2025-04-08 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary

SPEAKER1 - Inaugural judiciary committee meeting for this term. My name is Michael Day. I am, pleased to be back as the chair, and welcome my new co chair and friend, Senator Lydia Edwards, to the co chair, House of Payne here. I'm very pleased to be chairing today's, hearing. As As you'll see as we get going this term, we'll handle hearings a little differently, going forward, given some of the rules changes that have been adopted, and hopefully will be adopted, jointly, but certainly by the respective chambers here. Let me begin by making sure everyone in the public knows who's with us today. Down the far right is, ranking member, representative81 Berthiaume. Beside him83 is senator Miranda. Beside senator Miranda, senator, representative Mendez. And we've got representative89 Ramos, representative Kilcoyne, Christiana Golden, who's with, chair Edward's office, myself, down my far left, representative Mokley. I've got representative Higgins and our vice chair, representative Fluger Reid. To my left is, Judiciary Committee General Counsel Alex O'Connell. I also wanna point out down the far end is the research director Talia Quinn. With that, I wanna get into just a a few ground rules to make sure that we're all remembering, if you've been here before, what we do. To ensure everyone who's, registered has a chance to speak, we limit testimony today to 3 minutes per individual. Individuals are welcome to speak once per hearing. If you've got more than 1 bill to cover, you can do so within 3 minutes.
We're gonna prioritize testimony, of those testifying in person. So those who are here today, when we call that bill, we'll be looking to those who are here in person to testify first, and then we'll go to the virtual, online folks. Today, we're cover covering 29 legislative proposals, including constitutional amendments. Summaries for154 each bill are located on masslegislature.gov.156 Committee, is required to report on all matters seeking to amend the constitution by April 30 of this this year. On house bills, the committee must report bills considered during this hearing by June 7, subject to house rule 27. We've got about 45 individuals total signed up to speak today, so I ask you to take this into consideration when it's your turn to come up. We wanna be considerate so that every person has an opportunity to testify and share their stories with us. We ask anyone watching or waiting to testify to please be respectful, refrain from use of cell phones, and pages to the extent that people still have pages. Please silence those. We also reserve197 the right to remove anyone from the hearing room who's causing199 disruptions. This hearing, I don't expect too much of it, but we will have some sensitive hearings going forward. And so signs, and any sort of disruptions will not be tolerated. It's a attempt to intimidate others who may not share your point of view, and we will not be allowing that, here in this committee. No person may read testimony on behalf of somebody else, but the commit the committee will accept written testimony for as long as that bill is before226 the committee. Anyone wishing to submit written testimony by mail may do so by sending a letter to the joint committee on the judiciary at 24 Beacon Street, Room 136, Boston, Mass 02133. On house bills, you may email Talia Quinn at talia, t a l I a, dot q u I n n at m a house dot gov. And on249 senate bills, to Grace Giordina, which is g r a c e dot g I o r d I n a at mass senate dot gov. All written testimony received260 by the committee will be made publicly available, provided, however, the chairs, senator Edwards, and I may limit and redact testimony that includes sensitive personal information or information we believe may jeopardize the health, wellness, or safety of the testifier or others. To that end, if you are recording on your own device, I know that we're recording here on malegislature.gov, please alert Talia Quinn now. There may be testimony that is of a highly sensitive nature, that the chair and I will not be allowed to be recorded if the safety of, individuals are imperiled by that testimony. So if you are recording on your own, please let Talia Quinn know. We'll be calling the, testifying based on bill number298 in your name as written on the registration form. If you signed up for multiple bills, you'll be called on the first bill you listed as your primary bill on the registration form. This will become easy to understand as we get into the hearing, and as we have more hearings. But welcome everyone, here. And with that, we'll kick it off, with representative Kim Ferguson, Kimberly Ferguson, who's here to testify on h 16 86 s 1 2 5 4, a resolve creating a commission to study the int in intentional misrepresentation of service animals. Welcome, Adam Leader.
SPEAKER2 - Good afternoon, chair Day and chair Edwards, and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here, back at it and be part of your first committee hearing. I look that as a very good sign. I do have some special guests with me who you will be hearing from later on. But, yes, I am here to testify on behalf of H 1686, an act relative to a commission to study the intentional misrepresentation of a service animal. A bill I have filed again this session, and I'm very happy to be joined this session by, representative Kilcoyne who has been a long advocate and supporter of this initiative. So she has co filed it with me this session. Being brief, again, I'd like to thank the members for their past support. We were very proud that the bill passed unanimously in the house last session, so we view that as a very positive step in a much needed start in getting a effective service dog bill on the books in Massachusetts and signed into law. There are many reasons why we need this. We need to join at least 27 other states who have done this already, and we just feel that the time is now. We've had enough examples, enough stories. You'll hear testimony. There is also testimony being submitted by folks about what this means to them and why it's so important. Lastly, I'm just gonna share 1 quick thing 1 quick story with you, and it was by pure coincidence. Just this weekend, my husband and I were at a local establishment watching the men's basketball tournament on Saturday. And, quickly, I realized there441 was a a dog wearing a red vest, a small dog that was sitting on someone's lap. This just happened Saturday. And, she was playing with the dog. The dog had a a poorly marked vest that did say service dog on it. 3 times, that dog aggressed on someone walking by. Did not make contact, did not actually bite. 1 was a server that bent down to actually just refill the woman's water glass, and the dog aggressed. And the last person that came up
SPEAKER3 - that wanted to pet the dog, which we know and
SPEAKER2 - all of you know because pet the dog, which we know and all of you know
SPEAKER3 - because you've been so
479 SPEAKER2479 -479 exposed479 to service dogs here in the building, you know, asking to pet a dog, a service dog, is something that we487 must do because they're supposed to be working with their companion and they're working. And a mother walked up with her young child, and the child was at face level with this496 dog and asked if she could498 pet the dog. And I was holding my breath, and the person very wisely502 said, no, please don't, and504 picked up the dog and showed her the bow in the dog's hair and fluffed the dog and did all this508 other stuff. And it was just very inappropriate.510 And the poor dog, I could tell, was very stressed. That to me is a perfect example, a timely example of why we need this commission and why we need to get a law on the books. I'll wrap it up by saying on my way out, I did ask to speak to a supervisor that was there, and they said that they were aware of the problem. They were thankful the dog didn't bite anyone, and that
SPEAKER3 - there was nothing they could do. They were afraid that
SPEAKER2 - they'd end up on Facebook or in social media.
Nothing they could do. They were afraid that they'd end up on Facebook or in social media. So again, thank you539 so much. I really appreciate the time and the support, and I look forward to a favorable report so we can get this bill onto the House and Senate. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, representative. Any549 questions from, members of the committee?
Seeing none. Thanks very much. I also wanna555 recognize, representative Sullivan Almeida, has joined as well. Welcome.
I see, Senator Lovely here. Did you wanna testify on566 the bill?
SPEAKER4 - Mister chairman, madam chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you for taking me out of order. I will be brief. I'm here to testify. Thank you for taking me out of order. I will be brief. I'm here to testify on behalf of senate number 11 68, house number 16 49, an act concerning furnishing transcripts of notes and fees. It's regarding the court589 transcribers who play an important role in our criminal justice system. These approved court transcribers have595 passed a tough selection process confirming their education and job experience, and599 have shown their ability to produce quality transcripts601 that accurately reflect603 the record of the court. And the reason why we are here today is because the cost per page to produce, these transcripts is $3 per page, which was set in 1988. It has not moved since that time. If, if we had, applied the cost of inflation, it would be $8 a page today in 2025. But the request is for 4626 dollars and 50 cents per page. There are some transcribers here630 that will be testifying from the district. I'm grateful for their work that they continue to do this at a discount rate. Also I believe this is the eighth, session that the bill has been filed, but it just hasn't made it across the finish line. I would appreciate the committee's, consideration of the bill. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, senator. Any questions from Yeah. Of course.
SPEAKER5 - Just for my education. The who's paying that fee? The people requesting the people in the depositions?
SPEAKER4 - The lawyers? Lawyers? Yes. It depends on who is is requesting it. Of course if a if a judge requests a copy of the transcript, it would be the Commonwealth, but it's it's typically is the, you know, attorneys in the cases. No. And they they
SPEAKER6 - pay for them. And a lot of
SPEAKER5 - these transcribers are independent contractors. This this funding goes direct to them. I'm sorry. What was the question? A676 lot of the transcribers are independent contractors or small businesses.
SPEAKER7 - Is this why?
SPEAKER4 - They used to be employees of the court, but they were all laid off in, I believe, 2018 and became independent contractors.
SPEAKER8 - So that they were actually employed by the court. But through through, budget cuts, they were all lectured. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much, Senator.
SPEAKER9 - Thank you.
SPEAKER10 - Appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - We get on the sign up list, Representative Gentile, here to testify on h 17 23 s 11 93, enact removing the charitable immunity cap. Welcome, rep.
SPEAKER11 - Well, thank you. Thank you, mister chairman, chairman Day, and and chair Edwards. Pleasure to be with you today. This is a bill that I filed previously and and,
this would728 enrich the lives of our constituents who find themselves the victim of a tortious injury. If they get hit by an Amazon truck and become a quadriplegic, be assured that Amazon will be paying many millions of dollars to look after them for the rest of their lives.
