[0:51:28] Check that mic and make sure it's working. I don't think so. Try 15.

[0:51:36] There you... There we go. I couldn't get the light to come on, sorry. Those buttons are hard to work sometimes, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you for your testimony today. Some, uh, it... I'm the guy who sort of caused this problem. I filed the bill originally. Uh, it was, to, to be fair, it was the, the speaker pro tem's policy initiative, but she asked me to file it and I filed it, and thought I had scrubbed, uh... I actually stole from Marvin Lim. He had a, a bill that he had filed a year or two before, which must apparently have been based on the Oklahoma statute, um, and I was not aware of that.

[0:52:08] So I, I f- we ran it by some of the, um, some title companies that I deal with and thought we had sort of scrubbed it up to where it was at least passable, but apparently not. We created a lot more problems than we, then we tried to fix. So, um, as the guy who sort of caused all the trouble, I would like to see some of these, these issues resolved, and resolved quickly. I gather your concern is the acceptance, the, the, the way to fix a lot of the problems is just to eliminate the acceptance and treat these more like, uh, joint tenancy deeds that, that automatically have, uh, effect upon death.

[0:52:42] And I'm assuming if you, if you needed to do something about transferring, um, in the interim while the, while the, while the TOD grantor is still alive, you would just have to get the other person to join in the conveyance, I guess, the, the TOD beneficiary.

[0:52:56] Actually, Representative, to that last point, the TOD grantor has the power already now to do whatever they want until they die. They can revoke it. And I think some of the concerns that were mentioned before, it's just an education campaign that we need to the clerks and the ch- and, and various folks to make sure they know until they die, this deed does not have effect.

[0:53:14] Okay.

[0:53:14] So they do have the power now. Yes.

[0:53:16] Um, a- and so I, I guess the, the... A- and I'm sort of sympathetic to the notion of maybe just doing away with the acceptance period, 'cause I can see how that create... That, that's really what's creating, I think, most of the problems here. Um, but to the concern that I think the sponsor would express is, is, you know, we, we're having problems right now. We'd like to try to get them resolved this year instead of having to wait another year. Uh, what is your, what is your response to that?

[0:53:44] So Representative Leverett, I, first of all, I really do appreciate the work of Representative Jenkins and Ms. Calaway. They've done a lot of work on this. I think we just need to get everybody together. There are disputes right now within both the real estate section and the probate section about whether or not this is the right approach, and we've heard some concern about maybe there's urgency. From, from my experience in talking with legal aid attorneys and other real estate attorneys, if you're doing a TOD right now, you need a backup will. That's what you need. And people are doing them now with that in place.

[0:54:14] I also spoke with Deborah Bailey, who is on the board of the American Land Title Association and was formerly a member, a board of the Southeastern Land Title Association, who wrote me an email, she couldn't be here today, but confirming that she does not see the urgency to pass something this session. And we could have tried to do that, but we really wanted everybody to have a chance to review it. We'd much rather come back next session and do it right.

[0:54:36] So, so your view is th- that while the current structure of the statute creates problems, they are manageable within existing systems and create a lot more work, but are still manageable until we try to fix, get the statute fixed?

[0:54:52] Absolutely, Representative.

[0:54:54] All right. Thank you.

[0:54:54] Thank you.

[0:54:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[0:54:57] Yes, sir.

[0:54:59] I see no more questions. Thank you.

[0:55:01] Thank you, sir.

[0:55:02] All right. Um, Alan Greg.

[0:55:08] Oh, there you are. And-

[0:55:09] It's Greg Allen.

[0:55:12] Or... Oh yeah, that would be Greg Allen.

[0:55:17] Oh. If, if, if you're in support of it and there's changes you want to make in it, just talk about that if you can. I'm trying to move this along, so we're...

[0:55:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm in support of it the way it's written now, and we have no more changes.

[0:55:31] Okay. Thank you, sir. Um, Steven Weyer. Hope I'm saying that right. Probably not.

[0:55:41] Close enough.

[0:55:45] Good morning. Uh, my name's Steven Weyer. I'm an attorney, uh, in, uh, working in Decatur. I have a practice that's entirely probate and, uh, planning, and I work with what I call everyday people, right? Just nothing sophisticate, nothing too sophisticated or complex. Um- I will join almost entirely the comments of Ms. Mancini in this. Uh, I think that the, uh... I- I- I appreciate Representative Leverett's acknowledgement of some of the, the kind of fundamental flaws in the bill, uh, or the law.

[0:56:14] I didn't say that.

[0:56:15] Well.

[0:56:18] We'll go that far. Please continue.

[0:56:21] Speaking for myself, there are fundamental flaws- ... in the original bill, uh, as it was passed, um, which is, to Representative Oliver's point, it did not go through the fiduciary or the real estate section two years ago. Um, it passed on substitution, uh, very late in the s- in the session. Um, the bill that Ms. Calloway and Representative Jenkins have worked very hard on, I think endeavors to try to fix some of the small things on the edges, but those small things are actually quite big things.

[0:56:53] And the work of those folks didn't really do it the way... Well, I'll speak for myself. I don't think that they, the, the fixes fix things. I think as Ms. Mancini said, they actually create quite a few more problems. One thing that she flagged, and I want to underscore, is that this new bill creates a new obligation for personal representatives. So it's very difficult sometimes to get people to serve as personal representatives. And when this new bill has created a new obligation that's not even found now, if this bill were, were to pass, that obligation wouldn't be found in the probate code.

[0:57:33] It would be a new obligation located in the real estate code, in, mm, uh, Title 4417-2-G1, would create a whole new obligation. And I just think that this is the wrong way to do it. And I support Ms. Mancini's, uh, approach. It's the same one I have, which is there needs to be really serious time and effort put into this policy. To, transfer on death deeds, I think can be very effective, but they have a lot of interplay across Georgia law when it comes to how property moves from one generation to the next.

[0:58:08] And, um, when it comes to your support and how we support widows and orphans, widowers as well, um, this bill has an impact on that. Uh, when it comes to creditors' rights, this bill and this concept has an impact. So I invite the committee to, even if you pass this bill, which I don't support, but even if you do, I really beg you to, uh, work with, uh, the committees, uh, excuse me, the sections of the fiduciary law, the real estate property, and other invested creditors section to try to come up with a comprehensive solution to this matter.

[0:58:45] It's very important, and it requires serious consideration, and not bills that kind of get pulled together without going through the, the regular means. So thank you, Senator.

[0:58:54] Okay.

[0:58:54] Or thank you, Chairman.

[0:58:55] Thank you. All right. Oh, sorry.

[0:58:59] We have a question for you.

[0:59:01] Uh, Representative Evans.

[0:59:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Uh, understanding you don't think this bill should pass, is there anything you have for us today that we could have, or are there any suggestions on any version of this that we could pass if we were to change certain things? Is that a possibility for you to opine on at this point? And it's fine if it's not, it's just a-

[0:59:25] Yeah, I don't, I don't have, I don't have a bill in hand in my pocket to offer you. Uh, I agree with Ms. Mancini that the fundamental issue is this nine-month redemption period, and if that were excised, that would clean up 90% of the problems. So many of the issues of this bill, and of the law generally, are contortions that have to m- be made in order to squeeze that nine-month structure into Georgia law. I described it to someone as every other transfer on death, whether it's intestacy, whether it's a p- uh, you know, joint tenancy, whether it's, um, payable on death bank accounts, it's like they all read from left to right, and this reads from right to left.

[1:00:09] So that's kind of the problem, and if we could fix that, we could fix this. When it was suggested to the author and the supporters of this bill, "Hey, let's get rid of that nine," they said, "No, we gotta move forward with this, and we'll fix the other stuff later." And I- I- I gotta stand against that.

[1:00:28] Thank you.

[1:00:30] That's all I have.

[1:00:31] All right. Thank you.

[1:00:35] Uh, Jeff Ledford.

[1:00:44] Please be brief.

[1:00:46] Be brief, yes. I will be brief. Jeff Ledford, Georgia Realtors. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Um, this issue first came to our attention back in 2023. We have been very engaged in, uh, the heirs property issue. In fact, we're about to launch, uh, hopefully this year, uh, the first local board working with the community on heirs property and curing that, uh, through a clinic, something we hope to see go statewide. Um, as far as the reasoning behind this bill, Georgia is, uh, a state that has some of the highest occurrences of heirs property, uh, but also we have since the early 2000s, in fact, in a prior life, I was real estate commissioner, and, uh, when I was at the commission in '05, we were working on the Mortgage Fraud Act, for those of you that were around.

[1:01:38] Um, so we have to balance some things here. One of it is a, a tool that can help prevent heirs property that is low cost and easy, uh, t- easy to do, uh, something that can be done when someone is simply just recording the deed. But along with that, uh, in fact, uh, this bill passed two years ago. Last year, there was a bill that passed that, uh, we were building on preventing the fraudulent filing of deeds. And so this is something that we feel balances that I understand the act of affidavit, uh, of accepting it is something that is an extra step.

[1:02:16] Um, but again, we, we are looking at that as, uh, in balancing it with the fraudulent filings or the fraudulent activity that was happening. Uh, I believe it was House Bill 1292, uh, that passed, uh, most recently on dealing with fraudulent filings of deeds, requires there to be a validation of identity, uh, for individual filers solely because though we have under the Mortgage Fraud Act, the recording of a false statement with a deed or mis- misleading information is a felony, it was impossible to track who was doing the filing.

[1:02:53] This gives an affidavit that's recorded at the time of acceptance, and we feel that balances it at this point. Um, the urgency at hand is that, yes, we do have a law in place. And, and I, I understand that it was... Look, the, the confused looks on the faces when said, "This is not changing the law." This is changing the law. It's just not changing the fundamental underlying, uh, what originally, I believe, was SB90 did in 2023, '24, I believe it was, that it passed. Um, what this does is it addresses the procedural side of it that was what was creating the problem with the existing underlying issue.

[1:03:32] So the nine months is there right now. The problem we have is that we have some unanswered questions of what happens when you're recording that. You heard about the which form you use when you file it. This simply answers some of those questions so that for right now, the people that wish to do a transfer-on-death deed have mapped out for them what they need to be doing.

[1:03:53] All right. Thank you. No questions. Okay. Thank you. All right. Julie Dupar- Dupereaux? Hope I said that right.

[1:04:05] Good morning.

[1:04:05] Morning.

[1:04:12] Uh, yes. So thank you for this opportunity to explain why HB 899 is unfortunately misguided and seriously flawed. Um, my name is Julia Dupereaux, and I'm an attorney with the Senior Citizens Law Project at Atlanta Legal Aid. If you're not familiar with Atlanta Legal Aid, we're a nonprofit providing free civil legal services to Georgians all throughout Metro Atlanta who need legal help but would otherwise have difficulty affording a private attorney. Uh, we recently celebrated our 100-year anniversary serving this community, and we're close partners with the Georgia Legal Services Program, which serves the rest of Georgia in the same way that we do here in Metro Atlanta.

