2025-04-22 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
2025-04-22 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
SEN EDWARDS - And welcome to today's hearing on estate, probate, and family bills before the Joint Committee8 on8 the Judiciary. We're officially called to10 order. I'm Chair12 Lydia Edwards, and I'm joined today by my co-chair representative, Michael Day. This hearing is the second official convening of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary for the 194th legislative session. And joining us today from the committee, we'll go with house members first, and Chair Day will introduce them.
REP DAY - Thank you, Senator. We'll start from my left. We've got Representative Mokley, Representative Higgins, Representative Kilcoyne. Joining shortly will be vice chair Fluker-Reid. And then down from the far right, Representative Cataldo, Representative Sullivan Almeida, ranking member Representative Berthiaume, and Representative Mendez. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER 1 - I don't see any, Senate members, online yet, but as they come up, we'll be sure to introduce them. Thank you to, everyone who signed up to testify by 5 PM on April 20. That was for online. Committee staff will be present in the hall for anyone that did not previously sign up, but wishes to testify before the committee in person. After we've called on all the individuals who've actually RSVP'd, we will then stay on that bill and ask if anybody else has any other testimony. The committee looks forward to hearing, your expertise and personal experiences, as we consider the bills before us on estate, probate, and family. Just a few housekeeping notes before we begin. The time projected on the screen, the time will be projected on the screen above us, and an alarm will notify you when your time is up. The committee will have the opportunity to ask each presenter questions for five minutes panels for the group. Please be mindful of these limits so that we may hear from as many voices as possible. Those who have signed up to speak on multiple bill bills will still have no more than two minutes allotted. So we do not expect that you're signing up, doing two minutes, and then coming back on another bill and doing another two minutes, and then signing up on another bill and doing another two minutes. If you have several bills that you would like to talk about today, you have two minutes. That doesn't mean you cannot talk to any of us individually before or after this committee. We're available usually on Zoom, in our offices, on the phone, but today you have two minutes. The chairs reserve the right to call public officials out of turn. Additionally, I want to note that the public officials who intend to testify on the panel, will not be taken out of turn. So if any of the panel members want to testify bill, you will just have to wait until all the other RSVPs have. Please note that the committee will continue to accept written testimony, which may be submitted by mail to the Joint Committee on judiciary at 24 Beacon Street, Room 136, Boston, Massachusetts 02133 or at jointcommittee,1word,.judiciary@m mass legislature excuse me,197 m a legislature dot gov, or talia, t a l I a, dot quinn, q u I n n, at m a house205 dot gov for house bills. And all written testimony received by the committee will be made publicly available. Provided, however, the chairs may limit and redact testimony that includes sensitive personal information or information that may jeopardize the health, wellness, or safety of the testifier or others. Today's testimony may touch on a subject matter that is deeply personal and and for many painful. I want to acknowledge the courage it takes to speak publicly about difficult experiences, and I ask that everyone in this room, whether you're offering testimony, listening, or asking questions, approach today's discussion with respect and compassion and care. With that, I again thank you all for your presence and commitment to justice, and I look forward to a productive, respectful hearing. I'm going to go256 ahead and call on258 I think we have260 representative right now. Represent Well, he was here. Representative Murray? Oh, there he was. Sorry. Representative Murray and and Senator Keeney, is this Are you also on this bill, the act clarifying? Yes. Did Are you testifying as well on this bill? You guys can come up together, I guess. Go ahead.
REP MURRAY - HB 1911 - Okay. Chair Edwards, Chair Day, members of the committee, thank you for, having us testify on, this particular bill. The, house number is, H 1911. This is a fairly arcane but important, issue in the estate planning community. It was brought to, my attention to the real estate bar, the estate planning bar, and essentially deals with a very targeted question as to whether or not a, durable power of attorney can, execute, a trust, if in fact it has been delegated so in the power of attorney itself. And the issue arose in the Supreme Judicial Court case, Barbetti versus Stempenowitz. And if you wanna look through that decision.338 I have sympathy for you. It's a classic family estate dispute. Having gone through many of those in my 37 years of private practice, it is a very, very unpleasant, experience, I351 can attest to. But it is353 significant, and I have this in my written testimony, that the court, the SJC, themselves indicated that the, and I'll quote, the more prudent path is to363 allow the legislature the opportunity365 to decide whether and how to allow delegation of the power to create a trust power to create a trust occurs.
So that's the meaning of this bill to, confirm that a durable power of attorney does in fact have the right to execute a trust or the, principle if in fact it has been so stated in the power of attorney document. And to be honest with you, it was always my understanding that that was the case, but the court indicated that, infact has never really been ruled upon. And it is it. So that is the necessity for this bill. I think all of you realize in the estate planning world, it's very difficult to try to408 foresee all the different situations and circumstances that families might face as they go through, particular phases of their life. And estate planners wanna have as much certainty as possible. Ideally, when you do the durable power of attorney documents, you'd you'd like to have your will, your proxy, your trust in place at that time. That's not always possible. Sometimes, the trust has to be done after it, and I think the family would want reassurance that, in fact, that could occur through the durable power of attorney. So that is the purpose of this bill, and I would turn it over to, Senator Keenan.
SEN KEENAN - HB 1911 - Thank you, Representative. I really don't have much to add. Thank you for your comprehensive testimony. Hope to hear you fine that, Chair Edwards, Chair Dave Miller, and committee. John Keenan from Norfolk and from the Senate District. I just like to reiterate that this is a clarification of a matter that for so long was taken as kind of granted that within a power of attorney, you had an inherent ability to prepare a trust. And then the court case in 2022 found that that wasn't the case, and I would agree with the kind of the description of the matter that gave rise to the SG SJC decision. It was a bit of a mess within the family. It was a 91-year-old woman who had, I think it was, one of her sons, I think, who we know it was right to do, set up a trust. And it was clear, so clear, in fact, that this was not allowed500 despite500 the500 general500 sense500 it500 had500 been500 that,500 at500 the500 Supreme500 Court500 level,500 there was a partial summary judgment on this particular issue.