I'm get $20,000. Well, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. If they if they get hit by a, Harvard University truck, Harvard University truck with a $50,000,000,000 endowment, they're not going to get squashed. And that's because we have a charitable immunity, cap of $20,000 for most tort tortious injuries, a hundred thousand dollars for malpractice cases. We're an outlier. We are an outlier. We we have there are only 2785 other states in The United States that have caps that that that limit, charitable that have charitable immunity caps. 1 is, South Carolina, which caps judgments at $250,000 The other is Maryland, which caps judgments at a hundred thousand dollars The vast majority of states have no cap at all. For example, New York State abolished their charitable immunity cap in 1958, and California abolished their camp in 1951. So and and the insurance companies are819 laughing all the way to the bank because they're getting their policies paid by our charities. Be assured that Children's Hospital and, and our other nonprofit hospitals pay huge policy liability policies, and the insurance companies don't have to pay. They don't have to pay. So this bill would would, allow residents of the Commonwealth who were who suffer, substantial injury to be compensated for someone else's negligence when that when853 that negligent actor is a nonprofit. Today they're not compensated. So what happens? They go on Medicaid and the taxpayers pay. And Medicaid doesn't really have can't really provide all that that, they would be able868 to get if they were purchasing that, that care themselves. So, I've been before you to on on previous sessions. I'm hoping that we can get this through this session so that we, cease to be an outlier in The United States. And, when when our nonprofits pay for insurance, those insurance companies will actually pay out the benefits that they should. And thank you very much. And I have I know I have, 1 of my constituents, Jim Ehler, who's testifying later on this bill. He was Perfect. Good enough to give you all the, alarm in the other 49 states.
SPEAKER1 - Terrific. Hang on 1 sec. Yeah. Thank you. Oh, yes. Any questions from members of the panel? Seeing none? Thanks, Rep.
SPEAKER11 - Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER1 - See, senator Olivera here to testify. He signed up on s 1 2 3 7, an act relative to wagering on political outcomes. Welcome, senator.
SPEAKER12 - Thank you, chair Edwards, chair Dave, distinguished members of the committee. I'm here to testify on a new bill that I filed this session, something that we work very closely with senate counsel on, and it's a bill regarding wagering on political outcomes. In the 20 24 elections, 3400000000.0 dollars were wagered on the outcome of the 20 24 presidential election. We are seeing wagering on races, not just for president, but for Congress, for the US Senate, for gubernatorial elections, and yes, colleagues, even our elections are subject to gaming and wagering. Several states have already971 put in place legislation, including our neighbor in Connecticut, to prohibit political975 wagering within, the Nutmeg State in Connecticut. I know that, federally, 2 members of Congress have filed legislation to ban the practice of wagering on political outcomes at the federal level, 1 filed on the senate side by990 senator Merkley from Oregon and also by representative Raskin from, Maryland. Both of those bills would supersede anything that we pass here in the Commonwealth. However, for sports betting purposes, we are seeing on the rise betting on all sorts of outcomes, especially with foreign interference and questioning election results and political outcomes. I think it's important that Massachusetts continue to lead the way and prohibit betting on our democratic institutions. You know, if we're running for election ourselves, and we are throwing off the outcomes of even our elections or other elections on there, we could find ourselves in a Pete Rose situation for members of the legislature. That even extends beyond elections in general, and could actually extend into nearly 7,000 bills we file each session, where people begin to bet on the outcomes of legislation that we file, and people working within this building and members themselves could have a vested interest to actually wager on bills that are before this legislature. So I am happy to work with, the committee staff on both senator Edwards and representative Zay's side to refine this legislation, work with you, and work with your staff so we can ensure that here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we don't have people betting on our democratic institutions. And I'd be happy at your discretion, mister chair, to take any questions.
SPEAKER1 - Perfect. Thank you, senator. Any1080 questions from members of the panel? Nope. Seeing none, thanks1084 very much.
SPEAKER12 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Appreciate it. I've got representative Donahue signed up to testify on h '66, I believe.
SPEAKER7 - He is best for
SPEAKER10 - that. Welcome.
SPEAKER7 - Chair Day, chair Edwards, honorable members of the committee, thank you for having me. I am here to support h 66, a proposal for a legislative amendment to the constitution relative to oaths of office. This amendment would change the oath of office for elective and appointed civil and military office by removing the required phrase, so help me god, and using the words swear or affirm. Whether or not 1 believes in god, multiple gods, or no god should not be a barrier to affirming one's commitment to serve their community and to uphold the constitution of the Commonwealth. The requirement to swear an oath under God is inconsistent with the separation of church and state. While there is an exemption to the phrasing for those identifying as members of the Quaker denomination, no other form of the oath is available to other religions or non religious individuals. There have been suggestions allowing a choice for people to either swear or affirm. This would inherently require a public statement about one's religious beliefs or lack thereof. Under this proposal, the constitution would under this proposal, the language in the constitution would be, I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will1191 bear truth, faith, and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will support the constitution thereof. When appropriate, the oath would include under the penalties of perjury.
SPEAKER3 - Article 6 of the US constitution states, no religious test shall
SPEAKER7 - be required to be a
proposal, we will be adhering to the constitution and respecting differing religious beliefs. I did wanna take a second to support rep Gentile's bill. He mentioned, if someone becomes a quadriplegic. My sister did become a quadriplegic when she was a
limitations to caps, seen it personally in my family. Thank you for your consideration ask that age 66 be reported favorably, and I can answer questions from1253 the committee if there are any.
SPEAKER1 - Terrific. Thank you, representative. Any questions from the committee on this proposal?1259
SPEAKER10 - Seeing none. Thank you.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We'll move to virtual. We've got, senator Cindy Cream online, on s 10 46, enact relative to adoptions.
SPEAKER13 - Senator Thank you.
SPEAKER14 - Welcome. Thank you, chair. Thank you, chair Edwards and chair Day. Thank you for taking me virtually and out of turn. I'm here today and speak in support of Senate 10 46, an act relative to adoptions. This legislation would clarify the language governing Massachusetts adoptions of children with out of state parents. Until recently, out of state birth parents seeking to pursue adoption with a Massachusetts family had the option to either follow the surrender process of their home state or opt to follow mass law. However, for1310 some reason, the Massachusetts probate1312 court recently adjusted their interpretation of1316 our state's adoption laws and would no longer provide this choice of jurisdiction for out of state birth parents. Under the new interpretation, Massachusetts judges are actually refusing to recognize surrenders, a parental form of out of state birth parents, unless the surrender complies with the adoption laws of the home state jurisdiction of the birth parent. Notably, this shift departs from a long standing precedent and is resulting in out of state birth parents and Massachusetts families having to navigate more burdensome legal process in other states in order to successfully complete their adoption. There are parents who had started this process and are stuck now, without being able to finish. This bill would address the issue and clarify our law so that individuals seeking to surrender their
parents rights in Massachusetts would have a choice of jurisdiction. It's important to note there are safeguards in place. All 50 states1376 are members of the interstate compact on the placement of children, meaning Massachusetts adoptions from out of state birth parents are required to comply with that, and the process would have to be signed off by the compacts administration. The language in this legislation would maintain a long existing protections and much needed clarification and predictability, which is beneficial for the families, for the adoption process, as well as out of state birthplaces. Thank you very much, and I hope to see a favorable report on senate 10 46. I'm happy to answer any questions, if anyone has any.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, senator. I appreciate it. Any questions from1421 the panel?
Seeing none at this time. Thank you for filing and testifying, senator.
SPEAKER14 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We'll move to actually representative Armini. Here to testify?
SPEAKER15 - Chair Chair Day,1449 Chair Edwards, Vice Chair Fluger Reid, Vice Chair Eldridge, and my distinguished colleagues on the judiciary committee. Thank1457 you for allowing me to testify today1459 in support of h 16 49 which would increase the per page rate approved for approved court transcribers that they receive creating the written legal records of our judicial system.
SPEAKER3 - These transcribers are highly trained professionals who listen to the
SPEAKER15 - received a pay raise in 37 years. Their rate is set by us, the legislature, and they are still making the same $3 per page they were making in 1988. No salary, no benefits. Transcribers also took a pay cut in 02/2011 when the indigent rate dropped from a dollar a page to 10¢ a page. In today's dollars, they should be making $8.06 a page. But this legislation asks only for a raise of a dollar 50.
A small sum when you consider the responsibilities and time commitment of the job. Preparing a transcript takes anywhere from 3 to 6 hours. Transcribers often spend unpaid time researching case law and technical terminology to produce a quality transcript. They must adhere to strict requirements set by the trial court, which by the way supports this bill. So does the committee for public counsel services. Like them, I can't imagine a fair and impartial judicial system without the 71 individuals who produce these vital documents.
I look at the dias and realize that most of you don't remember 1988. At least not well. I was a freshman in college. I had big jersey hair, shoulder pads in my oversized jackets, acid washed jeans, and neon bracelets climbing my arms. Cringy as my daughter would say. No 1 should revisit that look. And no 1 should have to live on the same wage they did then. Thank you for considering my views. Thank you for
SPEAKER3 - taking me out of turn.
SPEAKER1 - Thanks, representative. Any questions from the members of the panel?
SPEAKER10 - Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Alright. We'll move now to, testimony on h 17 23 s 11 93, enact removing the charitable immunity cap. We had, Timothy Kelleher from, MATA signed up. I don't believe mister Kelleher is here. So I'll call Jeffrey Bueller.