[1:04:48] Um, I wanna be clear from the outset, we love transfer-on-death deeds. We think this is a critically important tool, and we're delighted that it came to Georgia in 2024, even if we're still working out the kinks. Um, in my program, the Senior Citizens Law Project, one of the most, uh, highest volume issues that we see is a spouse or other loved one has died, and the house was either partly or fully in his or her name. And that can be a big problem. So how big of a problem is heirs property here in Georgia? Forty-seven billion is the estimate of the total value of heirs property in our state, according to the Heirs Property Law Center, and they call it frozen equity because you can't sell it, you can't mortgage or refinance it, and you can't buy it either.

[1:05:25] It's as though those assets are locked inside a block of ice. At Atlanta Legal Aid, we've become increasingly focused on heirs property. Our client population of mostly lower income and middle income Georgians are losing a lot of wealth as a result of this problem, but the focus on heirs property is making a difference. Uh, funders are making meaningful grants to fund this work, and along with our partners and dozens of volunteer attorneys, we are starting to turn the tide on heirs property one family at a time through both prevention on the front end and remediation on the back end. We absolutely need transfer-on-death deeds to meaningfully advance this work, but we need a framework that works.

[1:06:00] HB 899 might alleviate some of the heartburn that closing attorneys and title insurance, uh, uh, the title insurance industry have about transfer-on-death deeds, or TODs as we call them, but this bill misses the forest for the trees and leaving, leaves us with something that we as practitioners can't and won't use. Um, so the, the biggest issue... I mean, um, how much time does the, the grantor or the grantee have to, um, carry out this affidavit?

[1:06:32] Um, generally nine months, but as you heard, HB 899 creates a complicated framework where it might be as little as four months, depending on the circumstances, circumstances that can change and that might not be clear. Um, as Ms. Mancini testified, um, it can be shortened to four months, for example, if the property is at imminent risk of foreclosure, but that's not defined. Um, so it really opens up, sort of puts the TOD grantee and the grantor's estate intention with one another, and there are many issues that would be ripe for litigation.

[1:07:03] Um, but kinda setting that aside and looking at the bigger picture, we can ask what will happen if we require the TOD grantee to jump through these hoops at a time, you know, on a tight timeline, at a time when they are grieving and dealing with a major life event. Um, we don't have to guess what would happen. We can look to what happened in Illinois. When Illinois first enacted transfer-on-death deeds, they had a requirement similar to this one where the grantee had to... actually had two years to record an affidavit in the deed records or else the, the TOD would fail and title would revert to the grantor's estate.

[1:07:39] Um, and they changed their law three years later. Apparently, by all accounts, it was quite a big mess. Transfer-on-death deeds were failing left and right, and so they came back three years later and amended their statute to remove that aff- affidavit requirement and, and put Illinois law in line with the majority of other states. So 31 states have transfer-on-death deeds where the transfer is effective upon death. Um, this bill actually would delay the, the moment of the transfer from death. What we have right now in Georgia law currently from 2024 is that the transfer is effective upon death, but if the grantee fails to record the affidavit after nine months- title reverts to the grantor's estate.

[1:08:18] This would clarify, confirm, or change the law however you view the cur- current law, that the moment of transfer is actually, title is in the grantor's estate for an interim period following the grantor's death, and only when the affidavit is recorded does it then change to the grantee. And so that's what's creates all this tension between the personal representative of the estate or the estate and the grantee. Um, so it really changes what should be a transfer on death deed to a transfer on affidavit deed, and we believe transfer on death deeds will fail in large numbers as a result of that.

[1:08:51] Thank you.

[1:08:52] Do you have a question of-

[1:08:55] I'd like to be-

[1:08:55] Representative Momtahan

[1:08:55] ... I'd like to be recognized for a motion.

[1:08:58] Sure.

[1:08:58] I'd like to move that the 899 be tabled.

[1:09:02] All right. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

[1:09:09] Aye.

[1:09:09] Any opposed? All right, it's tabled. Thank you.

[1:09:14] Thank you.

[1:09:14] Now, just because it's tabled, um, we still have the time periods that I've laid out at the beginning of the meeting, and you still have time to get this out and up to rules. So, all right. If y'all can work something out, that, that would be great.

[1:09:32] All right. Um...

[1:09:35] The shortest one is this.

[1:09:39] This one? All right. Come on up.

[1:09:50] Can I just hand you a warrant?

[1:09:53] This one?

[1:10:02] Yeah.

[1:10:03] All right. This is House Bill 1403. Is that right?

[1:10:09] That is correct, Chairman. House Bill 1403, LC492- 492700.

[1:10:22] Okay, go ahead.

[1:10:23] Thank you, Chairman. Uh, I have with me Colonel, uh, Bishoff here in support of the bill. And basically this bill, uh, it says, uh, that, "No court judge or administrative body, including magistrate, shall be limited in any way from serving as a judge advocate or offering advice as a role of judge advocate in a reserve component of the United States military or organized militia." That's basically the bill. It's a one-pager, and it's, uh, straight up.

[1:10:56] And I have Colonel Bishoff here with the National Guard to answer any questions you may have.

[1:11:00] All right.

[1:11:00] Members.

[1:11:00] All right. Uh, Chairm- Appropriate, appropriate time, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this would be a good time. Move do pass.

[1:11:08] Second.

[1:11:09] All right, motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

[1:11:13] Aye.

[1:11:13] Any opposed? Huh, your bill's gone. Thank you.

[1:11:16] Thank you, uh, Chairman. And while I'm here, I'd like to s- say that my district attorney, uh, Alcovy district, is here. Randy McKelly, welcome.

[1:11:24] I, I see a whole contingent of DAs over here.

[1:11:26] Oh, okay. He's mine. Thank you.

[1:11:29] Welcome.

[1:11:30] Thank you.

[1:11:31] Okay. All right.

[1:11:34] Seven minutes. Seven minutes. Seven minutes. Who we got next? Um, we got him. Chairman, is Chairman Gullett here? Can you get yours done in seven minutes?

[1:11:47] You tell me. When you're out.

[1:11:53] So...

[1:11:53] And for the DAs, uh, it, it may be... I think what I'm gonna do is skip lunch with the chairmans and, uh, come back here maybe around 12:30 or so and get started, and do it with y'all. All right?

[1:12:08] I have a sub LC492761S. Uh, this was given to me really as far as the crime scene, um, video. So this is the bill related to, uh, death cam footage of someone dying. Um, this is one that's already currently a law. It just was changed to be, um, audio, video, um, recording devices from any state or local government agency. Um, still includes audio, video images of a deceased person. Um, it fixes the next of kin issue I think we talked about significantly.

[1:12:42] Um, it describes in lines 19 through 23, uh, who the next of kin is in the situation. Um, and then if you want access to it, that's not next of kin, um, you've, uh, petitioned to a superior court that it, um, you have a disclosure that it is in public interest and outweighs any privacy interests that may be asserted by the deceased person, next of kin. Um, and then they shall consider whether any such disclosure is necessary for public evaluation of governmental performance, the seriousness of the intrusion, the family's right to privacy, and whether such disclosure is the le- least intrusive means available considering the availability of similar information, uh, in other public records.

[1:13:26] Um, it gives the deceased person's next of kin two weeks notice, that's line 37, 38, um, before the order, um, is made. Uh, and I'm happy to answer any questions. It's still also Section E provides, um, the material for counsel representing any convicted defendants, um, or any litigation counsel. So happy to answer any questions for that.

[1:13:51] Representative Evans.

[1:13:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Gullett. So this, it was originally, we were putting it, like, somewhere up in the 20-somethings as, like, a sub-part of 26 or, I don't remember what it was. So this is moving it to the end and basically giving it a whole different

[1:14:12] treatment, I guess-

[1:14:12] Correct, that's right

[1:14:13] ... to treat other exceptions. Is that fair?

[1:14:14] Sure. I kind of, I mi- the first one I mirrored off the 911 language today.

[1:14:17] Yeah.

[1:14:18] Uh, this is really mirrored off of the crime scene photos of gaining, how to gain access to those. And so I thought that was more relevant, and that was brought to me.

[1:14:25] Oh, okay.

[1:14:26] I think it eliminated a lo- a, a number of the issues we talked about here. Okay. Is there any, um, exception in here for press, uh, legitimate press use? No, they would, they would go through the, through the court process of saying that this, um, that there's a public interest that outweighs the privacy. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

[1:14:48] Okay. Um, Ms. Westbrook. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for bringing the bill, Chairman Gullett. Um, when we went round and round on this bill the first time, there was some discussion about, um, we were kind of in the realm of outside of an investigation. Um, I don't see that in here, and I feel like we made changes to it, and so I just kind of want to- Yeah ... make sure I understand where we landed on that. Yeah, so really the- once the- when a bill, when, when it ...

[1:15:18] During the investigation, it's not available today anyways. Right. Okay. And so this is also after the investigation. Um, it's ... I remember reading it. I don't, can't tell you the line at the moment, but it's after the investigation is over, concludes, and now it's subject to open records. This is where this bill hits. So if you want it after the investigation is closed, 'cause you can't get it when the investigation's open anyways, this is when this would apply. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. All right. I don't see any other questions. What's the will of the committee? Motion to do pass.

[1:15:49] Second. Second. Got a motion and a second. Uh, any further discussion?

[1:15:56] Representative Evans? I had a question. Um, y- you didn't call for testimony, so I'm guessing no one else is here to sign up. I saw some people that were here last time. I thought I saw them. I think we had discussion the last time, didn't we? Yeah, we did. I d- I mean, it's just very different than it was the last time, so I didn't know how that changed some of the comments that we heard- I don't think we have anybody- ... no one signed up ... that has signed up to- Okay. Thank you ... oppose it. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. The ayes have it.

[1:16:27] Thank you. All right. We'll keep working with you guys to figure this out.

[1:16:34] Okay. All right. Um, we're gonna have to take a break at this point. Uh, there is lunch provided for the committee. Um, do I ... Is it Jason? No, it didn't.

[1:16:49] Steak shop.

[1:16:53] So, um, let's come back at 12:30, and we'll crank it back up.

[3:04:26] All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna try and get started here. Um, first one I'm gonna call up is the, uh, DA compensation bill, 1028. So, Chairman Reeves. Thank you, Chairman Gunter. Um, I ask for this bill to be recommitted, the DA pay raise bill, so that we can, uh, deliberate further on the opt-in deadline. If you look on line 51, it is 2028. So, uh, would, would ask for some deliberations on moving that back, uh, for instance, 2029, 202030, 2020- 2031.

[3:05:05] Additionally, uh, District Attorney, um, Yelama Cheely from Athens planned to testify when it got called last time but got, uh, stuck in court in Athens. He's here today. Um, and then we have a hand- two handouts. Uh, one is a deeper explanation into the opt-in nature of this bill because as I was explaining it to folks, uh, after we passed out last time, there were questions, is it opt-in, is it opt-out? Uh, District Attorney Cranford did a great job of, uh, gathering, uh, a deeper explanation of it being an opt-in procedure.