The court found right away that, in fact, this was not the case. You did not have that ability. You did not have that power under a power of attorney, and, therefore, it was rendered void. Went up the SDC. There was a concurrence on that. That was the decision, and it was sent over here. Suggested that it be sent here to the legislature. So this really does clarify a technical524 issue or technical omission526 in the Massachusetts Uniform Trust530 Code.530 Many530 other states have this in place. Massachusetts would come in line with that.534 And, again, I just would clarify it or describe it rather as a technical correction. And it comforts people with disabilities. It comforts seniors, both of whom rely on powers of attorney, perhaps, more than most others, to make sure that their wishes are carried forth. So I would urge that the committee give this, due consideration by a favorable recommendation if possible. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Are there any questions?
Hearing none. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. We're gonna continue on. An act establish medical panels for the probate and family court department, s 1 1 0 2. Do we have I have a Paola Rossetti.
PAOLA ROSETTI - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1102 - Good afternoon, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and members of the committee. My name is Paola Rosetti. I'm a Boston resident, and I strongly support Senate Bill 1102, an act establishing medical panels for the probate and family625 court filed by Senator Paul Feeney. This bill gives probate and family court judges a vital tool, the ability to convene impartial medical panels to answer medical questions in contested guardianship and custody cases. Right now, judges have to make life changing decisions often without access to neutral medical expertise, essentially left to decide medical questions of fact. As an attorney with personal experience and anecdotal insights from655 advocacy work, I'm confident that senate bill 1102 would meaningfully address critical gaps in guardianship and child custody proceedings.
Individuals with mental health conditions, developmental disabilities, and the elderly who are disproportionately670 subject to guardianship also experience significantly higher rates of co-occurring medical676 conditions, yet decisions about their care are too often made without reliable medical input, leading to improper683 diagnosis and treatments. This bill responds to a widespread urgent need by ensuring that judges have the resource of medically informed evaluations in the cases where it matters the most. And also, this model is not new. It's based on a long standing effective system used in Massachusetts for public employee disability claims and retirement law. Applying it here helps judges in making medically informed decisions from unbiased, specialized medical input, especially in cases where the independence, dignity, and well-being of vulnerable individuals are at the state law. I urge the committee to give this bill a favorable report. I thank Senator Feeney for sponsoring this bill, and thank this honorable committee for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions? Okay. I have, Brandy Dean.
BRANDY DEAN - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1102 - Good afternoon, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and members of752 the judiciary committee. My name is Brandy Dean, and I'm here in strong support of bill 1102, an act establishing a medical panel for the propane and family court. A bill that could have changed the course of my son's life. In 2020, our son was diagnosed by 2 Harvard-affiliated physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital with PANS, a neuropsychiatric disorder triggered by infection. With antibiotics and IVIG infusions, he made a full recovery missing just 10 days of school. At the time, his father and I were aligned to doing everything possible to help him heal. But after our divorce, everything changed. When our son relapsed in 2022, he could no longer play hockey796 or attend school. Despite a clear medical history and diagnosis from top specialists, he802 was denied care.
Because his father who once supported treatment suddenly denied the diagnosis and blocked access to the very doctors who had helped him. With 50/50 legal custody, no for false accusations of child abuse, Munchausen by proxy, even claims I paid MGH830 doctors to fabricate a diagnosis. These lies not only vilified me, they denied our son836 the medical care he urgently needed. He lost a year of school, a year of his childhood. And I was powerless to stop it, not because of the evidence wasn't there, but because one parent had was allowed to say no. Court should not be left to navigate complex medical cases without guidance. A neutral medical panel would have confirmed my son's diagnosis, protected his treatment,860 and prevented unnecessary harm. I believe this bill is a vital step toward ensuring children receive the care they need based on medical facts, not legal loopholes. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions?
Seeing none. I have Kayla Knight.
KAYLA KNIGHT - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1102 - Good afternoon, Chairwoman Edwards, State Rep Day and the members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Kayla Knight. I am a resident of Foxborough, a domestic violence and disability advocate, and most importantly, a mother of two young child with complex medical needs. I'm here in bold support of Senate Bill 1102, enacting establishing medical panels for the probate and family courts, filed935 by Senator Paul Feeney. This issue is deeply personal, not just for me, but for many of us. We all know someone, a loved one, a friend, a colleague, who has faced serious medical conditions, disabilities, trauma, or the challenges of aging. In those vulnerable954 moments, our system should offer the greatest support. Yet far too often, courts are left to make life-altering decisions without clear medical expertise. That's why I urge you to support the creation of the medical panels in the probate and family courts. This would be the first initiative of its kind in the nation.
These panels would consist of three licensed independent doctors, objective professionals who act as medical detectives, truth finders who bring insight, accuracy, and neutrality to cases involving disability, chronic illnesses, mental health, and trauma. Case health, and trauma. Cases where health, safety, best interest, and well-being are the top priority. Here's what the medical panels would do. Help judges make more informed life-saving decisions, clarify medical1004 facts that are often misunderstood, protect those most at risk, children, people with disabilities, survivors, and the elderly, reduce bias by providing trusted and partial medical insight. Most importantly, medical panels could save lives. This is a win win importantly, medical panels could save lives. This is a win-win for judges, litigants, and especially the vulnerable individuals at the heart of these cases. Imagine a world where every vulnerable voice is heard and protected. This is our chance to make that1035 vision real by ensuring our loved ones have health, safety, support they need, not just to survive, but to truly strive, thrive, and excel. Please pass our bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Any questions? Seeing none. Leslie Vocal.