SPEAKER16 - Good afternoon. Welcome. Chairman Day, Chair Edward, my name is Jeffrey Beeler. For more than 32 years, I've been a lawyer in Massachusetts representing people injured due to the fault of others. I'm here to speak in support of h 17 23 and to ask you to eliminate charitable immunity cap enshrined in GL chapter 2 31 section1671 85 k. This cap established in the sixties is $20,000 for claims other than claims for medical malpractice where it was recently increased to a similarly absurd $100,000 cap. As indicated in the written materials submitted electronically, charitable immunity came from an English case over 100 years ago. It was promptly abandoned in England because it was a bad idea from its inception. Nonetheless, it took root here and persisted for more than 100 years. During that time, it was abandoned almost everywhere in The United States, and I've submitted written materials documenting this. In the sixties, the Massachusetts SJC said it was time to get rid of it. The legislature, in response, no doubt, due to lobbying, did get rid of it, but only up to the 20,000 cap. It is beyond time to get rid of this cap, and I urge your support for h 17 23, the goal of which is to eliminate it. The bill is this bill is not new here. In 02/2006, I and many others on what was called Victims' Day testified before this committee. Some good changes came about as a result of that, including statute of limitations changes related to child victims of clergy sexual abuse. But the $20,000 0 cap persisted. And for about the last 20 years, this committee has allowed bills like this 1 to die quietly here. This year, you should ask lobbyists for the churches, the hospitals, the colleges, the universities, why their claim commitments to those they serve ends when they are dealing with injured victims of their operations. Regardless
SPEAKER3 - of
SPEAKER16 - the answer they give you, you should ask them whether it is true that they carry significant liability insurance to protect themselves, their employees, those injured by their operations for claims that occur when somebody is foreseeably injured by their negligence. You should ask them why allowing those injured by their operations to collect from their insurers the full value of their damages is determined by a jury puts them in any way at risk. It doesn't, of course. They're insured. All that all that it would do is bring Massachusetts into line with the rest of the country, while allowing access to meaningful justice required by the Massachusetts constitution. For their insurers who no doubt lobby you, there are also questions. If they have been paid to ensure the risks at issue, why should the people of Massachusetts, as represented by this body, allow insurers to hide behind a $20,000 cap in situations where where seriously injured people become wards of the state through the Medicaid or MassHealth program. Why is allowing for profit insurers a financial windfall at public expense good public policy? It is past time to end it. I'm talking about women who have gone to hospitals for surgery where they're sedated and then sexually victimized by hospital employees. I'm talking about young women sexually victimized by the college campus rape culture due to the lack of proper policies, practices, and procedures. I'm talking about the parents who get a phone call that their college age student is dead by suicide on campus who later found out that there are all sorts of warnings known to the institution that were not acted on. I'm talking about fundamental fairness and1844 sound fiscal public policy.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, for your testimony, mister Beeler. Appreciate it. Questions from the panel?
SPEAKER10 - Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We'll move now to testimony on h 17 68 s 10 37, an act related to indigency. And welcome, Diana Williams from, the committee, public council services.
SPEAKER17 - Chair day, chair Edwards, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Diana Williams and I'm the Legislative Policy Counsel for the Committee for Public Counsel Services. If I look familiar to any of you, that's because I worked for the Judiciary Committee for the last 5 and a half years, most recently as General Counsel. It feels strange sitting here today, but I look forward to working with the legislature in this new role. I'm here today to testify in support of h 17 68 nest 1 0 3 7, an act related to indigency filed by rep Hunt and senator Brown's burger. The Committee for Public Counsel Services is a state agency tasked with ensuring that individuals who can't afford an attorney are provided with legal representation in criminal, civil, and administrative cases, where they have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. Under current law, a person is determined to be indigent if they receive benefits under certain federal or state public assistance programs, have an income that after taxes is a 25% or less of the current poverty threshold, are otherwise or are otherwise able to pay the cost and fees of the legal proceeding without depriving themselves or their dependents of essential needs. Once an individual is deemed indigent, counsel is appointed and probation is required to conduct a financial reassessment every 6 months during the case to determine if their status has changed. Additionally, a hundred and $50 counsel fee is imposed on each individual indigent adult, unless that person demonstrates beyond1982 their indigent
SPEAKER3 - status that they're also unable to pay the
SPEAKER17 - hundred and $50 status that they're also unable to pay the hundred and $50 fee within a hundred and 80 days. This bill proposes reasonable updates to promote efficiency and reflect the reality of indigency in the commonwealth.
SPEAKER3 - First, it updates the definition of indigency to include additional federal assistance
SPEAKER17 - programs that require
reassessment. Shifting from an automatic review every 6 months to a reassessment triggered only when probation receives information that calls a person's eligibility into question. This change will save valuable court resources and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. Lastly, the bill eliminates the hundred and $50 council fee that's currently imposed on each indigent adult, easing the financial burden on those already facing significant challenges and preventing collateral consequences associated with the failure to pay fees and fines. These changes are critical to ensuring a more equitable and efficient process for individuals in need of legal support. CPCS is grateful that the judiciary committee reported this bill out favorably last session, and we request that the committee do so again.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you again for the opportunity to
SPEAKER1 - Williams. And you spared yourself the gavel by running over the 3 minutes you learned well. Any, questions from the committee?
SPEAKER10 - Seeing none. Thanks for
SPEAKER1 - your testimony.
SPEAKER17 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Alright. We'll move on now to, h 16 86 s 1254. Resolved creating a commission to study the intentional misrepresentation of a service animal. And we'll welcome up a panel, Catherine Zamaitis and Kara Malott from NEADS.
SPEAKER18 - Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks so much for having us back again. We deeply appreciate this opportunity. Honorable committee, thank you for the opportunity to address the issue of service dog fraud. My name is Kathy Zemaitis. I'm the chief development and programs officer at Needs Service Dogs. Out of respect for your time, Needs Manager of Client Services, Kara Malott, and I will be the only ones who will put forward testimony today. Additionally, there will be submitted written testimony by several others. As an organization that is about to celebrate our fiftieth anniversary and who has proudly bred, raised, task trained, and matched over 2,000 service dogs, we stand firmly behind House Bill 16 86. We are deeply grateful to representative Ferguson and representative Kilcoyne for their steadfast support of this bill over the years, and are also grateful to the 2,050 people who signed a petition for a previous bill of the same iteration. As we are to all of the cosponsors, a sincere thank you also to2166 Chairman Day for the work that he and his team did on the bill last legislative session. It's how our2172 hope that this is the year we see movement towards passing a bill that supports and protects disabled veterans
organizations
This was in response to a growing number of requests from businesses and organizations seeking guidance on service dog access because they had fake service dogs regularly disrupt their normal course of business. Through this presentation, staff understands appropriate service dog behavior, the rights and responsibilities of service dog teams, and the rights and responsibilities of business as it relates to service dog team access. We believe that this legislation
SPEAKER19 - goes hand in glove with education.
SPEAKER18 - As part of our
program officially launched in 2024, NEADS has provided in person, red vest accessible training to over 400 employees at Boston area locations, including TD Garden, Symphony Hall, Boston Public Library, Boston Duck Tours, Goodenow Library, UMass Memorial Health Harrington, and Tanglewood. Meads provides this service2252 at no cost to the business. It is clear that across the state, those who allow public access are struggling with the onslaught of people presenting their pets as service dogs in order to garner the rights afforded to people with disabilities through the ADA. Passage of this bill would be 1 more way to support those with disabilities who are working as part of a legitimate service dog team. I especially wanna thank you for moving this bill forward last session, and it is my deepest hope that you provide a favorable report by committee, so they can move forward to this this session in the House and Senate. Thank you so much for your time.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, miss Zamaitis. Miss Mallott.
SPEAKER20 - Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Kara Mallott, and I'm the manager of client services at NEADS. I am also a licensed independent clinical social worker in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I am here today representing our clients with disabilities who rely on their service dogs each and every day to give them independence and2314 connect them to their communities. The strongest argument in favor of house bill 16 86 is the fact that fake service dogs are dangerous and disruptive to legitimate service dog teams. When I learned that I would have the opportunity to testify before you today, I reached out to our service dog clients and asked them to share their experiences of encountering fake service dogs in the community. The response was overwhelming and the stories were awful. They described being terrified that they and their dog were going to be seriously injured. They described feeling helpless, angry, sad, and frustrated. Their greatest frustration stems from the fact that currently in Massachusetts, there are no consequence for people who choose to bring fake service dogs into public spaces. 1 of our clients who's been following the progress of this bill very closely over the past 10 years asked that I share his story with you. Dave is a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force. He carries a diagnosis of PTSD. He is partnered with service dog Vegas. Dave tells me that he and Vegas have had many encounters with fake service
PTS. The most concerning incident happened at a conference at a hotel. Dave and Vegas
SPEAKER3 - were walking across the conference
SPEAKER4 - room and noticed that there
SPEAKER20 - were 2 other service dogs in the room. As they approach,
room. As they approached, the dog the dog lunged at Vegas, snapping and snarling. For the next 2 days, Dave was hyper vigilant of the location of that dog and altered his travel routes throughout the
SPEAKER3 - hotel accordingly. At the final banquet, he did not notice that fake
SPEAKER20 - service dog underneath the table, final banquet, he did not notice that fake service dog underneath the table that he was passing. Again, the dog lunged out at Vegas. He was able to put his body between the 2 dogs to avoid Vegas being injured. His PTSD stress reaction increased heart rate, anxiety, hypervigilance, and anger all hit the top of the scale. And Vegas, even almost after after almost being attacked, worked overtime to calm him down. He would like you to know that Vegas had made it possible for him to get through these incidents without retreating from the world again. He would also like me to share his experience and impress upon you as our state leadership that this overdue law needs to pass. People are becoming more brazen about passing off poorly behaved pets as legitimate service dogs simply because they feel entitled to have their dogs with them in public. Impersonating someone with a disability by bringing a fake service dog into a public space is shameful and dangerous. And there needs to be consequences for this behavior. As a clinical social worker, I can tell you that 1 of the most effective ways to change people's behavior is to impose negative reinforcement. In layman's in layman's terms, punishment. People will change their behavior to avoid negative consequences, such as fines, misdemeanor charges, or court mandated community service. I urge you to move forward with the steps necessary to pass this bill. Thank you.
SPEAKER10 - Thank you for
SPEAKER1 - your testimony, money, miss Martin and miss Zemaitis. Any questions from the panel? Representative Kilkoy.