[3:05:41] Uh, and then we also have a letter dated February 26th. This is from 39 of the 51 district attorneys as of last Thursday who have signed in support of the bill, in addition to the chief public defenders who we heard from last time. And some of those other, um, DAs are, are doing the math. Um, here, here's an example if, uh, we learn from judicial appropriations it, it appears that they're prepared to pursue 30,000 in 2027, uh, a $30,000 increase.

[3:06:15] So if your supplement is capped at 50, and there's an increase of 30,000 on the state side, then the formula under this bill pretty much would put you at an equivalent in that first year, and then there are efforts to continue to raise it after that. So, uh, just wanted to get that presented. And Mr. Chairman, if the district attorney from Athens-Clarke County can speak, we're glad to, uh, pass things on to him. Okay.

[3:06:50] Well, uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name's Caulky Al Minchelli. I'm the district attorney in the Western Judicial Circuit, which covers Athens Clark as well as Oconee Counties. Uh, and I'm here to speak to you in support of the DA pay bill that you are considering, uh, at this time. To tell you a little bit about myself, uh, I was a prosecutor for about six and a half years straight out of law school, and then I entered private practice for about six and a half years, uh, before running for and being elected district attorney in the Western Judicial Circuit.

[3:07:26] Uh, and that was not an easy decision for me. Obviously, private practice can be significantly more financially lucrative, uh, than working for the state in the role of a district attorney. However, we saw a very serious need in the community that my wife and I are raising our two boys in, uh, and saw crime victims really not being served by the DA's office at that time, um, which led me to make that decision, but it was by no means an easy decision. When my wife and I reached that decision, uh, we had a six-year-old and a four-year-old, um, and so we're, uh, in a part of life where taking that type of, uh, financial sacrifice was not a insignificant, uh, thing to consider.

[3:08:10] Um, and, uh, I'm speaking in support of the bill, you know, one, because I believe that district attorneys should be compensated in a manner that reflects the important role that they have, and also, uh, for creating a situation where when other attorneys are facing a question of whether or not they wanna step forward to serve when they're seeing a need in their community to make that decision, uh, a, a little bit easier for them and encourage them to step into that role because, uh, it's obviously something that can have real detrimental effects on your community at large when that role is not filled by an experienced, um, and qualified attorney that knows how to run an office and litigate cases.

[3:08:52] Uh, and so I'm happy to answer any questions, uh, that I can, uh, and I really do wanna thank each of you for the work that you do, uh, i- in helping us. All right, any questions? I don't see any. Thank you. Thank you. Who else is here to talk on it? By myself. All right. Well, let me just ask, anybody else here to speak on this bill?

[3:09:24] All right.

[3:09:27] Chairman Smith? Appropriate time, Mr. Chairman. All right. Is there any further discussion on this bill by the committee? All right. Representative Evans. Uh, not any discussion. I just w- well, other than I don't know how Representative Reeves wanted to engage on the opt-out idea. I'm, I'm glad to look at dates. Uh, uh, you know, 2030, I think, would be a two-year addition on it, so that's one, one idea.

[3:09:58] But, uh, I wanted to open that up for further deliberations. Okay. Um, well, one thought is I'm not gonna make my, um, proposed amendment again to change the effective date, 'cause I... that's already failed in a room that looked exactly like this, so I don't need to do that. Um, but the, the same concern exists in that we are... and just, you know, for the purpose, for the benefit of the, the audience and the, and the table, obviously, we don't need to pass this to raise DA pay.

[3:10:31] That, that can be done through the budget, and so I don't want anybody here to misconstrue my remarks for being against a pay for DAs, 'cause that's absolutely not the case. My concern is that right now, localities, um, are able to make up a lot that the state doesn't or can't provide in the way of not only DA salary, but also resources like ADAs and other, other positions, uh, victim advocates and all, all kinds of positions within localities to respond to the needs of individual localities.

[3:11:02] So what this bill does, I don't see it... I, I, I know it authorizes a pay raise, but we don't need the bill to do that. So the way I see the bill is that it really ties the hands of local governments to invest in their DA offices in the way that they think is best for their communities. That's a... It doesn't take away everything. I don't, I don't misconstrue that. It, it, they will still be able to provide AD- ADA positions and things like that, but it does take away some of their ability to do that. That's my concern. Um, also, we're doing that at a time where we're sort of implying that we're gonna raise the DA pay to a level higher than...

[3:11:40] I'm not saying we're trying to mislead anyone, but the words on the page could lead someone to think that we're gonna raise the pay higher than we are, and that's not up to this committee. That's up to the appropriation subcommittee of ju- of judiciary and then ultimately the appropriations committee. We're going in the direction of $30,000 raise, which is significant, but it certainly is not gonna get everybody all the way to that 200 level that we have talked about. Um, the judges' pay raises are happening over a number of years, and I suspect these pay raises will take place over a number of years as well.

[3:12:11] So all that is to say, I think the longer opt-out, the better because every... there's so many different situations, and I know current DAs are able to opt out, so I know no one in the system right now can be hurt. But there are gonna be a lot of elections in between now and when that final raise to get the DAs where we want them to actually happens. And so I want any new DAs... I, I would like for everyone to have as much of an option as they can to, to create the best situation for themselves, um, in deciding whether to opt in or opt out and when.

[3:12:44] And so I would propose, if we could, um, essentially two terms, which would be 34. That would be my suggestion if it, if it was pleasing to the vice chairman

[3:12:58] I'll, I'll let you make the motion on that. I have no, no opposition. I think having a- an opt-in deadline was what we were asked to do, so the, the date on it, um, I have not gotten any strong guidance on that. So, um, uh, but we'll, we'll put it up for a vote, but I... That's not a hostile amendment. How about that?

[3:13:15] Thank you.

[3:13:16] Thanks.

[3:13:18] All right. So we can get to that, uh, it'll be time for that motion.

[3:13:23] Move to pass.

[3:13:25] Second. All right. I have a motion and a second. And discussion on amendments. Uh, back to you, Representative Evans.

[3:13:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would move... What line is it?

[3:13:36] 51.

[3:13:37] 51.

[3:13:38] On line 51, that we change, ahem, the opt-in date to 2034.

[3:13:45] Second.

[3:13:47] All right. I got a motion and a second.

[3:13:50] I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, which line was that?

[3:13:51] 51.

[3:13:52] It would be changing 2028 to 2034.

[3:13:58] Does it need to go anywhere else?

[3:14:00] I believe that's it.

[3:14:02] 51.

[3:14:12] All right. Any discussion on the amendment?

[3:14:20] I see some puzzled looks, so I'm kinda waiting.

[3:14:24] I'm trying to just make it decide, Mr. Chairman, of, of where we're at and how that will put... Our DAs are up two years from now, right? So they're back on the ballot in '28.

[3:14:36] It- I think it varies depending on when their...

[3:14:44] It varies for a lot of reasons. I'll put it that way.

[3:14:46] Okay.

[3:14:49] Okay. I'll hold my service-

[3:14:51] All right

[3:14:57] It'll be two terms from anybody that's running now, I guess, is the way it's gonna work out.

[3:15:08] If I might, Mr. Chairman, w- for the consideration of the committee, the judges' bill had no opt-in date, and that was a problem for... or somewhat of a problem for appropriations 'cause they're... we're, uh, we're, uh, we're budgeting for raises that, for folks that we know are not gonna opt in. Um, but because they can still opt in, we still sort of budget for it. There's only 51 DAs. Um, I think even with the $30,000 raise, the information I'm gathering from the atmosphere is that most will opt in.

[3:15:39] So we're only leaving question marks for very relatively few numbers of folks, which won't, I don't think, cause the same heartburn for appropriations as the judicial bill did. And still, it's eight, it's eight years, so not too long.

[3:15:56] Any of the DAs that wanna have a comment about this? You're okay? Okay.

[3:16:08] All right.

[3:16:10] I think we may, Mr. Chairman.

[3:16:13] Yes. Come on up. Both of them are live.

[3:16:17] Okay. Jason Smith, Tallapoosa Circuit. Uh, there was some question, 41 are up in two years. 10 are currently qualifying today. So...

[3:16:29] That'll get most of them. Okay. If not all. Actually, we'll get all of them. All right. Um, any further discussion? All right. Although... Well, hang on. Representative Holcomb.

[3:16:45] Thank you. I, I have a question. Um, with respect to one of the things that we learned last time was that there can be situations in certain counties where if, um, if there isn't an opt-out, then, um, the s- or the solicitors could potentially make more than the DAs in certain locations. So, I... Line 214 states, "The General Assembly finds that increases to district attorneys' compensation that become effective on or after July 1st, 2026 may automatically trigger increases to other public officers, officials, and employees for whom existing legislation automatically ties their compensation to that of district attorneys, and that these automatic increases in compensation would generally result in sudden financial hardship for local governments." Can you just explain that real quick just to make sure that I understand that part of the bill?

[3:17:43] Yes. I believe in, uh, for example, Gwinnett County solicitor, uh, that is a, that is paid 400% or much larger, uh, by the county than the state, and I believe that position is tied to the DA's pay. Just like with the judges' bill, this bill intends not to force an increase on the counties by increasing the DA's pay. That's the reason to, um, disconnect them through this bill, just like we did with the judges.

[3:18:14] Okay. All right. Thank you.

[3:18:18] Um, Chairman Leverett, it's on, uh, 15.

[3:18:24] I, I've lost my number, M- Mr. Chairman, but I... it appears this is 15 by my, the fact that I can hear my voice, so.

[3:18:30] Yes, sir.

[3:18:30] I, I, I think Chairman Reeves addressed that, uh, Representative Holcomb, but this, this is basically premised on the similar section of the judges' bill, which was just trying to mute any sort of sudden impact that an increase in the salary might have on local officials, that is, those who are paid solely from local funds whose pay is tied through some local ordinance or through a local act of this General Assembly to, in that case, pay of judges here at the pay of the DA. I'm not aware that solicitors are necessarily tied to DA pay, but we suspect that there may be some, so we were just trying to avoid a situation where the pay would suddenly jump, um, because of an increase in the local and the state pay.

[3:19:14] And so this just allows the local government a year to figure out what they want to do.

[3:19:21] Okay.

[3:19:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[3:19:24] Chairman Kelley.

[3:19:25] I guess a question to the author of the amendment. With your proposed language in the bill, will you support it?

[3:19:34] No. I, I still think it's the wrong policy, not 'cause I don't want DAs to have a pay, because I just don't like us messing with localities making their, um, making their own priorities for law enforcement. But I do think if we're gonna do this, we want to be honest with the DAs that it's not 2,000- 200,000, and so they may not want to opt in right away, but it, but it may get to a point where they do want to. Um, I think honestly, the DAs in Metro will probably never want to opt in. I think this is probably more helpful for those, uh, what was it?