LESLIE VOGEL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1102 - Good afternoon, Chair Edwards and members of the committee. My name is Leslie Vogel. I'm a Boston resident and a physician here in support of bill S 1102, an act establishing medical panels for the probate and family court sponsored by Senator Paul Feeney. The purpose of this bill is to assess via three physician medical panels relevant or potentially relevant medical issues raised in a probate proceeding, where there's a contested petition for appointment of a guardian or custody of a minor or a request to modify an existing order. The proposed panel is a derivative of the long standing medical panels created to assist judges in rendering decisions on accidental disability retirement. A panel of three specialist positions would provide medical fact finding and diagnostic clarity for protecting the health and survival of the vulnerable party.
A party in a custody case would petition the court to convene a physician panel to protect a child from negligent medical care, which could otherwise sentence the child to years of pain, discomfort, disability, or even death. Anecdote. Mother takes daughter to pediatrician for shortness of breath and stomach pain. Pediatrician recommends two specialists. One specialist prescribes two asthma inhalers. Father says my daughter isn't asthmatic. It doesn't run-in the family and prohibits her from using the inhaler during weekend visitation. The child is audibly wheezing and frightened. The mother, alarmed, petitions the court to convene a specialist panel to address the disputed medical questions. Does child have asthma? Are the inhalers appropriate? Asking the court to modify father's medical decision making. Father then accuses mother of Munchausen by proxy for, quote, taking daughter to too many doctors. The panel would eliminate the melodrama and focus on the medical facts of the case, enabling the judge to make as medically informed decision as possible. Thank you. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - We're going to we have 2 more, people. They're virtual, and then there's some, elected officials. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. We're gonna have 2 more people, and then we have some elected officials.
I have Kelsey Forrest, us, who's possibly online.
SPEAKER12 - Hi. Yes. I'm gonna read for Kelsey. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - Sorry. Who is who is this?
SPEAKER12 - My name is April Bradshaw. Just reading for Kelsey.
SPEAKER1 - So, just wanna be clear. Kelsey Forrest signed up for several bills. Are you you're testifying on all of them in these 2 minutes?
SPEAKER12 - Let me she just had an emergency, so it asked me if I could read hers for her.
So I have bill 1 1 0 2 is what I see in her email.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. So, go ahead. You have 2 minutes.
APRIL BRADSHAW - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1102 - Okay. Dear honorable judiciary committee, I am writing in support of bill S 1102, an active established medical panels for the probate and family court. As constituent and a mother, I'm writing to advocate for legislative actions to establish a medical panel within the family court system. My daughter's life and the lives of many other children's depend on it. When my daughter was just five months old, she was a victim of several severe medical abuse by her father. She was hospitalized for three months and required surgery as a result of the harm inflicted upon her. Despite many of these traumatic events and his continued patient pattern of aggression, including being banned from multiple hospitals and striking a hospital security guard with his vehicle, he still maintains legal custody. With no neutral medical advocate involved in the legal process, my daughter continues to suffer. Over the years, he has managed to get her discharged from multiple respected institutions for interest Franciscan Children's Boston Medical Center and Boston Children's Hospital. Not because her care was in was complete, but due to his disruptive and dangerous behavior.
In response to my attempts to advocate for her health, he has made false and humbler claims that I suffer from munchies of by proxy, a tactic often used by abusers to divert attention and discredit protective parents. Family courts are not designed to evaluate complete complex medical cases, especially when one parent uses legal custody or obstruct care or control medical or controls medical narratives. The consequences are dire when judges are left to make medical decisions without input from impartial qualified1377 medical professionals. A medical panel would offer the expertise needed to guide the court in making decisions that truly serve the child's best interest, separating legal, legitimate care for from manipulation and advocacy from abuse. I urge you to consider introducing or supporting legislation that would establish such panels with the family court system. This reform could prevent suffering, safeguard medically vulnerable children, and provide judges with guidance they need to make informed life altering decisions. Thank you for your time and service and willingness to consider reform that protects us protects the most vulnerable. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I do have another 1 or I could speak to my own. I'm not sure.
SPEAKER1 - Are you Anne Duffy?
SPEAKER12 - No. But I actually can read Anne Duffy's as well.
SPEAKER1 - Is so is
And Duffy also has multiple bills. So will you be testifying on or reading for all of those bills or just this 1?
SPEAKER12 - Are they all supposed to be all at once?
SPEAKER1 - Yes.
SPEAKER12 - Like
SPEAKER1 - of the bills that they signed up for, they have 2 minutes.
SPEAKER13 - Total. Total.
SPEAKER12 - Hold on 1 second. I am just trying to find.
SPEAKER1 - We can come back to you. There are some people present who, will testify, and we can coordinate that.
SPEAKER12 - If I could have 2 seconds only because quite literally, I it's a fluke that I'm able to even be on this right now. Could I read do you have Amanda Gory on the list?
SPEAKER1 - No.
SPEAKER12 - Okay. Would I be able to come back after this next person testifies to do this?
SPEAKER1 - Did you sign up to testify?
SPEAKER12 - No. Both Kelsey and Anne were pulled into meetings. And so they had sent me an email1512 asking if I was available to do it.
SPEAKER1 - So, what we're gonna do is, there's people who did RSVP who are presently here. And so you can send in Anne's testimony. We accept that as written testimony. It'll be entered on the record. And appreciate you reading out, Kelsey's, testimony. But we're gonna move on.
SPEAKER12 - Okay. No worries. I appreciate it. Thank you again.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
We have online senator, Joan Lovely.
SEN LOVELY - SB 1164 - SB 1170 - Thank you, Madam Chair, mister chairman. I am here and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify out of order. I have two bills that I would like to quickly testify on. The first is senate number 1164, an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities and family and juvenile court proceedings. Parents with disabilities, especially psychiatric or intellectual disabilities, are sometimes inappropriately. They lose custody of their, child or parenting time at alarming rates due to the disability. This bill would require courts to make a written finding as to whether a parent's disability causes actual harm to their child and is a factor in determining custody, and courts would also be required to determine whether any harm to the child caused by the parent's disability could be alleviated by through the use of adaptive equipment or support so1601 supportive services for the parents.