SPEAKER21 - Thank you, mister chairman. It's so great to see both of you here today. Obviously, we've worked together on a lot of issues. Just briefly for the committee, I know you've brought 2, wonderful friends with you today. Could you just, briefly say just how much, time and investment goes into training each of your dogs at NEADS?
SPEAKER18 - Our dogs are thought of as service dogs even before they're born. Because as part of our program, we have a breeding program, which purpose breeds service dogs for temperament and soundness. It takes up to 2 years to train these dogs. They're prey2539 trained in prisons across Massachusetts2541
needs trains world class service dogs. A lot of time from a lot of people, volunteers and staff go into these dogs, a lot of training, and a lot of training for the people who are ultimately matched matched with the dogs. They live with us for 2 weeks learning the dog's language, and we support the folks who have our dogs for the working life of the dog. We're very, very proud of what we do, and we're very grateful to and we're very grateful to representative Kilcoyne for all the support you've shown us. Thank you.
SPEAKER21 - Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you both to your testimony. We had a, Meghan Currier who signed up virtually. Is miss Currier online? Nope. Alright.
SPEAKER3 - We will
SPEAKER1 - move on2590 now to consideration of h 3 1 5 4 s 11 41, an act encouraging the donation of food to persons in need, and call up, Rebecca Miller. Welcome to testify.
SPEAKER22 - Good afternoon. Kind of a tough act to follow, but I'll do my best. Dear Chair Day and Edwards and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on House Bill 31 54 and Senate 10 43, enact encouraging the donation of food to persons in need. As you know, this is a refile of a bill that has been introduced several times by representatives by representative Cain and senator Hummerford, after a favorable report from this committee last session, which we're grateful for, has been reintroduced with a new, cap for the tax credit for the donation of food to persons in need of $25,000 per year based on the fair fair market value of the food that was donated. So according to the mass department of environmental protection, about 22% of the state's total waste stream in 2022 was food waste and other organic material. In late 20 24, '18 point '4 percent were approximately 1,300,000 of Massachusetts residents were food insecure. And at the same time, farmers earn 95¢ for every $1 they invest in their businesses according to the census of agriculture. I don't know about you all, but I probably wouldn't go into business if I was making a negative economic proposition. Wouldn't go into business if I was making a negative economic proposition. If adopted, these bills would address critical elements of a sustainable and equitable food system. Financial sustainability for farms, increased access to healthy foods for local low income families, improved health outcomes for vulnerable communities, and climate change mitigation through a reduction in greenhouse gas generating organic materials sent to landfills. In short, these are common sense bills that should be introduced should be passed in the law. We respectfully ask for a favorable report. Based on the experiences of other states that have passed similar measures, including California, these bills present a cost effective way to increase the amount of fresh, healthy, local food available to families in need while reducing food waste. In case the data is, not enough, we
anecdotally, there's a farmer on The Cape who donated about a ton of butternut squash last fall to food pantries across The Cape. There's a farmer I know in Groton whose staff had to tell him to stop working farmers markets because he gave away too much food and his staff weren't really worried about his financial sustainability. We know farmers really want to be able to do this. They just are not compensated for this and there are costs including transportation and labor that make it difficult to do so. These bills would provide a tax credit to Massachusetts farmers in the amount of the fair market value of the food donated with a $25,000 annual cap per farmer. And because this bill provides a tax credit rather than a tax deduction, more small farmers would see a financial incentive for donating. When the federal government expanded the types of businesses that were eligible for tax deductions for their food donations in 02/2005, donations increased by a 37% the following year. We are able to provide additional information and connections to practitioners and advocates who can offer specific insights on this legislation at the pleasure of the committee. I have, about 30 different organizations that sign on to this letter, and we appreciate you taking up these issues and urge you to report these bills out favorably. Thank you again for thoughts.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, miss Miller, and thanks for submitting that to the, committee for consideration as well. Any questions from the panel? Seeing none at this time. Thank you. Same bill and I, corrected I miss cited the the senate bill. It's s 11 I'm sorry. S 1 0 4 3. I cited a previously filed version. Michael Hannigan. Welcome to come up and testify. Mister Hannigan here? Nope. Go to virtual to Astrid Tilton.
SPEAKER23 - Awesome. Hello. I'm happy to be here today. Can you guys hear me alright? Okay. Great. I2832 manage a gleaning program on Martha's Vineyard, and2836 the organization I work for also manages our own food pantry. So I'm familiar with this issue from, at many levels of the food system. I'm testifying in support of h 3 1 5 4, because it would have a meaningful and tangible impact, and allow us to receive a lot more local food, which is greatly needed here. We're a community that's made up of small farms, with very natural profit margins, And our year round residents have a tremendous need for food support. At our food pantry alone, we have registered 1 in 5 year round residents of the island.
And accessing local food is an especially big deal here, because if the ferries are canceled, we're not able to pick up from the food banks off island. Local food and accessing it is2890 a really big deal for us, but the possibilities are limited because with these small farms, they're often, in order for them to set aside time in their busy days and busy schedules to to bring food to us, it's, it takes a lot. This would be, this would be a great incentive2910 for them. It would make their time,
the time loop is making me nervous here. But, it would acknowledge and, value the work appropriately. Getting food to us is a big deal in busy summer months. There's only a few months of the year where there's enough, business basically for them to make a profit. So it's just everything is very2937 tight. If these bills2939 were passed, pretty much instantly, it would have a positive impact. Farmers would be able to donate more.2947 It would be a really big deal for us. So, yeah, Thank you for, for your time today. I think that's where I got. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Perfect. Thank you for your testimony, miss Tilton. Any questions from members of the panel? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thanks. Good luck down there. We'll move on now to,
sorry.
H 16 48 enact providing for the training, continuing training, and education of judges and other legal hearing officers. And welcome, Vincent Lawrence Dixon.
SPEAKER24 - Thank you, senators, representatives,2999 and staff.
My name is Vincent Lawrence Dixon, 60 Lake Street, unit end, Winchester, Mass, 0 1 8 9 0. My representative, representative Dave. There's a certain amount of complexity to this testimony since it regards 3 distinct bills, s 9 h 16 48 and s 11 59. Given 3 minutes, I might squeeze out 1 extra minute here. It is a bit hard to describe in much detail. Additional written testimony will be filed within the next few days. Let me try to give a framework to these bills and some brief detail. As a citizen utilizing the right of free petition, some might consider this a rather high pole vault in trying to improve our system of laws. Nevertheless, many of us will occasionally watch a pole vault or on TV or perhaps rarely on a track and field location. So here we go. What I've come to call an expanded Massachusetts agenda seeks to address important needs for reform, both in our legal system and in our government structure. S 9 term renewal process identifies judges and other legal officials3072 whose confirmation must be granted by our executive council or governor's council as those who would need3078 to be renewed on a periodic basis. This is not an election process, which is present in many other states and is open to the chaos of ugly election campaigning regarding legal officers that should be above politics, but truly above justice and law. Age 16 48, an act providing for the training, continuing training, and education of judges and other legal hearing officers. We live in a complex society that continues to evolve in various ways, sociologically, technologically, demographically, and otherwise. Not only is there the continuing evolution of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, but many complex processes that the best professionals in many fields struggle with and work hard to further develop. Judges and legal hearing officers should have available more rigorous continuing education and renewal standards. This can help such officials to strengthen their confidence and abilities to make sound decisions and increase the confidence of our general population in the quality and value of these needed decisions. Over time, I've become aware of processes that exist in various sports3144 that relate to the qualification and continued requalification of officials. Baseball empires, football referees, and other related officials, skating officials, and others are regularly reviewed and frequently required to take regular, even annual exams to keep and maintain their qualifications to make decisions on the actions in front of them. My partner, who is a figure skating judge, must take a minimum of 4 distinct exams on an annual basis to keep her certification. Our legal officials, judges, hearing officers, and others make hundreds or even thousands of decisions in the course of their months for years of service. Final paragraph, s 11 59, an act providing for the development of a graduate judicial training school. In a similar spirit, we3189 should consider developing a graduate judicial training school that will provide a distinct pathway to an improved judiciary. In some jurisdictions outside The United States, there is a distinct pathway to training judges. Just as we've moved beyond reading law to having and strengthening law school training, we should consider developing a distinct pathway for training judicial officials. And thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, mister Dixon. I know you'd referenced submitting written testimony. Again, we limit testimony to 3 minutes orally here in this committee given the breadth of bills and individuals who wish to testify. So we encourage individuals who can't fit them in within 3, although you did, to submit written testimony to the committee as well. It will be shared. I appreciate it. Any questions from members of the committee? Representative Ramos.
SPEAKER8 - Thank you. I'm just curious, what the trial court's position is on this bill, if you know.
SPEAKER24 - I don't know specifically, but the origination of the particular idea in the judicial training school, there's a judge several years ago in Puerto Rico. A woman who said, well, what training is available? Couldn't find very much. We do have, I think, about a 6 week training program in Las Vegas of all places. But she couldn't find anything. She was directed to Europe. There are, I believe, 4 countries that actually have a separate training program. I believe certain judges in England, actually, they take the brightest candidates from law school and train them to be a solicitor in a judge, court system, particularity. I don't know all the details, but it seems that if we're moving forward and trying to improve our quality with much more complex issues. And as a historian, I've seen some of that, doing a program on artificial intelligence. These are things where do we get the quality of continuing to evolve to a better system of, legal systems. And it comes in part from that interesting, effort of the judge in Puerto Rico who was looking for better training.
SPEAKER1 - Do we get any other questions
SPEAKER10 - at this time? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - I will move on now to, testimony in h 16 49 s 11 68, an act concerning furnishing transcripts of notes and fees, and welcome up first a panel, consisting of Buchanan Ewing, Paula Petriella, and Jerry Shea.
Welcome.