[3:20:08] Not the, not the watermelons. Um, probably not even the honeydews, but maybe whatever's in between the plums and the honeydews. So I think this is gonna be helpful for several of the people that signed this letter in support of the bill if we do the longer opt-in, and I think I see them nodding their heads. So my feelings aside, I think it's probably better for the DAs.

[3:20:30] And... Okay. You have something?

[3:20:35] Vice, Vice Chair.

[3:20:36] Um-

[3:20:37] Mr. Chairman, uh, to add to Representative Evans' response to Vice Chair Kelley, um, and I have not heard anything from Judiciary Appropriations or anybody else with having a, an opt-in deadline of 2034. If we hear anything in the future, I certainly will, you know, take that under consideration. But I support it because, um, I think it's a point well taken. They ought to have more information, uh, when deciding when to opt in, and that gives an adequate amount.

[3:21:07] I'm trying to just figure if it, if it, if it should be 2030 instead of 2034.

[3:21:13] I, I started there, but I think, uh, with having the, uh- Uh, staggered terms and the fact you got 40 on one cycle, 10 on another, or 11 on another, I, you know, I think by 2034 from... If there's a change in the economy, you've got some appropriation cycles. 2027 is when the 30 grand looks like it's coming on, but I, I support the 2034 based on what I've heard.

[3:21:41] Any further discussion?

[3:21:45] All right. All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. All right, the ayes have it. Any further discussion on the bill itself? Hearing none, all those in favor of, uh, House Bill 1023 as amended, 1028, excuse me, as amended, uh, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[3:22:09] No. All right. Let's, let's do a show of hands. Those in favor, raise your right hand.

[3:22:18] All those opposed.

[3:22:22] Okay, the ayes have it.

[3:22:24] Okay.

[3:22:25] All right, the bill passes.

[3:22:29] Now, let's see. We're gonna move on to Chairman Cooper's bill.

[3:22:44] Mr. Chairman, unless somebody wants to testify, then I-

[3:22:47] Yeah, sure. Have a seat.

[3:22:48] So he can come- I, I, I, I don't want to testify. Yeah.

[3:22:54] Sorry, you're sitting in the hot seat.

[3:22:56] Yeah, I'm gonna let her come up first.

[3:22:57] Oh, you're gonna do that?

[3:22:58] He's, he's gonna be help- he's gonna help me if I need help legally.

[3:23:01] Okay.

[3:23:02] So-

[3:23:02] All right, let's see. Uh- ... yours, yours is-

[3:23:06] Okay

[3:23:06] ... House Bill 1397?

[3:23:08] Yes, sir, and there's a substitute that's being passed out right now.

[3:23:11] Okay.

[3:23:12] Okay.

[3:23:15] I don't think I have it in here.

[3:23:17] Yeah.

[3:23:17] Thank you.

[3:23:22] Okay.

[3:23:22] All right.

[3:23:23] You ready?

[3:23:23] Chairman Cooper, yes. Please tell us about-

[3:23:24] Thank you very much

[3:23:24] ... your bill.

[3:23:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for letting me bring a substitute to House Bill 1397. It's LC48-1807S. I'm sure you've heard about the reports, on television and, and all o- over the past few years about date ra- date rape drugs. They are very pre... These, the use of them has become very prevalent, and it's especially prevalent around our college campuses, 'cause college students are gonna be college students, and they like to go out in groups.

[3:24:00] They like to have a drink or two, and they're just in a situation where they're not paying real close attention. They may leave their drink somewhere, or even not realize that they've been jabbed with a tiny needle that had a, a medication in it that causes them to not be in control of their facilities. Um, S- Sophie is here with me today. Um, uh, she had asked that we allow her to speak, and she's one of those UGA college students that had a terrible experience.

[3:24:35] It's a little different, because not only did she have a problem with being given something that made her not remember- remember something for the next two weeks, there was a terrible accident involved and brain damage and other problems, too. So I'll let Sophie tell you her story.

[3:24:54] Um, good afternoon, Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the chance to be here. I'm very, very grateful for the opportunity to speak in front of you today. Um, for the record, my name is Sophie Caldwell. I'm here on my own accord and consider this a personal passion project as the individual who coined the premise of this bill. Um, I'm here today to show my support for this legislation addressing a critical gap in how our emergency medical system responds to victims of drug-facilitated sexual assault in my capacity as the policy originator and research lead. I would like to begin by explaining my passion for this issue, which stems from a direct personal experience.

[3:25:28] I was the victim of a failed drugging and abduction in Athens, Georgia a little over three years ago, where the individual who attempted to abduct me was terribly intoxicated and ultimately wrecked their vehicle in the process. I was admitted into the emergency room and intensive care unit unconscious and in critical con- critical condition as an automobile accident patient. At that time, I was only given a standard toxicology panel. Approximately five hou- hours later, after I regained consciousness, I woke up and started immediately and repeatedly screaming, "Someone gave me something. Someone gave me something." I then, uh, vomited an opaque black liquid.

[3:26:03] I knew in that moment I had been drugged. My mother, who studied in emergency rooms and intensive care units, knew I had been drugged, and all of the nurses who observed knew I had been drugged. After vomiting, several nurses rushed in, re- removed my bed sheets and ripped my clothes off to discover what they believed to be an injection mark on my right side. It was only then that I was screened with a date rape panel, which returned inconclusive results for GHB, a substance that while once known as a party drug in the '90s is commonly used as a sedative. Despitely, despite these clearly indicative circumstances, the inconclusive toxicology results, the injection mark, and the word of several healthcare providers are not admissible evidence in court.

[3:26:38] This meant that during depositions in my lawsuit, when asked why I went with the individual, I had to look attorneys in the eye and say, "I don't know," even though I knew then and know now in my heart that I did not have a conscious choice. Not to mention I was terrified of being slammed for drinking as a f- 18-year-old in said lawsuit. While I've come to recognize through this experience that I am far more blessed and mentally resilient than I had ever imagined, it has nevertheless been one of the most difficult and emotionally grueling trials I have ever endured. This bill is, specifically focuses on situations like mine, where a patient cannot advocate for themselves, particularly when they arrive unconscious or otherwise incapacitated in an emergency department.

[3:27:15] In these circumstances, consent cannot be obtained at the time of screening. As a result, the responsibility for determining whether to preserve potentially critical toxicological evidence falls to healthcare providers working in high-stakes, high-stress environments where the immediate and appropriate priority is saving the patient's life. Currently, blanket screening protocols in Georgia hospitals prioritize substances relevant to immediate clinical treatment rather than those commonly associated with violence and trafficking, even when the ca- capability may exist to prioritize both, especially when timing is critical. This legislation recognizes that reality.

[3:27:47] Drugs commonly used in drug-facilitated assaults, such as GHB, some benzodiazepines, and ketamine, are fast metabolizing and are n- are not included in routine toxicology panels. Without clear guidance in place, it is far too common for this evidence to disappear before a patient regains unconsciousness and has the opportunity to make an informed decision about reporting or pursuing care. This bill does not mandate testing. It does not override medical judgment. It does not invade privacy, and does not delay emergency treatment. Instead, it establishes a standardized framework to assist providers in determining when expanded toxicology screening may be appropriate in cases of suspected incapacitation.

[3:28:22] In doing so, it preserves potential evidence while maintaining the paramount priority of patient safety. When a patient later grains recap- regains capacity, they retain full autonomy over how that information is used. Nothing in this legislation compels reporting, law enforcement involvement, or prosecution. At its core, this bill balances three realities I personally know to be true. One, patients who cannot consent deserve to have their future choices preserved. Two, providers need clarity, not additional pressure in emergency settings. And three, justice should not hinge on whether critical evidence vanished before a victim woke up.

[3:28:55] Georgia has made meaningful strides in addressing sexual assault and human trafficking, and I sincerely hope that that momentum continues. This legislation closes a procedural gap that has existed far too long, and en- and ensures that our emergency response system reflects the reality of those crimes. Moral of the story, times are changing, and being safe no longer means only watching your drink. While I cannot assume or predict any of your votes, I promise that I will die trying to ensure that no other 18-year-old girl, or anyone else for that matter, has to endure, endure the uncertainty and emotional hardship that results from not having the resources to prove in what ways they know they were violently stripped of their awareness.

[3:29:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members of the committee. I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration. Will be happy to answer any questions.

[3:29:38] Thank you for your testimony. Um, I'm just trying to visualize how this is gonna work. I don't know enough about medicine to figure it out.

[3:29:48] Okay.

[3:29:48] What's gonna trigger the physician or whoever's doing the examination to think that she may have had that in her system?

[3:29:57] Well, Sophie's case was a little different, I would imagine, because she had such a horrendous, um, r- brain injury. And of course, the, I think that probably, I don't know for sure, but having worked emergency room, the first emphasis would be on making sure that they kept her alive, and that they would do anything possible to stem any further brain damage if there was damage. And it happened so that, you know, sh- uh, she was being abducted, and there was a wreck of the motorcycle, and she was thrown off, and that's how she was injured, and the guy left.

[3:30:31] And so there really, in that case, it would have been up to the emergency room physician to have some reasonable idea. Um, but that's not the usual case. The usual case is that, that they have been, uh, you know, often drinking with friends and that there's, they were in a bar with a bunch of, of other kids. And so there's circumstances around the situations that should give an emergency room physician a hint that there might be drugs involved, that it might be a date rape drugs when they are incapacitated.

[3:31:11] Okay. But my concern is that-

[3:31:13] Okay

[3:31:13] ... going from a reasonable suspicion, it'll go to a every time somebody comes in like that, they're gonna test, no matter what.

[3:31:23] I don't think so because when you do a forensic medical examination, that includes a vaginal exam. And I think they would, they would, sorry, that they would be looking for more evidence of rape or sodomy, which are pretty obvious-

[3:31:39] Right

[3:31:39] ... to a medical person. But what we've said, and not if we make it, if we first had it where it would be everybody, but then I think they would have done it on everybody that was incapacitated, which would be far more than this is c- becoming more prevalent. But in, when you look at the spectrum of patients that are treated in emergency room, it is certainly not the predominant thing that the physicians see. They would be much more likely to see someone incapacitated from an automobile accident than they would be from a date rape drug.

[3:32:20] Uh, but if they were working, and I, I know this is, medicine is not a science, it's an art, and a lot of it is on the physician's ability and what he thinks. But if there is a college in the town or nearby, I would think that if a young woman comes in like Sophie, that that should trigger in the emergency room physician's head that there might be a problem with a date rape drug in, at night or in the evening.

[3:32:52] Um, but there's no guarantee unless we made it for every single case, and that's why we didn't. But what we did do, we said if they do that forensic where they do, uh, the vaginal exam to see if there has been rape or sodomy, that they would be required to do the drug panel because that wouldn't necessarily happen, and that the drug panel would be drawn So that it could be used, you know, uh, for evidence going forward if that's what the person wanted to do.