We do think that this would1605 be a tool to assist the courts and the judges in when they're making determinations of custody and parenting time and do hope that you will consider a positive recommendation for this bill. Happy to answer any questions on that or I'll move on quickly on the next bill, which is relatively short. An Act relative to partition of nominee1629 trusts. So S 1170, an act relative to the petition of nominee trusts. I'm the lead sponsor. It would amend section 1 of chapter 241 of the MGL to add the trustee of a nominee trust as an individual who can petition the court. Currently, property owners who own property in a trust cannot petition the court to partition partition a property. So as a result, there's deadlock between the beneficiaries of a nominee trust that cannot be resolved. There are also as a constituent attorney in my district who does much of this work who would also like to testify, he's online as well. Also looking for positive, consideration for this bill this session. These bills are have both been filed in the prior session. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Any questions?
Okay. Thank you, senator, Lovely.1691
SPEAKER13 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We have representative, Joan Moschino, an act improving legal and administrative proceedings for court involved children and families.
REP MESCHINO - HB 1885 - HB 188 - Good, afternoon. Yes. I'm right here. I actually have two bills. I have House 1885, an act improving legal and administrative proceedings for court-involved children and families, and House 1888, an act regarding the quantum of proof and care and protection and termination of parental rights. So, essentially, these bills, and then there is a suite of bills also in children and families right now, aare born of experience. These bills come to me from CPCS, and they, Dan Mahini will be, testifying in much more detail. But I just wanted to elevate them to you and frame them in this way. I feel that, you know, we've been doing a lot of important work, but the committee really should take a look, and we really need to update family law in general and care and protection in particular.
And the theme of all of these bills really is about elevating the voice of the child and the well-being of the child when we're making decisions, about their removal and their reunification. It's a system like any other. And often as adults, I think we do things that are easy and convenient for ourselves. But what we've learned over time is that removal, even though it's important and often necessary, is still very traumatic. And so what all of these changes that we're proposing is really about giving various actors in the system, whether it be attorneys, the, probation, judiciary, what whatever, really elevating and giving them the ability to make small and big changes, to really minimize trauma. That's what1809 it really comes down to. So we're hoping that or together. How decision makers for children's, fam [ INAUBLE ] or answer questions. I would really refer them more to, to CPCS, and I just ask for positive consideration, of these bills. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much, representative. Just a couple, house cleaning, announcements. So I just wanna let you know, Senator Miranda, I believe, is joining us online. Senator, Pat Jalen, who's a member of the committee, has now joined us as well. And, we have some special guests here today with representative Doan, the Amherst College d 3 national champs for soccer. Welcome. Thank you
SPEAKER9 - all for being
SPEAKER1 - here today. We're just gonna continue on with, with with, some online testimony. I know we have some other, reps and senators for taking out a turn. Senator,
Jake Jacob Olivera.
SPEAKER15 - I am here, madam chair.
SPEAKER9 - Go.
SEN OLIVEIRA - SB 1236 - Thank you. Thank you to Chair Edwards, and thank you to Chair Day. I am, testifying today on a bill that I filed as a late file last session. So this is the first time I am filing this bill under regular order. It's senate number 1236, an act to protect survivors of spousal abuse from alimony payments. In Massachusetts today, it's possible for survivors of, spousal abuse who've already taken the near impossible step of leaving an abusive marriage to be required to pay alimony to their abuser after they escape that relationship. I filed this bill because of life altering financial and emotional consequences that survivors face. And to pay the person that you survived from alimony payments is revictimization. Senate bill 1236 would help survivors by giving the courts the authority to determine alimony payments and deny future alimony petitions if a spouse is found to have been convicted of abuse. Only after the criminal justice system has found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The CDC considers intimate partners violence a pervasive issue impacting millions each and every year. Nationally, about 24,000,000, about 24 people every minute experienced violence by an intimate partner. That's over 12,000,000 victims each year according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
And when we look at the impact that it has here on Massachusetts in a very high income state, we look at other states around us who have passed similar legislation to protect victims of domestic violence. Just south of us in the Nutmeg state in the state of Connecticut recently passed, just two years ago, the same piece of legislation to prevent these alimony payments. New Jersey has also passed this legislation. In California, the largest state in the country, has also passed legislation to protect victims of domestic violence from having to shell out dollars to the people that have abused them. This is as I said before, it was a late file last session. This is a new bill this session. It's my hope that we can work together to fine-tune the language to ensure that people aren't revictimized again and again by having to pay dollars out of their own pockets of the person2032 that abused them. Domestic violence, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, shown a spotlight on the issues that families are having and making sure that we protect victims of domestic violence should be paramount. I would ask that, the committee report this bill out favorably to begin, this discussion, through both of our chambers to ensure that we protect victims of domestic violence. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. And, finally, senator Jo Comerford.
SEN COMERFORD - SB 1044 - HB 1673 - Thank you so much, Madam Chair, Chair Edwards, Chair Day. Thank you for taking me out of turn. I'll be brief because you'll hear from, folks who are in the room with you in terms of testimony on Senate Bill 1044 and House Bill 1673. I share the bill with Leader Donato. This is the first time I have filed this bill. However, it is not the first time this bill has been filed. And I was approached by registers, who I work for in Western Massachusetts and they made a very strong case. This bill is supported by all of the registers of probate in the Commonwealth as and they worked collaboratively with Chief Justice Casey on an2107 act relative to the efficient management and2109 operation of registries of probate. I will just say that I think we in the legislature understand the importance of the courts at this time. We need them to be both, properly staffed and as modernized and well run as possible because their workload is increased, quite considerably. And this bill makes a great deal of sense to me that we're trying to codify, the current practice so that our courts can operate with the surety that they need in order to do their jobs. Again, I'm happy to take questions. I'm really happy to file this bill, and I look forward to a conversation with the committee and to your strong consideration, on behalf of the register of probate and the trial court. Thank you so much for allowing me this testimony. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Seeing no questions, move on to the next, bill. I have S 1280, an act clarifying insurance liability for foster care providers. In person, I have a Rachel Gault Gault me. Please correct me. I apologize. Waltney. Waltney from the Children's League of Massachusetts.