SPEAKER25 - Good afternoon, chairs Day and Edwards and members of the committee. Thank you again for your support. This is our eighth effort. This this session, the trial court supports our bill, including the automatic 5 year CPI rate increase. Most depend on the statute for our livelihood. We are unique. We are a tiny group of approved court transcribers,
transcribers, only 53 Massachusetts residents, mostly women 60 who work from home without the time, energy, knowledge, capability, relationships, or resources, or lobbyists to
SPEAKER3 - fight a 2 year legislative effort. It's overwhelming. The automatic CPI
SPEAKER25 - increase would save everyone's time,
2011, due to the great recession, the CPCS reduced their copy rate to 10¢. The economy soon recovered, but not our copyright. Because the delay could again, kill our bill, I feel duty bound to inform you that in the last session, the MCRA partially opposed our bill to retain the word stenographer. Our bill has 2 inclusive terms, notes and audio recordings. They cover all reporting and transcription methods. It is the office of transcription services, not the office of stenographic Services. The elephant in the room, I believe, is what statute 88 was originally designed for and how it is used today. Before 1988, official reporters were stenographers who recorded almost all proceedings. They produced the first part of the3446 transcript in court. When a transcript was ordered, they finished the3450 second part from their notes out of court on their own time at $3 per page.3454 They were both an employee and a contractor. Because not all hearings required transcripts, the court started to be placing official reporters with audio recording systems and transcribers to pay us at turn 2 statute 88. Both methods are paid by the page count. Today, almost all transcription starts from the audio recording, but transcribers do not have the advantage of starting from home with a partially completed transcript. Finally, delivering prompt accurate transcript is important for 2 other reasons. The CPCS attorneys, it helps them to better schedule, prepare, use their time, increase their job satisfaction, and the return on investment. And to the CPCS the CPCS itself, to better serve our indigent population, to reduce prison time, prisoners waiting in prison, justice delayed delayed is justice denied. Cheers Day and and Edwards,3513 I would be grateful if you could pass this, bill, earlier this time to enable us to learn how to pass the other legislative bills this session. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.
SPEAKER26 - Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Day, Chair Edwards, and members of the committee. And thank you for hearing me today. My name is Paula3543 Pietrela, and I live in the great city of Salem, Massachusetts. I would like to bring to your attention a matter that is both pressing and long overdue, amendment of general laws chapter 2 21 section 88. This statute has not been changed since 1988, '30 '7 years ago. You're gonna hear that that, number a lot of times today. The same year that I began my professional career as an official court reporter for the trial court. My position as an official court reporter was, with salary and benefits
diem court reporting services to the Essex County District Attorney's Office for their grand jury, and I am also an approved court transcriber, and I provide transcription services to them. House Bill 16 49 is a refile. This committee, redrafted the bill and reported it out favorably. And it died ways and means. But 16 49 does 1 thing, it pays for transcripts. Therefore, I would call it the transcriber bill. It is the statute that dictates how professionals, whether stenographers, voice reporters, or digital transcribers, get paid to produce accurate and secure transcripts for the 7 trial court departments in Massachusetts. That's district court, Boston municipal court, housing court, juvenile court, land court, probate and family court, and superior court. However, despite the importance of this work and the trial court and CPCA's support of this bill, we have been met we have we haven't we have not been able to get it passed to the finish line. As 1 who has spent years advocating for change, I am acutely aware that our profession has been overlooked and ignored. We are independent contractors, small business owners who face insurmountable financial strain. We live in a state whose cost of living is 46% higher than the national average. The majority of us are women who have been in the transcribing business for decades. It is exhausting and time consuming for me to come before you year after year with the same story, and I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me, which is why I would ask that the committee leave in the 5 year automatic CPI rate increase. No other worker in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is more deserving of a raise than someone who has gone without an increase in 37 years. We cannot go another year, another decade with the same frozen and timed compensation. Thank you for your time, and I ask that you you respectfully report the law favorably.
SPEAKER11 - Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER27 - So here we are again.
Dirt for working for 37 years for $3 Paige. Couldn't you say that? But it's not that we haven't tried. This is our eighth attempt. The reason we keep putting up with this unfair wage, and I think I speak for everyone, all the transcribers here, this is our career. This is our livelihood. This is what we were trained to do. We should be fairly compensated for the valuable work that we do for the commonwealth. And as you've heard or may hear or may already know, the trial court and CPCS have included this in their their budget. But I have questions now.
SPEAKER26 - What did we do wrong in
SPEAKER27 - the process? We thought we did everything. Did anyone oppose the bill? We heard, there was a little opposition. And but did that torpedo this bill? Is it that we don't deserve it? It can't be. We provide a valuable service. The reporters in this courtroom were replaced with an audio system, as Paula told you. There were now 71 approved court transcribers that trans that make a record for the judges, district attorneys, private counsel, pro se litigants, and indigent litigants. So please, tell us what we did wrong so we can fix that and move this to governor Healy for signature. Thank you very much for your time.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from members of the panel at this time?
SPEAKER10 - Seeing none, thank you all.
SPEAKER1 - Also, I wanna take this opportunity to, welcome representative Cataldo, as well, who's joining us.
Next, we've got,
Linda Wesson, also on +1 649.
SPEAKER6 - Thanks.
SPEAKER1 - Welcome.
SPEAKER28 - Good afternoon, Chair Day. Good afternoon, Chair Ewigz, members of the committee. My name is Linda Wesson, and I live on Cape Cod. I've been an approved court transcriber3869 since 1996. I3871 am here today to speak on behalf of the other court transcriptionists that cannot be here today.3875 At the October 2023 hearing, this room was packed with transcriptionists who made the effort to attend in person despite the financial sacrifice of losing a day's pay. Their strong presence at that hearing highlighted how deeply this issue is affecting us. The role of the court reporter extends far beyond just typing words from audio. It is a physically taxing job sitting in 1 position all day. The process demands precise listening skills, editing, proofreading, and tons of research for accuracy, which is not reflected in our current page rate. Transcriptionists are responsible for absorbing all our technology, software, hardware maintenance. We're responsible for those. This statute has remained unchanged for 37 years and fails to account for today's economic realities. All of us have been impacted by the rising costs in nearly every aspect of daily life. By increasing this page rate to 4 50, it will help acknowledge the labor, time, and personal costs involved in this job. In closing, we deeply appreciate your valuable time. We urge you to support and follow through with house bill 16 49 and report this bill out favorably again like you did last session. Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, miss Ross. Any any questions? Seeing none? Thank you. Next, welcome up, Barbara Reardon and Jennifer Witas Witasvic. Did I get that right?
SPEAKER9 - This feels like deja vu. We were here not too long ago.
SPEAKER1 - Welcome back.
SPEAKER9 - Thank you, Chair Eldridge and Chair Edwards and members of the committee for letting me speak. My name's Barbara Reardon. I live in Westbrookfield. I've been a digital a legal transcriber for 42 years and on the approved transcriber list since 02/2008. I gave testimony to you to this committee during the last session. Chair Day, you probably don't remember, but in my remarks, I accused many attorneys of wandering around the courtroom, and you confessed that you were 1 of them. I trust that you now know the importance of microphones. I'm also sure that you recognize the importance of the work that we do. I would like to start off with the most compelling reason for this committee to report age 16 49 out favorably. It is simply the right thing to do. When I last appeared before you, it had been 35 years without an increase. It has now been 37 years without an increase. Please don't make us come back when it's 39 years. A very personal appeal, given that I'm probably the oldest act on the list. We know that amending a statue is a tremendous amount of work, so I won't go into that because you've heard most of this before. But I wanna say that, raising our rate to 4 50 would bring more talented,
additional talented and professional transcribers to the office, which would lighten our load. We are so overworked that we're putting in hours, you know, at night, on the weekends, when when a holiday dinner is over and everyone's gone, we're back to our computers. So it's, raising the rate would attract more people, and it would move the cases,
faster out of CPCS. They're they're have terrible backlog of cases, and these are people waiting indigent people waiting for transcripts for months.
So I've I've asked you to vote this out favorably because it's an important bill. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Ms. Reardon. Just for your education, they've belted me into my chair, so I had to stay down the microphone.
SPEAKER29 - Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Witasik. I am an approved court transcriber. This is actually my mother. I know everything about transcribing. I learned from her. And you've heard everything that I wanted to say. I'm not gonna repeat repeat any of that, but I wanted to focus on the accuracy of transcripts. When I was an official court reporter, a few years after I started, there was a detective who was mentioned in a change of plea hearing that I was asked to transcribe. So I transcribed it and the detective's name was Cook. So I thought it's either c o 0 k, c o 0 k e, who knows. So I went without the e. I transcribed it, and a couple months later, there was a motion to suppress hearing, and Detective Cook was the witness on the stand. And when the prosecutor said, Detective, could you please state your name and spell your name? And I forget his first name, but he said, Kuck, K U C K.4202 I almost fell4204 on the floor. So we look everything up,4208 and it takes an enormous amount of time to produce a transcript. It may seem like it's4214 just typing how hard could it be, but it is, it's truly so time consuming. And this rate is, it's way too low for the amount of time that we spend making sure our transcripts are perfect.
SPEAKER1 - Testimony and and, persistence as well. Any questions from the committee? Representative Berthiaume? Just just a quick question.
How many can you do
SPEAKER30 - an hour? Just, I mean, and I guess it varies, but I mean, just on average.
SPEAKER3 - I'm just
SPEAKER29 - curious. It definitely varies. The, It's about 1 hour, takes about 3 hours to type, and then on top of that is the research, the formatting, putting an index in. So depending if it's an expert testimony, it could take much more time. If it's a simple, motion to suppress where a police officer stops a vehicle, that could go pretty quickly. So
SPEAKER22 - it could be.
SPEAKER11 - Okay, all right. Thank you.
SPEAKER31 - Thank you. Yes.