[3:33:26] If you can figure out some way and suggest something I can, we can do or ...

[3:33:32] Yeah, I understand.

[3:33:33] Okay.

[3:33:33] I, I got some more.

[3:33:35] Okay.

[3:33:35] Representative Oliver.

[3:33:37] Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at line 44, licensed, uh, healthcare may perform a drug when they're ... And then line 47, suspected victim of sexual assault is unconscious. A re ... A reasonable person would include ... I, I believe that gives a standard for a medical practitioner in the ER to make that judgment call. And then I'm looking at line 34, um, where it says, "Shall have a right to a forensic or drug facility." So I think your concern is, is appropriate question, but it seems to me that, um-

[3:34:22] Oh

[3:34:22] ... there is a standard here that's appropriate.

[3:34:25] Are you working off a substitute, Representative Oliver?

[3:34:29] Doesn't look like I am right now.

[3:34:31] It's-

[3:34:31] So is it ... That language still ...

[3:34:34] It's, uh, 481807S-

[3:34:38] Sorry

[3:34:39] ... LLC.

[3:34:41] But the language I'm looking at now is 45, so I think, I think the comments I made are-

[3:34:51] Thank you

[3:34:51] ... still applicable. I hope they are.

[3:34:55] Okay.

[3:34:58] I mean, the ... Oh, man.

[3:35:04] She called an attorney.

[3:35:05] I did. I mean, I know my limits.

[3:35:09] Okay. All right.

[3:35:10] And I, and I respect this committee and the knowledge that it has, and so I did ask for help.

[3:35:15] Okay.

[3:35:17] Will Johnson with the Prosecuting Attorney's Council. Um, I assisted Representative Cooper in helping redraw this last night, so I'm happy to answer any questions from the committee.

[3:35:27] Okay. All right. Got a couple of them showing up over here. Um ... Representative Crawford, is that you or is that Holcomb?

[3:35:35] Think it's me.

[3:35:36] Okay.

[3:35:36] Six?

[3:35:37] Yes.

[3:35:37] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you. Thank you, Sophie, for your testimony. Um, I'd be curious to hear what, what the prosecutors and others think, but I generally think this is a really good idea. I mean, one of the challenges of sexual assault cases are the neurobiology of trauma, where individuals react and they could have either a fight, a fight, um, flight, or freeze. And if there were drugs involved, that would help to explain certain responses and behaviors and, um, I think would generally be constructive and helpful to prosecutors.

[3:36:12] So, uh, do you agree?

[3:36:15] Uh, yes. Anything that allows for evidence collection and retention, especially when it is a he said, she said, and there is very little in the way of understanding consent, someone being drugged clearly goes to consent and being able to prove the case.

[3:36:32] Exactly. All right. Thank you.

[3:36:36] And-

[3:36:36] Okay. Uh, Representative Westbrook.

[3:36:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, uh, Chairman Cooper, for bringing it. And also just want to say thank you to, uh, Ms. Caldwell for, for coming and sharing what had to be an extremely traumatic experience. Um, w- can, and maybe this is for the prosecuting attorney's council, uh, what's the current way that you would get this? Like, how would you get it in the absence? How do we get it now in the absence of this bill?

[3:37:06] Your question's as good as mine.

[3:37:08] Okay.

[3:37:09] Um, I am typically more of a white collar prosecutor. This was more of a phone a friend, so, um-

[3:37:16] Okay

[3:37:16] ... my understanding is probably through a search warrant, wouldn't it? Or consent.

[3:37:22] I think somebody's coming up maybe in a minute, so I'll-

[3:37:25] Is it-

[3:37:25] ... I'll hold that one.

[3:37:26] Are you, are you asking how the doctors would get it?

[3:37:29] No, I'm asking legally how we w- like, what is the legal mechanism that will now be unnecessary because we're doing this implied consent? So I think there's somebody who can speak to that shortly, so I'll just hold. Um, but I guess my concern is I, I do understand this to be very different from how, um, sexual assault nurse examiners operate now. And so I'll just wait for that part of the discussion, 'cause I'd like my concerns about, you know, taking this from someone who's unconscious to be allayed, and perhaps they will be shortly.

[3:38:02] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:38:07] No. W- uh, when somebody goes in the emergency room, the doctor's in the emergency room, and they are incapacitated, unconscious, or, you know, can't answer for some reason, they have the right already to do what they deem necessary to get the information they need, um, medically to find out, you know, what is the matter with that person, and that would include the whole process of the collection.

[3:38:40] I mean, you know, they normally draw blood, and they get a urine specimen. Uh, a lot of the drug testing is from the urine. But if they do feel like that they should do a, um, pelvic exam, they can do it. Or it, it was my understanding they can call the people who normally, the nurses who normally do that to step in to do that part of it. The main thing is w- what I'm, my understanding, and you can get the person, and they probably know more about it than I do, but is that we make sure that if they think and go, and go to that step, that they do do the drug testing and get it tested at that time, uh, so that that be a requirement that it goes hand-in-hand.

[3:39:27] ... with a forensic test.

[3:39:28] You're on.

[3:39:28] Quick follow-up.

[3:39:29] Mm.

[3:39:29] Okay. But those healthcare providers are doing that with, with treatment goals in mind, right?

[3:39:36] Mm-hmm.

[3:39:36] Not preservation of evidence for a future legal proceeding goals.

[3:39:41] That would be correct, yes.

[3:39:42] Right, okay.

[3:39:43] Um, but this would preserve it for law enforcement purposes if that is found in the course of treatment.

[3:39:51] Mm-hmm.

[3:39:52] Thank you.

[3:39:52] Right.

[3:39:54] I mean, I think the other thing that the bill does, I think just like with alcohol and drugs, when we had to pass the 911, you know, call 911, don't run and we won't prosecute you if you stay with somebody because people were being abandoned because young people, especially college students, were afraid that if they were caught doing drugs, it would go on their record. They couldn't get in medical school. They couldn't get in law school. It would hurt them. And so what we did was we gave, you know, and said in that bill if, that if one person would stay with the person that is in serious medical, uh, difficulty, that they would not be prosecuted as long as they weren't the drug dealer.

[3:40:33] And that has saved many, many lives, um, to keep people from abandoning their friends, and that was just sort of like the date rape. Started off slow, but then all of a sudden we were having people left on the side of the road. Uh, one young man was behind a great big house, uh, in what, where they kept the lawnmowers and all, with friends. He s- had seizures for an hour and a half before he died, and then they dumped him on his mother's front yard.

[3:41:03] And so but they were not, who was with him was not known. So we passed that bill. So one of the things that I think is the bigg- one of the biggest parts of the bill is the fact that the young person who is the victim cannot be criminally charged for having, if they were, uh, drinking underage, which our young lady was, uh, because she was at Georgia and not 21 yet, or doing drugs, that we're not going to victimize them again.

[3:41:34] Uh, and then, and the other is it, it's still like the regular law. You just make sure that they do the screening and they keep it, and then the victim can decide, like I understand law, whether to, to go and try to prosecute or not, just like on regular cases.

[3:42:01] Okay. But, um, I guess what's worrying me is the, the victim in the case may appear to be a victim, but had, um, maybe cocaine or something else in their system that gets tested for just because the doctor is just testing everybody. So that c- I guess that's what's concerning me.

[3:42:24] I don't know what you would do about that, Chairman. I mean, how would you... I mean...

[3:42:33] If the doctor orders it and I can get it into evidence, it could be that that individual gets charged with a crime.

[3:42:42] That as well.

[3:42:42] I'm just, I'm speculating. It's just, it's, there's nuances to this that-

[3:42:49] Okay

[3:42:49] ... I don't think y'all are seeing, but I'm, I'm seeing it.

[3:42:51] Well, subsection C does prevent anything from, that would be tested as part of that panel from being used against the victim.

[3:43:01] Okay.

[3:43:03] Yeah.

[3:43:03] So you already got it excluded then.

[3:43:05] Yes, sir.

[3:43:05] Yes.

[3:43:06] That's what I'm saying, that...

[3:43:08] Yes, that, that would be subsection C.

[3:43:10] All right. Uh, Representative Evans.

[3:43:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I appreciate the aim of the bill very much and, and the way I understand it, Chair Lady Cooper, is that if we don't test for the presence of the date rape drug r- right away, I mean, it'll be gone. That's what happened to the very brave young lady that testified.

[3:43:33] Right.

[3:43:33] Um, right, I'm right about that.

[3:43:35] Yes, sir.

[3:43:35] And that's, and by the time she's conscious and can consent, it's gone.

[3:43:39] Right.

[3:43:39] And we want to prevent that evidence from going away. But I do s- I do share the concern of the chairman, and I'm not sure, I think, I don't think it would take a lot for us to work on subsection C, but I think subsection C would, would only keep a victim, or, or some- someone who's, someone who's, was tested for a date rape drug on s- on suspicion, um, a- and then you also find a drug. As long as that person believes that he or she was a victim of sexual assault, and in good faith sought medical assistance for him or herself, they're gonna be excluded.

[3:44:17] Mm-hmm.

[3:44:17] But what if you wake up and you're like, "No, no, no, I never thought I was sexually assaulted," or, "I didn't come in by myself, I was brought in in an ambulance," I think we need to protect those people, too. And so I just think subsection C probably needs to be a little bit broader, and I think we've got some smart minds in here that could probably come up with some language, and I'll... Or there may be some people in the audience that have ideas, but I will work on that right now and see if I can come up with something. But I, that's the, I share the concern of the chairman.

[3:44:43] I-

[3:44:43] Thank you.

[3:44:43] Yeah. And like I said, I'm not an attorney, and there's good minds in here, and-

[3:44:48] Go to it

[3:44:49] ... be glad to take your suggestions.

[3:44:53] Sorry, Ben.

[3:44:55] Go.

[3:44:56] Is that it?

[3:44:57] Yes, sir.

[3:44:57] Okay. I, I g- uh, Mr. Chairman, I sh- kinda share your ca- uh, same concerns with, uh, with the, the, the scenario that you had with the cocaine and it being in their system. But one other thing I was worrying about sitting here was chain of custody, um, how that chain of custody may play out in court. Keeps going off. Um, how it might play out in court and, um, you know, with those issues with the doctor or the, um, nurse practitioner, whoever gets the samples.

[3:45:29] That was my concern.

[3:45:30] Yes, sir. Thank you. All right.

[3:45:34] I don't quite understand

[3:45:36] Robert, you got anything you wanna add?

[3:45:40] Yeah, 'cause I...

[3:45:40] 'Cause maybe I'm overdoing it, but anyway.