RACHEL GWALTNEY - CLM - Good afternoon, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Rachel Gwaltney. I'm the executive director of the Children's League of Massachusetts, a statewide association of 68 member organizations who are providers of a wide variety of child and family services across the Commonwealth. In particular, our members include the community-based organizations who provide comprehensive foster care homes as state contractors to the Department of Children and Families. I'm testifying in support of a resolve for a foster care liability insurance special commission. A nationwide crisis has emerged specific to foster care liability insurance with insurers terminating coverage, forcing the closure of thousands of foster care beds and programs across the country. This crisis has been driven by a few large claims in states other than Masschusetts states that have different licensing, quality, oversight, and contract models than2256 we do here. Sometimes from cases that occurred decades ago. This crisis has now reached Massachusetts.
Our providers are already receiving notices of either foster care homes for DCF, exacerbating the be able to operate comprehensive foster care homes for DCF, exacerbating the already severe placement crisis within our child welfare system, especially for the most medically complex children who are typically served by community based providers. DCF would have to stand up its own network of CFC homes at much greater cost to the Commonwealth and with a huge disruption to the children currently in care. Together with our members, our local insurance brokers, and our counterparts and partners across the country, the Children's League has been researching many solutions, but we cannot solve this problem on our own. This proposed commission would work with us to find a sustainable solution that ensures vital foster care programs remain available to DCF and to the Commonwealth's children who are in need of those homes. We thank you for this opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer any questions. We'll also submit written testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions. We'll also submit written testimony with additional details. And we have three of our member organizations here to, testify online as a panel and can give you more details from their perspective as providers. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much. I believe that pan are there any questions? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna move to the panel. Beth Barto from LUK, Robert Costa from Justice Resource Institute, and, Yo Yo2346 Yao from Bridges Howard Homeward. Excuse me.
It would be online.
BETH BARTO - LUK - SB 1280 - Hello. Good afternoon. This is Beth Barto. I can start us off today. So, good afternoon, House Chair Day, Senate Chair Edwards, and members of the committee. My name is Beth Barto, and I'm the president and CEO of LUK, Inc. Luck's a nonprofit social service agency in Central Mass, and we're dedicated to improving the lives of youth and their families. I wanna thank you so much for your time today. Luck is one of the comprehensive foster care providers that Rachel mentioned, and we actually started our foster care, programming in 1978. Today we operate 60 foster homes in Central Mass and serve approximately 70 to 100 children in foster care on any given day. From 1997 to the present, that's when we were actually tracking numbers, Luck has served over 2,678 children through our foster care program. For our calendar year 25, our and during our liability insurance renewal in December, Luck was notified by our insurance broker that our current insurer is shifting its customer base and will no longer cover organizations that provide foster care services.
While they will be willing to, ensure LUK in calendar year 25, they would not commit to continuing coverage for us in calendar year 26, and that's our whole organization. Given that we have foster care. Additionally, they declined to provide the supplemental insurance that need best practice coverage limits for foster care organizations. As a result, because we needed that supplemental coverage this year, we went out of, the state and it cost us over $200,000 upfront to afford only 1,000,000 of the 2,000,000 supplemental coverage for this year. Overall, our insurance costs from calendar year, 25 to calendar year 26 went up 102, 12%. And there's no other insurance in the, state market currently willing to provide coverage for foster care agencies. So I'm testifying today to share with you how much of a crisis this is, and we literally only have eight months to figure it out. So we respectfully ask our elected officials to work with us to develop a sustainable long term strategy for affordable liability insurance for foster care agent agencies. Thank you so much for your time. Robert, you wanna add fair?
ROBERT COSTA - LUK - SB 1280 - Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is Robert Coster, and I am the director of foster care programs for the Justice Resource Institute for nine years, and have been a program director for 16. Our program is a state-contracted comprehensive foster care model serving special needs children, teens, and young adults ages newborn to 21 years of age. We recruit and train all of our foster parents in accordance with Department of Children and Families and Department of Early Education and care regulations. Our case managers are bachelor's level educated licensed social workers. Our homes are located throughout the Commonwealth, including Boston, Metro Boston, the North Shore, Springfield, and Southeastern Massachusetts, including Cape Cod. Within the past five years, our program and organization has been struggling with securing affordable liability insurance for our foster care program and has had been dropped by many of our long time has been dropped by a long time provider of insurance despite the fact that our program has not had any claims against it.
In that time, we have been able to identify one insurance provider to cover our insurance needs. Insurance carriers report is because of numerous liability claims from foster care providers throughout the country driving the increased costs and lack of coverage, within the past two years we have been subject to a 200% cost increase, with 1/4 of the coverage that we have. Carried these increased costs for insurance in a combination with increased cost for salaries and additional mandates from both the Commonwealth and insurance providers puts us at a real crossroads of staying open or having to decide to close, thus depriving services to a number of children. In addition, we've had to comply with insurance company mandates, including implementing program-wide unannounced visits to foster homes and was required to hire a quality assurance manager despite the fact that these are not state requirements. These additional costs have added to the burdens of providing foster care services for the Commonwealth, including the ongoing acute shortages of recruiting for foster homes that exists in the state currently.