SPEAKER5 - And just to follow-up on his question, all that time is uncompensated. You're only paid for the pages you produce?
SPEAKER29 - Yes, we are not paid for our time, just the pages that we produce.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you both. I'll call up Michelle Constantino on the same bill. Is Constantino here?
Nope. We'll move to virtual. William Shea from CPCS.
SPEAKER32 - Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you, chair Day, chair Edwards, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is William E. Shea. I'm the director of audit and oversight at the Committee for Public Counsel Services. I'm testifying in support of h 16 49 s 11 68, an act concerning furnishing transcripts and notes of fees. CBCS strongly supports this version of the bill, filed this session, and we appreciate your continued support in light of the competing needs in the Commonwealth and the demands on your time. As has been discussed already, this legislation updates the current statutory language and payment scheme found in section 88 of chapter 2 21 to reflect how transcripts are prepared prepared and delivered to litigants and how business is conducted by transcribers in 2025. Notably, it provides for an increase in the original page rate from $3 to $4.50 for transcribers who provide these critical services, in CPCS and private cases. As you all know, oftentimes a citizen to pursue his lawful objectives in court, they must be they must have a transcript of the hearing or the court proceeding. This is true for citizens in all cases, including CPCS clients in adult criminal cases, juveniles in cases, and civil mental health and children and family law matters. My understanding is that the number of transcribers has remained relatively stagnant at about 71, and about a third of them are out of state, while the number of transcripts and the amount of time it takes to produce a transcript has been increasing year over year. This results in delays in court proceedings and puts an additional burden and stress in on this tiny pool of transcribers who are performing this work. It appears that the rate for transcribers has not increased since '88.
And we strongly believe at CPCS, that passage of this bill will help to address the shortage of transcribers, help to expedite the disposition of cases, and would be of great benefit to litigants, who are CPCS clients and private litigants in the Commonwealth. CPCS is grateful to the judiciary committee who reported this bill up favorably last session, and we respectfully request that the committee again report the bill up favorably. Thank you again for the opportunity. I'm happy to answer any questions.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, attorney Shea. Any questions, from the panel? Seeing none at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. We'll move on now to consideration of s 10 46, an act relative to adoptions, and welcome up Amy Cleary.
Welcome.
SPEAKER19 - Chair Edwards, chair Day, honorable members of the committee, I'm Amy Cleary, and I'm here to speak on act s 10 46, an act relative to adoptions.
4516 34516 and a half years ago I'm trying to do stop crying. Sorry. We received the call that our son's birth mother was being induced to Macon, Georgia. Within hours, we booked flights, secured a hotel room, bought a car seat and a stroller, and we're on our way to meet our baby boy Carter. We spent the next 3 and a half weeks in Macon staying at the Ronald McDonald House and spending every waking and non waking hour in the NICU with Carter. We rocked him. We sang to him and cared for him working hand in hand with the NICU nurses who truly felt like angels on earth. While my husband and I are incredibly fortunate to have been chosen to love and care for Carter as his parents, we were also painfully aware that had we not been able to adopt him from Macon, Georgia and bring him to Massachusetts, he would have ended up in the foster care system. And not just any foster care system, but 1 that many NICU nurses who who worked closely with us warned us, calling it less than ideal in that area. This was not the path his birth mother envisioned for him, and it's a future we can't bear to imagine. After 3 and a half weeks in the NICU and a visit to a local pediatrician, we were finally able to bring Carter home to Medfield, Massachusetts. Thanks to the interstate compact of the placement of children being signed4588 between Georgia and Massachusetts, and then a few months later, on 02/10/2022, we had a Zoom call with the judges to finalize Carter's adoption. And at that moment, our family was finally officially complete. Becoming a mom has been a dream of mine. After multiple miscarriages, fertility treatments, and being told by doctors I was chasing a red herring, in my pursuit of pregnancy, my husband and turned to adoption. We were so fortunate to connect with Adoptions for Love who introduced us to Carter's birth mother just weeks after we were officially approved for adoption. We feel endlessly blessed, and being Carter's mom is the greatest gift of my life. The truth is there are a lot of people like us who yearn to be parents and create a family. And there are people like Carter's birth mother for whom circumstances have made it impossible to provide the future they dream for they dream of for their children. Where we live should never be a barrier to building families like ours. Our entire family, our grandparents sorry, Carter's grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends are all infinitely happier with Carter in our lives. His presence brings us so much joy, and that would never have been possible had we not been able to finalize his adoption, even though his birth mother, Liz, lived in Georgia. I urge you to consider how that paperwork and the verbiage on that form can be made to work in favor of families like ours, so that we all may be able to finalize the adoption of our children regardless of where their birth parents reside. Thank you.4673
SPEAKER11 - Thank you,
SPEAKER1 - miss Cleary. Congratulations on the adoption of Charter.
SPEAKER19 - Thanks.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions from members of the panel?
SPEAKER19 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Seeing none, thank you. Call up, Catherine Alford.
SPEAKER3 - Welcome.
SPEAKER33 - Good afternoon Chair Day
SPEAKER21 - and Chair Edwards.4695 I'm also going to do
SPEAKER33 - my best not to cry, and members4699 of the joint committee of the judiciary. My name is Catherine Alford. I've been a resident of Massachusetts since 2015. And I'm also, sorry, the proud mother of 2 daughters, who are both adopted from the state of Virginia. Our youngest 1 is 1, and we received the phone call on 01/26/2024, out of the blue, that, our older daughter, Rowan, had a biological sister who was in a NICU in Virginia and in need of4728 a home. The adoption agency4730 asked if we would adopt her, and4732 we very quickly said yes. I then spent the next4736 6 weeks alone in Virginia while my4738 husband was here caring for our older daughter, spending 12 hours a day in the NICU helping our 2 and a half pound daughter get big and strong enough to leave. We then spent several months forming an unbreakable bond together, as we were able to be be in Massachusetts together.
We knew we had done everything right and were joyfully waiting the day for Talula's adoption to be finalized. That was until November when the Boston Globe article broke that a judge in Massachusetts in Massachusetts decided to use his discretion to not finalize adoptions that had previously been viewed as valid, such as the adoption of my oldest daughter, Rowan. My husband and I have never in our lives felt that amount of fear. We had been through
SPEAKER3 - the adoption process before with the exact same birth mother,
SPEAKER33 - with the exact same process before with the exact same birth mother, with the exact same adoption agency, and the exact same adoption lawyer. And yet this time, we faced the risk of not having our adoption be finalized.
While we should have been able to joyfully celebrate our daughter's first holiday season, we spent that season terrified that that might be our only Christmas together as a family. We did everything in our power the last term to get the bill passed, and we really appreciate that you all had a favorable recommendation very late in the4813 session. We watched very carefully4815 on December 314816 for a last ditch effort for this bill to be passed, and and unfortunately, it wasn't. Then in4821 January, we received the call that our adoption hearing was scheduled for February 19. We should have been very joyful on that day. However, we were petrified because we would have to face the decision of a judge without understanding
SPEAKER34 - how the law would be applied to our scenario. At the end of the day, our adoption was finalized for which we're forever grateful. And I'm very embarrassed by this amount of crying and I apologize
SPEAKER3 - for
SPEAKER34 - it. But we just experienced the most painful months of our lives and we just want you to know that you have the power to help prevent this for other adoptive parents. So in support of adoptive parents and our children, as well as the birth moms who've chosen us to parent their children. We'd really love for4868 you to recommend you to recommend this to be passed again. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it.
SPEAKER33 - Thank you so much for your time. And apologies again for my tears.
SPEAKER1 - No apologies necessary at all. Thank you for sharing your story. Congratulations as well in the adoptions. Any questions from members of the committee? Not at this time. Wait. Question. Oh, sorry.
SPEAKER8 - I'm just What's
SPEAKER1 - your problem?
SPEAKER8 - And congratulations. And from 1 NICU to a to another mother to another, thank you for sharing. Just curious, you said it was finalized. Did, did they adopt? Did they move forward to dot using the Massachusetts standard, do
SPEAKER4 - you know? Or did they use okay.
SPEAKER33 - Yes. So I think yes. The the judge said it was fine, but we were using the Massachusetts standard.
SPEAKER35 - Okay. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony. I will move to virtual testimony now on the same bill, and welcome Mario and Emily Gagliardi.
SPEAKER36 - Hi there. Thank you so much for having us. My name is Emily. This is my husband, Mario. And, thank you to the last presenter as well. We really relate to your story. We are the proud parents of 2 adopted boys with a third adoptive baby in in progress. She's due on Father's Day this year. I'd like to share our story.