[3:45:52] Robert Smith with PAC. I think that your concern is a valid one about the new... Y- basically this is government action compelling, uh, someone who hasn't given consent, haven't, hasn't given actual consent, to give evidence that's harmful to themselves. Anyone wanna stop me real quick about what I'm talking about? Not, not rape, I'm talking about DUI law.

[3:46:16] Mm-hmm.

[3:46:16] Paragraph 16 of the Georgia Constitution says that government can't compel evidence harmful. I would expect that if this, y- this became the law, if a w- woman was, so, you know, y- you receive... I'm trying to be very delicate here and say the right words, so I'm gonna fail. But if a woman who w- who was-

[3:46:37] Right

[3:46:38] ... believed to be a victim, um, had a, one of these examinations done and something came up, you know, alcohol in someone under the age of 21, um, a, you know, controlled substance that they didn't have permission to have, I would see it very hard, and I would believe it would be very difficult for a prosecutor to then with a straight face say, "I'm gonna prosecute somebody who came to a hospital to be taken care of for this." I would hope that we would treat a victim like a victim. And it's something we may have to disclose to the defense as part of our ethical duties, but at the same time, the purpose for this first, while this woman was in the hospital was to receive care because they were, she was unconscious and believed to be a victim of a, of a very serious crime.

[3:47:22] I think whether or not the, she may have some illicit substance in her system, and for all we know, the cocaine might have been the reason why she was incapacitated and then sexually assaulted. So it does tell the story. Ultimately, if we have to disclose that, you know, as, as part of our, what we have to tell the defense, that's part of the, we then have to turn around and file a motion to exclude it, but it might be very much part of the case. So we do need to have this information. And because of how effervescent it is and how quickly it's eliminated, the more information we can have, the stronger case we can have, and if a woman decides to pursue charges, she can get the justice she deserves.

[3:48:03] Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. Vice Chair Reeves.

[3:48:10] Just to give Representative Evans or others, uh, time to draft, one thing I'd like to say, uh, you know, I remember when you presented this bill for, uh, signature, it was those situations when people, uh, uh, have had a date rape drug-

[3:48:25] Right

[3:48:25] ... um, or intoxication or something where they're not in the position to have the implied consent.

[3:48:31] Right.

[3:48:31] And, uh, I applaud that. And, you know, just from, being from Gwinnett County, having a bunch of, uh, kids about to go on spring break, definitely keeping a buddy with you when you're in situations like that. And also, don't let a friend go to the hospital by themself. People need a medical adv- advocate, whether they're-

[3:48:49] True

[3:48:49] ... uh, of, of sound mind and body or not. Anytime you're, you're in need of medical care at a hospital, having a friend or relative there as your advocate by your side is needed. But I appreciate you bringing this to try to do this, and hopefully that gave a little bit more time to get some good language on this.

[3:49:05] Well, thank you. And, unfortunately, in Sophie's case, when the wreck occurred, she was left on the street by herself. There were others. He was trying to pull her back on the motorcycle again, uh, to, you know, get away with her. But, uh, others started... You know, there were people by that time walking on the streets at night in Athens, and interfered and called the ambulance. So, so... And it's just a bad situation.

[3:49:37] Okay.

[3:49:40] All right. Um, Robert, thank you for letting me put you on the spot. Um, any further discussion on this bill? Do I hear a motion?

[3:49:50] Move to pass.

[3:49:52] Do I hear a second?

[3:49:53] Second.

[3:49:54] All right. I hear, got a motion and a second. And I can get this going. All right. Go ahead.

[3:50:01] So I have a proposed amendment on line 53, and thank you to our wonderful legs counsel who came up with some better language than I was working on. Um, the amendment would be to, starting on line 53 with the word "believes" through line 54, "herself", we would delete those lines. So we would delete, "Believes that he or she has been a victim of a sexual assault and in good faith seeks medical assistance for himself or herself." Replace that with, "Has received a forensic medical examination performed pursuant to this code section." And then at the end of line 56, delete, "Seeking such medical assistance," and insert the words, "Such person receiving such an examination."

[3:50:58] Second.

[3:51:00] Can we just read it, read it, read it as it would read?

[3:51:04] Absolutely. So the, the line starting line 53 would read, "Any person who has received a forensic medical examination performed pursuant to this code section shall not be arrested, charged, or prosecuted for any criminal violation if the evidence for the arrest, charge, or prosecution of such violation resulted solely from such person receiving such an examination." So that way, if you, if you get an examination because the medical professionals suspect- you have been assaulted and they wanna test you for this drug, but they find you were on, on other drugs, regardless of how you got there or what you suspect about yourself, you will not be prosecuted if drugs are found in your system that aren't the date rape drug.

[3:51:56] Okay. And again, thank you. That was a team effort to get to that, so.

[3:52:04] Any further discussion on this?

[3:52:08] Amen.

[3:52:08] All right. Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment, say Aye.

[3:52:13] Aye.

[3:52:13] Any opposed? All right, the amendment's on. Any further discussion about the bill? Hearing none, all those... Oops. We got-

[3:52:24] Sorry.

[3:52:24] You're up. You won't?

[3:52:25] Yeah.

[3:52:25] Okay, go ahead.

[3:52:26] Yeah. Well, I'm, I think my issue was never with the part we just amended, um, but I do think it's better now post-amendment. I still have a lot of reservations about the implied consent part of it, which I think is the thrust of this, the premise of the entire bill. So as laudable as I think the goal is, um, I can't support it as given w- you know, h- I'm just not... My concerns about implied consent were never fully allayed, so I just wanna say, you know, big thanks to all who've worked so hard on it.

[3:52:57] But it's, I'm hoping it can be improved after today.

[3:53:01] Okay.

[3:53:02] I-

[3:53:04] All right. Any further... W- would you like to respond to that?

[3:53:06] Oh, I mean, I, it, it, I'll be glad to, to work on it if it moves over to the, you know, if it gets to moving. And they're not taking, uh, uh, they're, uh, in many rules substitutes, so I probably can't change it before then. But I'll get Will to help me, and if, to talk to the people that you wanted him to talk to, and anybody else that would like to help on that. As I said, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm very glad. I almost went to law school, and so I'm very glad I didn't, and that's why I'm glad I have y'all to help perfect these bills-

[3:53:37] Okay

[3:53:37] ... being perfectly honest.

[3:53:40] All right. Any further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, the, um, all those in favor of the bill as amended, say Aye.

[3:53:50] Aye.

[3:53:50] Any opposed?

[3:53:51] No.

[3:53:51] No.

[3:53:53] The Ayes have it.

[3:53:54] Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Yeah.

[3:53:59] Okay.

[3:54:03] I don't see. What happened to him?

[3:54:06] I think he's, he's in multiple meetings.

[3:54:19] Vice Chair Reeves, you have House Bill 1414.

[3:54:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Vic, Vic Singh, who was gonna speak to this bill, I believe, had a scheduling conflict, but House Bill 1414 is the Series LLC bill. Uh, the State of Texas, State of Delaware have had this on the books for quite some time. It's my understanding Florida and some other states, uh, have enacted it recently or looking at it now. But what this does right now, in Georgia, you can have multiple LLCs for various businesses you have in Georgia.

[3:54:56] However, um, you have to do the data entry, uh, for instance, if you move your address. Uh, and also, as you renew, there's a one-click feature, but you've still gotta punch in your credit card information for each LLC. Also, the State of Georgia regulators, um, and others, they have no knowledge of which LLCs are related. Uh, CT Corporation, uh, CSC, uh, Corporation Service, and others, they have many LLCs, uh, that they serve as registered agent on, and there's really no way to tell which ones are related.

[3:55:30] For, um, reasons that accountants and, um, others have, uh, there's a benefit if you have, uh, one person related to multiple LLCs being able to say, "These LLCs are related. These are my LLCs." For instance, when they go to pay their Department of Revenue bill or set up a Department of Labor account, showing that you have a precedent and a track record with a particular related company and taxpayer ID number, things like that, there are many benefits in addition to transparency.

[3:56:03] So this, uh, Series LLC bill brings that efficiency. Uh, we literally had, uh, a gentleman who has multiple LLCs have a CPA advise him to, uh, switch his LLCs to another state where they could do the Series LLC. And, uh, we wanna have entrepreneurs in Georgia stay here, stay domiciled here. As I looked at the insurance committee, things like the premium tax, there are some things that could chase insurance companies to other states. We wanna make sure that LLC owners have every incentive to have their LLCs remain here in Georgia.

[3:56:36] So, uh, this, this bill was largely modeled on the Texas and Delaware statutes. We did make it as efficient as, as possible, uh, to get this, uh, idea started. We had put the word out last week to the state bar's, uh, corporate law section. Uh, we have not yet gotten revisions, uh, from anybody there. But I will keep the door open, um, if the committee sees fit to moving this along. But, uh, again, this is something that's working well in other states, and we wanna keep Georgia the number one place to do business and keep entrepreneurs domiciled and paying taxes and registered and transparent here in Georgia, and that's what this bill does.

[3:57:15] Okay. Um, uh, Chairman Silcox.

[3:57:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the point of the bill is t- is really transparency.

[3:57:23] That-

[3:57:23] Is to show a track record when you register that you can register a series at one time.

[3:57:30] That is one benefit of it, but really the benefit of, uh, Series LLC is ease of compliance with the Secretary of State if you have a large number of LLCs. That's- So maybe you could click one button and register all of them at one time. That's- Okay ... that's right. Exactly. Okay, great. Thanks.

[3:57:50] But we don't have any fear of, um, you know, where you get a series, somebody's trying to hide something.

[3:57:59] This would make it less likely, uh, for that to happen. Right now, there's nothing that says, "Hey, these LLCs are related in Georgia." This would provide a mechanism to say, "These LLCs are related," whereas right now it's just, uh, uh, totally under the, un- you know, unknown. This would make it known. Like if childcare centers, that's one of the, the businesses. So if somebody has a dozen daycares and one of them has a regulatory problem, the state would know to go look at the other ones.

[3:58:29] So this would make it more transparent and, um, have a little bit, uh, more knowledge of entities that are related.

[3:58:37] Okay. So we're not creating a problem for law enforcement with a series of LLCs?

[3:58:42] No, and then in fact, it would provide a way for law enforcement to investigate more easily.

[3:58:48] Okay. All right. Anything further? Any other discussion on this from the committee?

[3:58:57] What's the will of the committee?

[3:58:58] Move to pass.

[3:58:59] Second.

[3:59:00] All right, got a motion and a second. All those in favor say, "I."

[3:59:04] I.

[3:59:04] I.

[3:59:04] Uh, all those opposed say, "I." All right, bill passes. All right. Now that brings us to 1343.

[3:59:27] Representative Carter, um, you're gonna have about 20 minutes.

[3:59:31] Okay.

[3:59:32] Okay? So just to let you know.

[3:59:38] Thank you.

[3:59:39] Yeah. Okay.

[3:59:40] Steve, is this all right with the chairman? Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, I'd like to ask for just a quick-

[3:59:44] Sure

[3:59:44] ... guidance.