In emergency situations, we are often asked by DCF to take in children and teens with limited knowledge of the history or backgrounds, potentially putting a family or other children2626 at risk in inviting potential law lawsuits. The insurance crisis is not limited to the Commonwealth. Recently, the state of California has experienced the displacement of thousands of children in the2636 foster care system as nonprofit agencies have had to close because of unaffordable liability insurance rates. I feel that this scenario could too be played out here locally if reforms are not made quickly. I respectfully ask the legislature to help resolve the growing liability insurance coverage issue. This issue affects not only my2654 program, but all of the Commonwealth's nonprofits that provided needed comprehensive foster care services. The2660 loss of just a few programs will significantly impact the already severe placement shortages that are occurring in the state presently. Thank you for my tech, for allowing me to testify. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - I realize you're out of time, but did you wanna take 30 seconds?
SPEAKER20 - Yes. Let me, take 30 seconds instead of go for all the number, but I could share a story2683 with you.
Do you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - Yes. We can hear you. I'm I'm I'm sorry. I'm giving you additional time, about 30 seconds to go ahead.
YOYO YAU - LUK - SB 1280 - Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the bill, S 1280. My name is Yoyo Yau. I serve the executive director as a... Our agency have been served foster care over 150 years. And one of the things I want to share a story, is a foster care trial be placed at Bridges of Homework in 2022. They will come to our home, foster home. The foster care parents, Sarah and Henry mentioned that we are not here to keep you away from the family. We are here to support you and your family. We will ensure all the safe, need you need and your family will be able to take you over again. And, long story short, last summer, David will be able, to get a summer job and, continue, develop his interest. He went on the first trip with Sarah and his family, first flight, first cruise, and now he did really well, become the, ninth-grade students of the year. There's so many, students and youth like David. We really need false care systems to support, the temporary, to support they continue could, thrive and, in the commonwealth. Thank you for your time, by supporting this bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much.
We have representative
Kearns
online for h 1816.
REP KERANS - HB 1816 - HB 1671 - Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. I am here. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify out of turn. I wanna thank you and House Chair Day and your wonderful staff for their assistance today. I am testifying briefly today on House 1816, having to do with health care proxy storage and activation. And this is a bill that came about because of an experience by a gentleman who had hoped to testify today, cannot come in person. His name is Howard Karas, and he will be submitting written testimony. This arose out of his experience with his elderly father needing medical care and the situation with a health care proxy having been activated, but the person who is the proxy was not notified directly.2848 So that it was activated, but the person didn't know, almost like being told you're up, but they didn't get that message. So this would address the electronic storage of proxies with a medical record in the similar manner that a DNR, a Do Not Resuscitate Order, is stored in a medical record. So very much hoping that, you can see fit to move this bill forward and assist families in the situation where a proxy just doesn't know that it's been activated. As I2887 said, Mr. Karas will be submitting, his own written testimony. And if I could, in closing, just note briefly my support as well for House 1671, and you'll be hearing more on that bill later that has to do with the disposition of remains. And I thank you all very much for the opportunity to be heard on these bills today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, representative. Moving on. Any questions? Thank you.
SPEAKER21 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Moving on to, an act relative to the efficient management and operation of registries of probate.
We have the honorable, John Casey. Judge Casey.
Is this are you guys on a panel?2938 So is it John Okay.
SPEAKER22 - Now that you're
SPEAKER1 - Let's see. So I have
trial court, probate family court, and bondstable division. Is that the panel? No. I have honorable John Casey, John F Merrigan.
SPEAKER5 - This is registered Merrigan.
SPEAKER1 - And register Anastasia Anastasia. No? Tara just okay. Alright.
Take it away.
JOHN CASEY - MASS PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT - SB 1044 - HB 1673 - Yeah. Well, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and committee members, thank you for your opportunity to testify here today. Back in 2017, then Chief Justice, of the Supreme Judicial Court Ralph Gants declared that the Probing Family Court was a court in crisis and that we needed to reimagine how we conducted our business in that court. And just listening to some of the, testimony that you've2997 heard so far in the short span, it's touched upon some of the issues that we3002 deal with in the probate and family court that are central, to your constituents and3007 central to our court users. One of the first things that we did to sort of reimagine the court was3012 to advocate for eight additional statutory judicial positions. And with3016 your assistance, we obtained those, and we're starting to fill those positions3020 now. And we've seen significant improvement in the court process. The other thing that we did was we filed legislation back in February to increase staffing in the registries. It was woefully inadequate. We had asked more and more of the registry staff, and, they didn't have the resources.
There were some registries that didn't have assistant registers, didn't have first assistant registers, and these are typically lawyers or really experienced staff members that can help with complex matters. We advocated for that. Within days, the pandemic hit, and we were faced with other challenges. But we convinced then Chief Justice Locke and the court administrator, at the time to advance these positions that are set forth in the legislation. With all due respect to the legislature, they saw it was a crisis. We needed this. They funded it. We come here today not asking for any funding. They're part of the trial court budget. But we've hired these individuals at a high level positions in our court, critical to the improvements in our court, yet we don't have statutory positions for them. And we're simply asking that you amend the statute to reflect what's actually happening in the court with those positions today. And I know that you have lots of bills to consider. I would ask that, you, please pass this legislation for the benefit of not only those staff members, but for the entire community. Because without them, we would not be able to do our work. Register.
TARA DECHRISTOFARO - MIDDLESES PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT - SB 1044 - HB 1673 - Thank you, Chair3125 Day, Chair, Edwards, and to the committee. I also wanna thank, Senator Comerford and Representative Donato3129 for sponsoring these bills and then signed on. I'm happy to stand here in support of S 1044 and H 1673. The registries of probate really handle everything that you could imagine. People don't know us until they need us, and that is for divorces, custodies, and all these guardianship cases and, issues that you're hearing come before you today. We've had the MUPC, the mass Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code,3154 the Massachusetts Uniform Trust Code, special immigration juvenile status cases. We've just had the Parentage Act, recently passed. We've seen such an increase in our self-represented litigants, and they all need further assistance. What I just wanted to provide you for was just a brief statistic back in, when we were able to get these higher-level positions in.