Our story with our second adoption was interrupted by confusion around the wording and interpretation of the current law. We strongly support this legislation that will clarify the law to ensure that out of state birth parents engaging in an adoption within a Massachusetts family have a workable and efficient process to make the adoption safe, expedient, and stress free as possible. We hope no other family would have to go through the emotional stress that we endured. Our story is this. We've chosen to pursue adoption as a means to expand our family. We embarked on this journey via private infant adoption in 2021 and joyfully welcomed our first son Leonardo. Leonardo was born in San Antonio, Texas through the process that our agency and the courts have used for decades. His adoption was finalized in Massachusetts about 7 months after his birth as per the necessary waiting period. Our second adoption unfolded in a similar way. Our youngest son, Acer, was born in March of 20 23 in Pella, Iowa. We diligently followed all required procedures to become second time adoptive parents, and the process had proceeded smoothly until there was a new interpretation of the same law that we used for our first adoption. Our scheduled finalization hearing was for Acer was on December twelfth of 20 23 at the probate and family court in Pittsfield, Berkshire County, where we live. It held significant importance to us as adoptive parents, but but it was abruptly canceled. Approximately an hour before the5034 appointment time, the court notified us that5036 a scheduling conflict had come5038 up. Naturally, this left us deeply dismayed, especially as we had family in town for a post adoption celebration. Upon consulting our leap legal representative who had arrived in Pittsfield in North Hampton, it was discovered there was not a scheduling conflict and instead it was an interpretation challenge, emerging the rights of a woman from another state to relinquish her parental rights for adoption in Massachusetts. This is a departure from the long standing interpretation of the law facilitating domestic infant adoptions. And this new interpretation narrowly focused suggests that if the woman were physically present on the soil of Massachusetts during the signing, it might be deemed acceptable due to the use of the Massachusetts based form. The logistics of this are absurd. Our birth mother was in Iowa after a c section. She had 2 other young children, to care for in Iowa. I'm gonna skip5089 down. I only have 16 seconds left.5091 I, recognize the question from the other senator about5095 how was the other woman's adoption finalized. Ours was not finalized with the adoption form from Massachusetts. We had to endure more legal fees and go back to Iowa and back to the birth parents to see if they would relinquish their rights again, and they already went through that this once. We were lucky that they were committed to this adoption, and they did terminate, terminate the rights, the Iowa way. And we were able to finalize. With this third adoption, we're going to be finalizing, finalizing in Michigan because of this mess in Massachusetts. We really implore you to fix this because the process is difficult enough for adoptive parents and everyone involved. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you, both for your testimony and the process you had to undergo. Sorry to hear about that. Is there, representative Ramos?
SPEAKER8 - Just out of curiosity, could you estimate how much additionally it cost you?
SPEAKER36 - Yes. The legal fees were at at least another $5,000 on top of the almost $50,000 for domestic infant adoption. It's extremely expensive. But in the end, this is how we wanna grow our family. And every day we look at our children, and it's a % worth it.
SPEAKER1 - Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony.
I'll move on now to Molly Reynolds from Full Circle Adoptions.
SPEAKER31 - Good afternoon, Chairman Day, Chairman Edward, and members of the Joint Committee of the Judiciary. I thought I was gonna speak after someone else. So, I won't have the same detail that, someone who follows me will have. My name is Molly Reynolds, and I'm the Executive Director of Full Circle Adoptions in Northampton, Massachusetts. Full Circle has been working in adoption since 1996. And, you know, over the years, we've developed paperwork and policies to meet the regulations of the Commonwealth and have always known how to proceed until recently when judges have been making some unexpected decisions. I want to give another example of, a family that was impacted by this change in interpretation.
I'm happy that there were some people who spoke in person to really convey the emotions involved in, in this, this new interpretation. A single woman that we were working with had waited a very long time to adopt. You know, it's not as appealing sometimes for single women to be chosen by a birth parent. She was finally matched with a baby born in another state in Maine. The5279 birth parent signed Massachusetts surrenders, as we had known,5283 was an acceptable choice for them. When the baby was discharged from the hospital, mother and baby returned to Massachusetts and began the monthly, post placement supervision visits that are required. In Massachusetts, there are 6 visits and reports that need to be completed. So, you know, and it's 1 a month. So, you know, baby's born, was in the hospital for several weeks. They go home, you know, so now we're on, like, the seventh month. We sent the documents to the court. And sometime after that, a few a month, 6 weeks, we discovered that Massachusetts would no longer accept the the mass surrenders signed by the Massachusetts parents. So at that point, you know, a lot of time had gone by. So we reached the Maine professionals reached out to the birth parents, to let them know that they would need to go to court in Maine and sign the Maine surrenders, you know, following Maine law. They agreed to this until a hearing was scheduled, which, you know, took more time. Unfortunately, they did not show up at the appointed time. So this was additional lost time and much anxiety for the adoptive parent. So then we decided that to serve the parents and pursue termination of parental rights. And you know, this process took more time and more money. And I see I'm running out of time myself. So finally, this parent was able to adopt. The child was about 11 old. So very worrisome for everybody. A lot of anxiety for the parent. And for the birth parents required them to revisit the painful decision to place their child for adoption. Even though they were committed to it, it's still, you know, it's sticking up the, the loss and the shame involved in that. So, we appreciate your support and, you know, look forward to this moving, to, you know, a favorable decision. Thank you.5416
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, miss Reynolds. And we encourage, you and your organization, if you wish, to submit written testimony to supplement oral testimony as well. More than welcome. Any questions from the panel?
SPEAKER10 - Seeing none, thank you again.
SPEAKER1 - And we're gonna pause testimony on s 10 46 for a moment and welcome senator Feingold up to testify on h 17 48 s 10 37, an act relative to preventing suicide.
SPEAKER30 - Good afternoon, chair chair Edwards, chair Day. Thank you for for having me here today to talk about set senate 11 o 9 h 17 48, which is also known as Conrad's Law. This bill would clarify a gray area Massachusetts law and make it illegal to coerce someone else into dying by suicide. I filed this bill along with representative Higgins in honor of Conrad Roy, a young5478 man who died after his girlfriend relentlessly pressured him into taking his own life. This
SPEAKER3 - bill
SPEAKER30 - was developed along with representative Higgins, northeastern professor of law, and criminal justice Daniel Medwed, Conrad's mother Lynn, and Lynn Lynn's husband Roland. And this family has gone through a lot, an unspeakable tragedy, and Lynn and Roland have been incredible advocates over the years. Chair Day heard me say this last session, but Massachusetts is still 1 of only 6 states that without a law criminalizing coerced suicide, and I believe that needs to change now. Right now, prosecutors have to rely on involuntary manslaughter charges, which are not narrowly tailored to fit a specific crime. The absence of a clear legal standard, 1 was 1 of the main reasons why the trial of Michelle Carter resulted in a drawn out process that forced Conrad's family into the spotlight. And this has happened to other kids as well. S 1109 and s and 1748 are especially important in light of the increase in teen suicide rates over the past 2 decades. Every year, it becomes clear that we are in a mental health crisis. In The United States between 02/2007 and 02/2017, there was a 178 percent increase in suicide of children ages 10 through 14. In Massachusetts, specifically, death by suicide among teens and young adults from 15 to 24 increased by 15 percent just from 02/2020 to 02/2022. We need to make sure that our young people are safe, and passing Conrad's law would send a clear message that suicide coercion is unacceptable and subject to criminal liability. Under the proposed bill, if an individual knew that someone else was experienced suicidal ideation and intentionally coerced them into taking their own life or provided them with means to do so, that individual be punishable with up to 5 years in prison.
And we analyze the case law. And in the 50 plus years that these laws have been in the books, they have been used. But when they were used, it was an effective tool.
I wanna be respectful of your time. I just kind of close with
we wanna work with you to move forward with this bill. 44 other states, including New York, California, to Oklahoma, and Montana, have passed a bill like this.
Suicide's a very difficult issue, and it's a tough thing to put your hands around. And there's also a lot of debate about should we work with end end of life suicide. But I really feel that we can get something done here, and I would just respectfully ask that the committee works with us and try to find some common ground.
Happy to answer any questions or comments from the chairs or any members of
SPEAKER3 - the committee.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, senator. Questions? Chair Woods.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you, senator Feingold. And I'm sure we can continue to have a great conversation about this. And to the family, Conrad's family, I can't imagine, the pain that they are going through and having to keep going through that pain, and someone not being found liable for causing that. Does the law provide for an exception, or is there a youth understanding for young people? Or is this trying to get to young people who who do this?
SPEAKER30 - I I think the biggest thing is that because the maximum is 5 years, it does give discretion, and it does allow a DA to basically basically pose up to a 5 year maximum. But it does give, a DA the the flexibility to to make a decision here. And and I don't think it locks 1 into any decision 1 way or the other. But I think with the current law, you know, the reason why there was such a long trial when this happened was because involuntary manslaughter could be up to 20 years. So I I do think we are narrowly tailored. I do think it gives flexibility to district attorneys to, you know, recognize things like this. But I think without having this on the books, I5748 think it actually hurts their ability to kinda get a case like this done and to actually have the flexibility.
SPEAKER5 - And I you know, we don't have to do this now, but I'd love to hear more about how we're dealing with I think a lot of the young people who do this Yeah. Who push another person to are mentally ill themselves.
SPEAKER3 - Totally. Totally.
SPEAKER5 - And there's there's a question about, are we we missed their care, and now we've missed another child, and lost a child because of it. So I'd love to talk about how Sure. Sure. We can make that discretion and not, punish people for being mentally ill themselves and making horrible decisions as well. But we don't have to do
SPEAKER28 - that right.
SPEAKER30 - Just 1 other thing real quick is I I think professor Medway, who's taught at Northeastern Harvard, I don't think there's anyone probably more learned in this and is so much for criminal justice reform. Mhmm. So I don't think he'd ever put his name on this that he if he thought that it's gonna cause a younger person to who who didn't have a right mind that might, of course, someone that would cause them to actually get penalized. It's more about, can we narrowly tailor this to make sure that if something like this happens again, you give the DA the tool to to move through this and not have 3 different trials the way we did with the previous 1. And I think to narrowly tailor
SPEAKER3 - this thing.
SPEAKER5 - So Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any other questions from the the panel at this time?
SPEAKER10 - Seeing none. Thank you.
SPEAKER30 - Thank you, chair, for your time. Thank you, madam chair.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Alright. We'll return now to testimony on s 10 46, enact relative to adoptions. Virtual online,5841 do we have Scott and Elizabeth Kearns online? No? Ellen Grenfell?
Nope. Renee Weinstein?
SPEAKER6 - Welcome. Thank you.