[3:59:44] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[3:59:48] Well, that was unattended. Sorry about that.

[3:59:52] It's okay.

[3:59:53] Afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

[3:59:54] Good afternoon. How are you?

[3:59:56] Uh, always a pleasure to be back before the, as Chairman Willard used to say, mighty Judiciary Committee.

[4:00:02] Yes,

[4:00:05] that's... Go ahead.

[4:00:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a great honor to be here with y'all today. Um, we're here to, uh, to talk about House Bill 1343. Uh, the bill that you originally received was LC number 481754, but there's a substitute bill which is LC481808s.

[4:00:30] Okay. That's being handed out now, so go ahead.

[4:00:34] Great. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This bill is a direct result of a summer, of a study committee this summer that the speaker, uh, empowered, uh, the accessibility and affordability of legitimation in the State of Georgia. As some of you, and probably most of you, are aware, the process in Georgia is a little bit clunky, and, um, to, to say the least. Right now, uh, there are about 125,000 children born each year in Georgia. About 46% of those are out of wedlock.

[4:01:07] Um, so you'll- over 50,000 children born out of wedlock. There are about 10% of those that are, um, uh, where there are actually petitions filed with the courts for legitimation. There's a lot of confusion around the process in Georgia. I've heard countless stories of people that say, "Well, I was at the hospital. I've been very involved since the beginning. Uh, I signed the birth certificate. I've got a nine-year-old and an 11-year-old, or a 13-year-old, and, and I've, now that things have gone south in our relationship, I'm finding out that I have no legal rights as a father." Um, I've heard many stories like that, and as you can imagine, all shapes and sizes of stories when it comes to family law.

[4:01:53] Um, the... Many states have already sort of addressed these issues. Uh, states like Florida passed the, the Good Dad Act, uh, in 2024. Alabama passed their version in 2025. After many, many, many conversations and lots of feedback and around, around the state from Augusta to Atlanta to Columbus, and many, many, many people testifying, we, we ultimately landed on we want to try to come up with a, an incremental step in the right direction, but without overreaching.

[4:02:32] Um, we've got, there's a lot of pushback on whenever this legislation comes up, and it has come up over the years, different committees, different bills introduced. Um, and, and so we've tried to learn from, from what has caused things to stop before. We tried to come up with a very elegant, very simple approach to this. And what we did...

[4:03:01] And of course, I misplaced my notes now that we're here to talk. Of course. Um, so what, what our goals in the committee were, were to make certain that parents are getting informed at the time of birth. You know, when you're actually at the hospital or the birthing center, you're getting well-informed about the process, uh, of filing for legitimation, w- uh, primarily when a mother and father are in agreement, ideally at the time of birth, but for a period of up to six months Uh, with regard to proposed legislation to create a streamlined legitimation process in Georgia, we wanted to introduce legislation to first create sort of standardized forms that could be used across the state.

[4:03:43] Whether you're in Savannah or you're in Atlanta, the forms look the same. If you were to go to the Department of Revenue in the state of Florida, it's very intuitive. It's right there. Here are the forms that you need to, to file a petition for legitimation and voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. We wanted to create standardized educational materials to be made available to hospitals and birthing centers. Both the forms and the educational materials will be created by DHS with their help, and we, uh, part of the reason that Ms.

[4:04:14] Quick is with us today. What we're not trying to do is change the existing legitimation process. What we are trying to do is bring an additional, uh, alternative to, to f- fathers and mothers when they are both in agreement that this is the father, this is the mother, and we acknowledge that he's the father. We want to bring a streamlined process to bear. So this is only for uncontested cases of legitimation, where they'll be able to simply create a legitimation petition form, which would be witnessed and notarized, and a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity form, which is also witnessed and notarized, and also must provide a DNA test to prove that he is the biological father.

[4:05:04] In return, the courts or DHS would provide an expedited review of the petition within two months. So all we're trying to do, we're, we're not trying to go too far in one fell swoop. We're just trying to make a streamlined approach. What we heard over and over, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen, is, "I didn't even know what legitimation meant. I had no idea. I signed a birth certificate, and then I f- later found out that, you know, I have no legal rights whatsoever as the father." There are many, many things that can go wrong with that.

[4:05:39] You know, other states simply say, "Here, sign this form as a voluntary acknowledgement," and, uh, and 50, f- uh, you know, all rights are conferred to the father that exist with the mother. Um, we thought that was an interesting approach, but, but created some challenges as well. We thought if, if you have a contested situation between a mother and a father, we have a process for that. The current legitimation process, it goes to the courts, and the courts will determine the best path forward.

[4:06:12] But when you have a mother and a father that are both in agreement, it's absolute uncontested, and a father's willing to submit to a paternity test, we said, "Let's make it easy on them. Let's don't make them go find a family practice lawyer. Let's don't make them have to serve the, the, the mother," which can be intimidating and, and a, and f- and frankly a disincentive for a lot of reasons. "Let's just make it simple. They're both in agreement. Here's a paternity test, and let's make it easy on them." W- we really had a, a little bit of a question, and, and I've actually got a, a alternative substitute here.

[4:06:49] We said, "With the streamlined process, with these consistent forms, with a biological, w- with proof of that you are the biological father, let's make it simple. Make it a streamlined process." The question was, do we want, want it to go through DHS and have them essentially acknowledge this? Or do we want them to simply be the, the conduit for it to go to the clerk of the court in the county where the mother resides and have the superior court do an expedited approval?

[4:07:21] And I've talked to many, many judges and, and, and, uh, I think that that's, that's also a good solution, and I certainly look forward to good feedback from this committee on just that. Um, a lot of the pushback that we did get very late in the process. It's interesting how people become a little more animated about these things in the 14th hour, even though we've been working on this for almost a year. Um, and yet everybody showed up yesterday. Um, but- ... we think it's an elegant, simple solution. It's almost, I, I would say almost unassailable.

[4:07:54] We're not trying to, to convey 50/50 visitation or, and any of those things. We're simply trying to streamline the process a little bit, which is good for everyone. It's good for the mother. When, when the father passes away, she doesn't have to think, "Oh, gosh, uh, now availability, access to those benefits," all those things. Anyway, I've talked enough, Your Honor. I think you get the... Uh, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think you get the idea.

[4:08:18] We're, we're running out of time. All right. Vice Chair Reeves?

[4:08:20] Mr. Chairman, can I ask him a series of quick questions?

[4:08:23] Sure.

[4:08:23] All right. Um, Representative Reese could not be at the Capitol today. What percentage of the time do you think on this bill was him versus you? Did he invest a lot of time in it as well?

[4:08:33] He wa- uh, uh, our Vice Chairman, uh, Reese, was absolutely involved every step of the way with me. It's an absolute bipartisan effort, and he was, he was simply invaluable to the effort. In fact, the idea for the study committee was his.

[4:08:49] I remember you said 46% of children born in Georgia are born out of wedlock. How many births are there? Did you give that statistic?

[4:08:58] I did. A hun- about 125,000 births a year.

[4:09:00] Total. So we're talking about 60,000, 50 to 60,000. Uh, of those 50 to 60,000 kids per year born out of wedlock, what percentage did your committee learn, uh, are the subject of a legitimation or a paternity action?

[4:09:17] About 10%.

[4:09:18] Or less?

[4:09:19] Or less.

[4:09:19] Okay. Um, uh, I like the multiple choice approach. Uh, tell us what, uh, 07 does and what 08 does in terms of, uh, the substitute you brought with you. What's the difference between them?

[4:09:35] Um-

[4:09:36] Oh, you have another one?

[4:09:36] Oh.

[4:09:37] There's another, there's another one.

[4:09:40] 13.9?

[4:09:42] Actually, I'm sorry, I got the wrong bill. Uh, so 1343-1808S. That's one substitute, right?

[4:09:49] That, that's correct.

[4:09:50] All right. So you've got the original bill in our folder before us, and then you've got 1808. What does this substitute do differently than the, the original bill?

[4:10:00] Right.

[4:10:01] Are we getting another?

[4:10:01] No, I think he's saying there, there's another substitute your not looking at.

[4:10:04] Okay. That's correct.

[4:10:05] All right.

[4:10:05] So, so both of these attempted to take the original, the bill that's in your folder-

[4:10:10] Okay

[4:10:10] ... 1754, and to really clarify that this is only for a, a voluntary petition with the, you know, with the consent of the mother. I think that it was not clear enough in the original bill that was in your folder. So we really went back to legislative council and said, "We will make this crystal clear." The legitimation process we have now is f- it works for these contested situ- situations. We're only talking about uncontested situations here. But we wanted to really clarify that in this language, whi- which we've done.

[4:10:42] So now you've got two different versions.

[4:10:44] Okay.

[4:10:44] One says, uh, they're almost identical.

[4:10:47] Okay.

[4:10:47] One says it goes to DHS, and DHS is the, i-

[4:10:51] Which one is that?

[4:10:52] Uh, that's 1808S.

[4:10:54] All right. Okay.

[4:10:55] Yeah.

[4:10:55] 1808 DHS. 1809, the one we're getting right now, what does that do?

[4:10:59] 1809 says it goes, uh, from DHS, the forms that they prepare, that mark, uh, the, the educational materials, et cetera. But the forms go from DHS to the clerk of court in the county where the mother resides, and then the superior court will provide the expedited, uh, response.

[4:11:20] Final question. Uh, DFCS has special assistant attorney generals who pursue child support enforcement, right?

[4:11:27] Yes, sir.

[4:11:28] If they know who the dad is, right?

[4:11:30] Yes, sir.

[4:11:30] So is this one more way for those 90% or more of kids born out of wedlock that the State of Georgia can pursue child support for those children?

[4:11:40] Yeah. Yes, sir, it is. As stated in the bill, that, that's exactly correct.

[4:11:44] All right.

[4:11:46] Representative Oliver.

[4:11:47] Mr. Chairman, I just need some direction from you, because I know the timing is critical. Are there people signed up to testify against this bill?

[4:11:55] We have, uh, three at least.

[4:11:58] Um, I, I cannot remember the details of the history of experiment of an administrative legitimation. We passed that and then we appealed that. And what you're talking about, in my mind, overlaps with that experiment that failed. Um, and it failed for reasons that I'm trying to remember. But somebody within the sound of my voice knows that history and how it's relevant to this. But Mr. Chairman, I'm really concerned about our timing, and I ask for direction.

[4:12:30] Okay. Um, let's... There's a couple more comments. I want to get those and then we'll, uh, we'll figure out what to do from there.

[4:12:37] Thank you.

[4:12:37] All right. Thank you. Uh, Representative... Chairman Jones. Excuse me.

[4:12:43] Thank you, Judge. Representative Barrett, I'm just trying to get clear 09 and 08, if that's okay. What I'm hearing you say is th- these are both around effectively uncontested process. And are you saying 09 has a, I'll say, sleeker, more efficient way than 08? No, you're... Mary Mar- uh, pardon me, Representative Oliver's nodding no. So c- can... I want to know which... What, what would help me is what lines on 09 were changed so that it became more efficient than 08?