When a simple estate case where someone's to be appointed over in a state would take upwards of 250 days3181 to be allowed between the time of filing an appointment. Now it's down to 40 days, which is inclusive of a 28-day citation period, which is typical. So that's3191 an incredible change. Just these few positions have added. Not3195 only that, but they come to the people at the counter with no other resources, and assist them in ways for the process because it is a scary endeavor to come to our court. These would codify those positions and allow us to continue to serve your constituents and3210 our constituents as elected officials, to be the voice of the people in the court. And, I just hope that we report this out favorably so we can continue to have these positions3218 in the court.
JOHN MERRIGAN - MASS PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT - SB 1044 - HB 1673 - Thank you, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, members of the committee. I asked that you have a, packet, handed around earlier. I tell my colleagues when we discussed this bill that it's a 15-page-long document. Having said where you're sitting at some 22 years ago as a member of the house, sometimes these are daunting bills and they seem to be reinventing the wheel here. It simply is modifying 217, to codify as the chief talked about, positions that we have obtained and have, filled. And we're looking if a new chief comes in the future, we're not guaranteed to keep some of these value positions. So we're we're looking to have them put in statutory into our, February. Appreciate your support. It's, refiled, and it's been supported in the past few sessions. We're open to, with new sponsors to get some movement on the bill, necessity. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Questions? Question.
DAY - Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Regis is welcome. Welcome home. Again, former representative. Just wanna thank you all for your work on this bill. I know, we asked you to come together and negotiate this piece, and, the refile that's been submitted to us reflects that compromise. So appreciate it when you're able to work together and bring us, even though, registered mayor again, a lot of reading for us, which is challenging as reps. We'll get through it, and, I just appreciate your work on the bill. Thank you, Chair. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER26 - Thanks for your passport. Yes, ma'am.
REP FLUKER-REID - Sorry. Thank you so much for being here. I just for my reference to the record, can you tell me, like, your role or which counties you're affiliated3326 with3326 in the record, can you tell me, like, your role or which counties you're affiliated with in the registered, operating system? And as someone who goes before Norfolk and Suffolk regularly, just curious to know.
DECHRISTOFARO - I'm from the Golden West, Franklin County.
FLUKER-REID - Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER- Thank you, your honor.
I have a registered register Anastasia Welsh Perino
SPEAKER28 - in person. I think
SPEAKER25 - she was gonna, come in for because we were here.
SPEAKER9 - Oh,
SPEAKER1 - she was. Okay. And then I have, virtually, I have Massachusetts registers of probate, Matthew McDonough.
SPEAKER25 - He that same
SPEAKER1 - Same thing?
SPEAKER9 - She would have.
SPEAKER1 - Excellent. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. No questions? Okay. Moving on to h 1 8 8 5, an act improving legal and administrative proceedings for court involved children and families. We have virtually, Daniel Mahoney from CPCS.
SPEAKER3 - You're on mute.
DANIEL MAHONEY - CPCS - HB 1885 - Sorry about that. Good afternoon, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and committee members. My name is Daniel Mahoney, and I'm deputy chief counsel for the children and family law division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Our division assigns attorneys to represent children and indigent parents in child welfare cases primarily in the juvenile court. I started this position in July, and before that, I spent 19 years representing children and parents in care protection and child requiring assistance cases in our juvenile courts. I'm here3444 to support House Bill 1885. This bill addresses several long-standing issues. First, it empowers juvenile court judges to make decisions regarding critical issues affecting children in the foster care system. The Department of Children and Families makes decisions every day about children in custody concerning placement, visitation, and services. Under current law, DCF has broad discretion in how it serves these vulnerable children. And sometimes, for any number of reasons, it makes choices that are not in the child's best interest. When lawyers we assign to those children do not like how DCF is treating their clients, under current law, they face a high hurdle when they get before a judge.
They have to prove to the judge that DCF has either abused its discretion or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. And if they can't overcome that obstacle, the judge is helpless and can't make DCF act3493 in the child's best interest. Vulnerable children in foster care, our clients deserve better. This bill allows juvenile court judges to do3501 what probate and family court judges do every3503 day, enter orders in a child's best interest. Second, this bill will allow juvenile courts to revisit issues of custody at appropriate intervals in care and protection cases. As it stands now, most judges think that children and parents can challenge custody at the outset of the case, but then they can't challenge custody again until trial. Too often, trials don't take place for another year or two after the start of the case. In probate and family court proceedings, parties can seek modifications at appropriate intervals, usually every couple of months, which allows for the courts to make changes as needed during the course of the case, in the best interest of the children, and not just at the beginning and end of the case. I ask that you support and report out favorably House Bill 1885. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Any questions? Seeing none. K. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER29 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - House, bill, h 1 7 7 or excuse me, h 1 7 good lord. 1 1. An act relative to child custody when either parent is on active military duty. We have a Sandra Ortiz online.
SPEAKER28 - Good afternoon. Can you guys hear me?
SPEAKER1 - Yes.
SANDRA ORTIZ - HB 1711 - Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and testify. Iam here in support of bill H 1711, an act relative to child custody when either parent is on active duty military, which addresses the issue that affects not3602 just service members in theory, but real people, real families, and not just service members in theory, but real people, real families, and children like my daughter. In 2022, I deployed to Jordan to serve my country. Before I left, myself and her father agreed that it would be best interest of our daughter to stay in Massachusetts temporarily. That decision gave him six months of physical custody, which in turn gave Massachusetts jurisdiction and redefined her legal home state.