SPEAKER34 - I want
SPEAKER6 - to thank both, you know, the chair, Edwards and chair Day and the members of the staff in this committee. I want to thank the opportunity to to give this testimony. I, the fact that 3 women, and a couple, Mario, who was not on the thing, talked personally about their stories, I think is so important. And we are also grateful to the Boston Globe editorial staff that in December was hoping this was gonna get passed by, the new year. My name is Renee Wettstein. I've been practicing law in Massachusetts for over 35 years. I specialize in family law and adoptions. When I'm not doing adoptions, unfortunately, I'm doing divorces, and now my divorces have been my happy side because adoptions have been fraught with these emotional up and downs and the changes. Back in the eighties and the nineties, it was very likely a local pregnant teenager was referred to an adoption agency through her pediatrician. There are also many international adoptions through Russia, China, and Korea. Fast forward, most of these countries have stopped allowing5921 Americans to adopt, and, there are no more local orphanages. There's now the after morning5927 pill and fewer and fewer available babies.5929 Some families wait many years to get matched with the birth mother and are thrilled to be matched with the birth mother from another state. In my personal experience, Massachusetts Probate and Family Court judges routinely and happily allowed adoptions of babies born out of Massachusetts with Massachusetts surrenders that was signed by a biological mother
case manager determined without any warning and notice that these surrenders are invalid and would no longer be accepted unless the birth mother was standing on Massachusetts soil. They applied this new interpretation to pending adoptions and prevented families from finalizing their adoptions. This illogical interpretation of the current statute is cruel and preventing women who reside in other states from signing a Massachusetts surrender after they advised of their legal rights and after they sign a choice of law. This is not how we treat women in Massachusetts, and we should not require women in other states to have to take a train, plane, bus, or car to come to Massachusetts and stand on Massachusetts soil to make this adoption surrender valid. The proposed language in s 10 47 would make it crystal clear that a birth parent in another state may use either the law of his or her state or Massachusetts law when signing a surrender. We really urge you to pass this because it is affecting families, and you'll hear from the adoption agencies we're getting less and less adoptions because, birth mothers don't want to have to go to court in their own states, and they are choosing other states where they could also sign surrenders and not choosing Massachusetts families. So we really appreciate your assistance with this. And if6036 you have any questions, please let me know.
SPEAKER1 - Perfect. Any questions, from the panel at this time? Seeing none, thank you, attorney West Stane. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We've got virtual. Amy Berlin
SPEAKER3 - Cook. Yes. Thank you. My
SPEAKER37 - name is Amy Berlin Cook, and I have been an attorney in Massachusetts for almost 40 years with a practice focused on adoption. I represent birth parents, adoptive parents, and many of the adoption agencies licensed in Massachusetts. As an attorney involved in the process, my goal has always been to minimize the unpredictability and to simplify the process as much as feasibly possible while still protecting the rights of all involved. To do so, I must be able to advise my clients what will work in terms of the surrender process for out of state birth parents and Massachusetts adoptive families. I believe that many of the concerns that the judiciary may have relative to the use of Massachusetts surrenders in out of state adoptions are already addressed by actual adoption practice and will be clarified with the passage of this less legislation. If the judiciary is6116 concerned with the protection of rights of out of state birth parents and their understanding of the laws when we use Massachusetts surrenders out of state, we always have the birth parents execute what is called a conflict of laws or jurisdictional statement. These documents produced typically by the out of state attorney clarify the differences between Massachusetts law and the laws of their home state and emphasized that by signing the Massachusetts surrender, the birth parent is consenting to the laws of Massachusetts relative to the adoption. The out of state birth parents are provided with an attorney, not the attorney of the Massachusetts agency, who guides them through this process. Additionally, the out of state attorney provides a letter, typically referred to as an opinion letter, that must state that the use of Massachusetts surrenders is allowed by the state of the birth parents and that the birth parents have signed these mass surrenders with full understanding of the laws of both states. These jurisdictional statements and opinion6182 letters are required by the ICPC, and once provided, enable the ICPC administrators to approve the placements, providing yet another safeguard that the rights of out of state birth parents are protected. It's important to note that the refusal of some judges to recognize the use of mass surrenders for out of state birth parents is absolutely a change in policy. As I've stated, I've been practicing in6208 this field for over 40 years and have finalized thousands of adoptions, both domestic and international.6214 It is imperative that this legislation be passed in order to provide some consistency in the law and its application. We're now in the position of being unable to advise our clients, both agencies and birth parents alike, that a surrender that was signed will be acceptable to a judge 6 months or more from the time it is signed. Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER10 - Thank you. Good
SPEAKER1 - testimony. Appreciate it, Trevor. Questions from the panel? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. We move on now to Christopher Berry. Virgil. Not present.
Got, Caroline Pacheco. Rachel? Not present. Tad Blake Weber?
SPEAKER3 - Not
SPEAKER1 - present. Jennifer Callahan?
Not present. Amy Cohen from Adoptions of Love.
Great. Welcome, Amy Cohen.
SPEAKER13 - Hi. Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 10 46, an act relative to adoption. My name is Amy Cohen, and I am the Executive Director of Adoptions with GLOBE in Newton, Massachusetts. I have been working in the field of adoption for 38 years. Up until last year, we worked in harmony with the judiciary of the Commonwealth to help secure loving and safe homes for children. This is no longer the case, causing anxiety and stress, compounding the trauma of adoption for both birth parents and adoptive families. Here is an example. In March 2024, a young couple from Rhode Island contacted us to make an adoption plan for their expected child. The birth parents received counseling and talked to an attorney in Rhode Island. They chose to waive their rights to the Rhode Island law and sign the mass consents. The adopted family resides in Western Massachusetts. Some of the judges in Western Mass are not accepting these consents signed in another state. We asked the birth parents to come to Massachusetts to re sign the consents. The judge said the documents were acceptable if they were signed on mass soil. This reopened the wounds and re traumatized this young couple. As they were no longer a couple, they each came to our offices separately. They did so so their son could remain with the family that they had chosen. Now, over a year later, the judge is refusing to finalize this adoption because of a document they signed twice. We cannot go back and re traumatize these birth parents and ask them to re sign a Rhode Island voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. We have decided to terminate the rights of the birth father and the rights of all unknown and unidentified men through the court system. Depending on what the judge says, we6405 may have to have a constable serve him with papers. This will cause another trauma to this young man. This process will take at least 4 months. This adoption remains in limbo. This child will be a year and a half old before his parents are deemed his legal guardians and before they can obtain a birth certificate and social security number. This process has caused the couple insurmountable anxiety and stress. The adoptive mother asked if6434 the birth father is served papers, can he decide to take the6438 baby back? The answer is that he could. This child has been living in a stable, secure, and loving home since his birth, and would lose the only family environment he has ever known. The emotional turmoil of being a parent with the possibility of losing a child at any moment is cruel and incalculable, let alone the tremendous cost. That is what this inconsistency and the interpretation of the law has caused. That is why this bill needs a favorable report and must be clarified. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, for your testimony, miss Cohen. Any questions from the panel at this time? Seeing none. Thank you. We'll move on to Panacciota Dathanelis, also from Adoptions with Love.
SPEAKER5 - Okay.
SPEAKER35 - Oops. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - We've got you. Gotta do with the name.
SPEAKER35 - Excellent. Okay.
So members of the judiciary committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is doctor Panayota Athanelis, and I am here as a proud mother, adoptive parent, and a Massachusetts resident in strong support of senate bill 10 46, an act relative to adoptions. 2 years ago, after a long and emotional journey marked by infertility and heartbreak, my husband and I were blessed to adopt our son in Florida. The adoption process, as many of you know, is already filled with uncertainty, anxiety, and intense vulnerability. It demands patients, courage, and trust, especially from the birth families who are making the most selfless, loving decision imaginable. And while I'm here to talk about my own family, my husband, my son, I really, really want to
son's birth mother. So my husband and I were there just a few hours after our son was born. We sat beside his birth mother in the hospital as she held him and rocked him and whispered to him. I've watched her make the decision to give him to us not just once, but over and over again. Each time someone gently but firmly asked, are you sure? I saw the pain in her eyes and heard it in her voice as she was asked the same question repeatedly.
Justify the most difficult decision of her life. A decision rooted6593 in love, but also6595 in the painful acknowledgement that she did not have the means to6597 provide for her child in a way the way6599 that she wished she could. I cannot even imagine how difficult that is for her and was for her. I urge you to consider the many layers of hardship that lead a birth mother to the path of adoption and the multiple levels of marginalization that often accompany those hardships. These are women whose voices are rarely amplified. Their strength is quiet but profound. They deserve compassion, dignity, and peace in the choices they make. My son Joseph's first birth brother is the bravest person I have ever known. We maintain an open adoption and I remain in close and respectful contact with her. Our son will grow up knowing where he came from and how deeply he was loved from the very beginning by all of us. We were so lucky that our adoption was recognized in Massachusetts without issue. I've heard of so many others who have not been so fortunate so fortunate and now we're beginning the process of adopting a second child. And I carry with me a real fear of encountering unnecessarily, unnecessary legal obstacles that could bring stress and confusion not only to us, but to the birth family too and to our son. And that's why this bill really matters.
Adoption is built on love and trust. It is especially important in protecting the dignity of the birth mothers who are especially vulnerable and marginalized. Please support this bill. Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, doctor Athanelis. Any questions, from the panel at this time? Seeing none, thank you. Appreciate your testimony.
SPEAKER35 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - That concludes the individuals who signed up to testify today, either virtually or in person. I wanna thank everyone who participated, including chair Edwards and the members of the committee here. As a reminder, anyone can submit written testimony to the judiciary committee, by mail at 24 Beacon Street, Room 136, Foster, Mass. Or for house bills, by email, ditalia.quinn,talia,.quinn@mahouse.gov. On senate bills to Grace Giordina, g r a c e dot g I o r d I n a at mass senate dot gov. All written testimony received by the committee will be made publicly available provided. However, the chairs may limit redact testimony that includes sensitive personal or information that may jeopardize the health, wellness, or safety of the testifier or others. Thank you all again. Have a great night.