[4:13:18] Uh, yeah, 08, 08 and 09 look almost the same. The one difference between the two is who's, who is, uh, granting the legitimation? Is it DHS or is it the superior court? Uh, some people had recommended that we make it easier on the courts and less of a burden on the courts. Uh, personally, I'd, I like the idea of it, y- the courts remain very much involved. We're just simply providing the forms. We're providing the DNA test through DHS to the clerk of court, and the superior court in turn gives an expedited review of the process.

[4:13:54] It eliminates the need for, uh, uh, a parent, a father to go out and find an attorney. A- a- if he has those forms right there at the hospital, if he submits to a, a, a DNA test right then-

[4:14:09] Right

[4:14:09] ... think how much easier life gets. It doesn't convey any of those other issues, custody, visitation, those things. That's for the superior court to decide. But it does establish him as the legal father. But, but it's just a question, is it DHS that's putting the stamp on it or is it the superior court? I personally felt the superior court, but I was strongly encouraged to make it less burdensome.

[4:14:30] Go ahead.

[4:14:31] Thank you, Representative Barrett. And maybe you might want to phone a friend to the jud- or the former judge to your left. If you could just direct me to the line number that makes that distinction, um, it would be really helpful.

[4:14:44] Yes, sir.

[4:14:45] Representative, I have not even seen these two substitutes, so I can't assist you.

[4:14:50] Or maybe legislative counsel could phone a friend or...

[4:14:54] I'll phone myself, Judge. It appears-

[4:14:57] Phone your friend.

[4:14:57] Yeah. It appears, uh, lines, it's, this is gonna be subparagraph C. In version 1808S, it's line 73. In version 1809S, it is line 72. 1808 refers to a petition to DHS. 1809 refers to a petition to superior court.

[4:15:20] Thank you.

[4:15:23] Representative Hong.

[4:15:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, my fir- my first question is what legal status and rights do you intend, um, for a father to get through this process if this were approved?

[4:15:37] The father will be recognized as the legal father of the child. All, that's, that's what happens here. It just makes it a streamlined process when both parents are in agreement, and they're backing it up with a paternity, uh, with a, with a DNA test. That's it. It does not presume to convey additional rights, uh, because every situation is unique and... But it, but it does put... And, and the language is even in here. It puts him in the queue.

[4:16:08] If he wants to pursue those rights, he has to go through legitimation to, to even begin the conversation on custody, visitation, all those things. This just makes it, uh, just makes it a little bit more efficient. When... We know that if we do a better job of educating, uh, fathers and mothers at birth in the hospital, that they're more likely to go through this process. It's a problem that only, that fewer than 10%, or less than 10% of the, of the, the people who have children out of wedlock are actually filing for legitimation.

[4:16:40] We want to make them more well-informed. We want to give them forms to make it easier right there at the hospital if they wanna avail themselves of it. And we wanna, uh, prevent the need for them to go out and find a lawyer, and then go serve the mother when they're both ready, willing, and able right there in the hospital.

[4:16:58] Okay. Would they need to get a lawyer and serve the mother if they wanted to achieve any rights? Is that the distinction?

[4:17:06] Yes.

[4:17:07] Okay. All, all right. Thank you.

[4:17:11] Thus far.

[4:17:11] All right. Let me... I... Um, in your folders there's a letter from, uh-

[4:17:17] In here

[4:17:17] ... Justin Almanza from Richmond Hill, Georgia. You may wanna read through that, um, while I got time, and it's 2:00 now, so I don't have much time. Uh, is there a Meg Murray?

[4:17:34] I am.

[4:17:34] Come on up, please.

[4:17:35] Oh, this is gonna take a long time.

[4:17:37] Well, I, I don't have a long time.

[4:17:39] All right.

[4:17:39] So...

[4:17:40] Well then, I'll, I'll tell you what we, we recommend.

[4:17:44] Okay.

[4:17:44] 'Cause I... First off, I'm-

[4:17:46] Te- tell us who you are and who you represent.

[4:17:48] All right. My name is Meg Murray. I live in Forsyth County. I represent-

[4:17:51] All right. I need you to get into that microphone 'cause the people that are listening to this-

[4:17:54] Okay

[4:17:54] ... can't hear you.

[4:17:55] My name is Meg Murray. I live in Forsyth County. I'm a board member of Equally Present Inc. We are a non-profit that advocates for equal and full involvement of both parents in children's lives from their birth. And one of the things that I understand from the bill and from, I know, uh, Representative Barrett, and I... So, you know, I'm not making any kind of attacks, but what I... Clear, clear to me is that the, you don't understand the process, that the state does not understand the process any more than the dads do.

[4:18:26] So right now in the state of Georgia, and I had a whole thing prepared, but I probably don't have time to read it. In the state of Georgia right now, when an unwed father has a child... Hmm, I'm gonna preface this with one thing that's really, really important. I am a professor of computer science. I deal with men in the ages of 20 to 40 are child-bearing men. And this is the statement. I'm gonna start here, and I'm gonna make this statement real clear. Men are parents, too. So when I deal with these men, and there's a lot of women, too, they tell me, "We're not getting married.

[4:19:01] Divorce has too many risks." And women tell me, "There's too many restraints." So we're not gonna change our birth rate. We don't have a high legitimation rate because most of the men I work with have no idea that they needed legitimation. That happened in my own son's case. So what happens in the state, you, you're living with the woman, you have a child together. You wanna have a traditional family. You just don't wanna get married. You go to the hospital. You have the child. You sign the birth certificate. You're on the birth certificate, and you think, "I'm a dad." In this state, we're the only state that still does this, in this state, that is not true.

[4:19:38] When you establish paternity in this state, then you have to go and you have to establish legitimation before. When you say you get rights, you become the legal father, but you have no rights. You have no custody rights. You don't get the right to see your child. You have no rights to see their medical records or to provide any parenting to that child. So what... And so what happens is that a lot of these dads, they don't realize that. So in my son's particular case, they, he lived with the mother and everything.

[4:20:09] After three years, she found somebody that had a little more money than he did. She walks out and says to him, "Ha ha, you abandoned your rights 'cause there's an abandonment law here. You're not gonna see your child anymore." And you, then you have to go through the courts. But that, that's... I, I won't get into my son's case. But what I wanna mention here is the, what we as Equally Present would ask is that when paternity is established, a father is automatically given rights as it's done in all 49 other states without having to go through this legitimation process.

[4:20:42] In this state, when a mother has a child, you give her and you make her a parent, and, uh, the, the rule is, is that you know she's the mother until we had surrogacy, right? She was the mother. So she biologically has a connection. She's now the mother. When the father gets genetic testing and you now can biologically prove that he's the father, we believe that he should then be given the same, be c- be considered legal parent just as the mother. That doesn't change the way the s- pa- does custody now.

[4:21:13] It just eliminates the legitimation phase. Right? I'm not gonna get into the DHS process 'cause it's changed.

[4:21:20] And what, what you're asking is that it would do away with the presumption in, in case she's married to somebody, a- and the father, the biological father, is determined to be someone else.

[4:21:31] Well, I'm not gonna ask for that. I know Mr. Outman was gonna ask for that. But let me, let me tell you what this bill does so that you can look at it and see. In this bill, this bill changes the definition of legal father under Title Okay, you guys gotta help me. 15, juvenile court. So in juvenile court, if you have a juvenile court action as a dad, you go there, you establish paternity, you get legal rights. You can go straight to custody now.

[4:22:02] If you are a dad who does not have a child with a juvenile action, you have to establish paternity, and you have to go get legitimation, and then you can file for custody. So what we were wondering, and why, 'cause it seems a little peculiar, I'm not an attorney, but it seems peculiar that you would define legal father differently in different places, and it makes it very confusing. So what we were hoping to ask for was that we can consider the, uh, legitimation as a process that we don't really even need in the state anymore, and that upon establishment of paternity, you would be recognized as a legal father, and then you would go right to the custody.

[4:22:46] And the one thing I don't think you understand, Representative Barrett, right now, this, this streamline, quote, "streamline process" is not a streamline process. It actually extends the process, right? Because you, you're extending the timeframe. If you are a dad and you know about legitimation at the hospital, you can file that day to the courts and ask for legitimation. But the state changed in 2016 when they changed the, the rule.

[4:23:18] They changed it so when you file for legitimation, you also file for custody. So you see, I'm now filing in the courts one time. So I only need to hire that lawyer one time. I'm hiring him for custody and legitimation. So this way, maybe I don't have to hire a lawyer to go through the legitimation process, but I'm still gonna have to hire that lawyer. And with the timeline that was, was added to that, that means you now have to have the timeline to get the legitimation paperwork through before you can go. If you go right to court, and you get a temporary hearing, which I think most judges do fairly quickly, you go there, you get legitimation, you get temporary hearing, you can get that within a month, six weeks.

[4:24:01] With this process, you've gotta wait till it goes through DHS, and it gets all the way to the court, and as long as we don't, we would never support DHS determining whether you could get legitimation or not. We saw a lot of legal problems with that. But th- but that way, now you've gotta wait till DHS acts, gets it to the court, the clerk of the court, and I don't know, I live in Cobb Count- or my case, son's case was in Cobb County. I need to say no more about clerks. And then, uh, you know, then you have to wait, and then you can get on the court calendar. I'm better off if I walk out of that hospital and file right there and get on the court calendar.

[4:24:32] I hope I'm making myself clear. So again, the two things we see really, uh, critically need to be addressed in this bill is, one, establishment of paternity, does that, as it does in the, for now in this bill for the juvenile court, why would that not extend to both Title 19, which is custody, and then Mr. Outman was gonna talk about, I believe it's adoption.

[4:25:03] Why would that not follow all the way through? We would also like to ask that the whole process of legitimation be considered as a process that would not be mandatory. My understanding when my son went through this was that he had to be legitimized so that his daughter could inherit from him. Mr. Outman tells me that this state changed all of those inheritance laws, and so that when you establish paternity, you can now inherit from your child. So anyway, that's, that was our position, and that's what we were hoping.

[4:25:36] We figured if you wanna streamline the process, maybe we consider that legitimation may no longer be even necessary given especially the fact that inheritance is now automatic on paternity.

[4:26:06] It's okay. I'll just speak to your questions.

[4:26:08] All right, ladies and gentlemen, um, we're gonna break at this point and come back in the morning. Um, I think I'm free at 8:00, so we'll, we'll see everybody at 8:00.

[4:26:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[4:26:22] Not gonna be able to get to the rest of this today. Thank you for the information you gave us. Um, I think that was very helpful, and we'll just take this bill up in the morning.

[4:26:33] Thank you.

[4:26:34] 8:00.

[4:26:35] 8:00.

[4:26:41] Yep.