And in February 2023, after raising our daughter on my own for majority of her life, I lost cost custody. In my opinion, the time I spent serving overseas was used against me in court. My deployment was treated not as3645 a sacrifice, but as a liability. That's why this bill is so important. It ensures that no service member loses custody of their child simply because they fulfilled their duty. It protects parents who serve from being punished by the various system that should support them. Temporary absences from military duty should never permanently severe the bond between a3667 parent and a child. Service should be honored, not penalized. Please support this bill, not just for me, but for every military parent who's had to choose between serving their country and staying in their child's life. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to be heard today.
EDWARDS - Any questions? Miss Ortiz, I wanna say thank you for your service. My mom was a single mom and in the military, so your testimony is, particularly, impactful. Thank you.
ORTIZ - Thank you, Madam SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Chair.
SPEAKER1 - Let's see. H 17 10, an act relative to shared parenting.
We have Heather Cataldi online.
SPEAKER30 - Yes. Are you can you hear me?
SPEAKER9 - Yes.
HEATHER CATALDI - HB 1710 - Thank you for letting me speak out on this bill. Okay. I stand in opposition to house bill 1710, an act relative to shared parenting, also known as by domestic advocates as presumption of shared 50/50 custody. There is no screening for domestic abuse being done when filing for divorce. In fact, mentioning domestic abuse is discouraged knowing that it increases the survivor's chance of moving losing custody and possibly all contact with their children. Family court has mislabeled domestic abuse cases as high conflict when in actuality, they are domestic abuse cases. There is only one abuser and one victim. Court officers are being educated that they need to get these two people to get along, which does not protect the victim nor the children. There is a clear pattern happening in family court.
Allegations of domestic abuse are countered with claims of3790 parent alienation, which results in a loss of custody to the protective parent even when there are claims of sexual abuse which are supported with evidence. As a result, a multibillion-dollar industry has grown out of forcing domestic abuse survivors to co-parent with abusers by means of using therapy known as reunification therapy, guardians of litem, and parent coordinators. Reunification therapy has been rebranded as court-involved therapy, family therapy, and the resist and refuse dynamic. No matter the name of the therapy, the tactics used sabotage the attachment to the primary caregiver and forces a relationship with the abuser. Awarding automatic 50/50 custody will be violating a child's civil rights by awarding domestic abusers with custody and entrapping victims to leave their entrapping victims not to leave their abusers or face bankruptcy through the family court's third parties in order to protect their children. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much. We have, a couple people sign up in person on this bill, so I'm gonna go ahead and call. That was I'm sorry. Are there any questions? Okay. I have a Claudia Marquez on this bill.
SPEAKER31 - Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Claudia Marquez, and I am here to speak against bill h 1 7 1 0.
SPEAKER1 - Claudia miss Marquez, sorry. Could you put the mic in front of you directly? Thank3892 you.
CLAUDIA MARQUEZ - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1710 - My name is Claudia Marquez, and I am here today against bill H 1710, an act relative to shared custody. I can attest to what can happen when a parent wants your custody for the wrong reasons. Nearly 12 years ago when I informed my husband that I would be leaving our home with our toddler, he replied, This is going to be a bloodbath. I now know this to be abused. He had shown very little interest in our daughter and was impatient and did not participate in day-to-day caretaking. I was her full time caregiver from the time she was born. In the divorce, he fought for full custody, full physical custody, despite traveling for work 50% of the time. If awarded full custody, he planned to leave our daughter in the hands of a nanny and his mother. Then the guardian ad litem identified his true motivation, father's anger and disdain for mother. A direct quote. Those six words were pivotal in me maintaining primary physical custody and validated my instinct and just four months later he was once again unsuccessful.
Since then, he has attempted to reward our daughter for her loyalty and compliance to him with lavish gifts, all while undermining and casting me as an inferior parent. Last year, he filed for shared custody, and this time he got it. In December, shared custody became final judgment. And within weeks, he began to find her teenage behavior so unmanageable that he now leaves her at my house and drops her off when he can't manage her. She has said to me this spring, mom you have no idea how bad he talks about you. He has custody on paper but not on practice. A mistake to assume that all parents have the capacity to put their children's well-being above their own. Presumptive shared custody treats our children like assets to be evenly divided. It ignores the rights to live free from harm and puts an under burden on the true caretaker. And that is why I'm asking you to vote against presumptive shared custody. Thank you, and I'm sorry for going over. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - No. It's fine. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. We also have, a Peter Hill. Mister Hill, you signed up for this bill and 2 others. So you you can do all 3 in 2 minutes.
PETER HILL - HB 710 - SB 1032 - HB 2012 - First of all, my name is Doctor Peter Hill, and, thank you all for your service. Very much appreciate all the work and time that you're spending. 710 is the bill that I do support, but I'll go into more about the house, 2012 and senate 1032, which is the bill that the, committee worked on for two years. We were appointed by Governor Deval Patrick. So, the child-centered family bill, which I'm talking about, is the because the current parenting law is really not working very well. The bill was needed it keeps both parents involved in kids' lives, especially fathers. The failure of incentives to keep fathers in kids' lives has huge ramifications for society. Kids raised without dads have higher drug use, more likely to drop out of school, more likely to end up in jails, more likely to get into trouble. The bill will help to address all of these. The bill has protections, especially domestic violence. The other thing, the bill will work to protect parents in the recently, parentage bill because who's the mother and who's the father. A little bit about myself.
I am the child of holocaust survivors who were lucky, they were not sent to camps. Our family did lose relatives. I am a practicing chiropractor for nearly 40 years. I'm a docent for the New England Holocaust Memorial. I'm a volunteer head surrogate parent for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I teach adults to swim at the Y in the past. I also teach skiing at the Blue Hills and also I've taught with yeskids.org. And I am a divorced loving dad of two smart beautiful women. I have suffered years of not being able to fully be involved with my kids with the help of, very antiquated parenting where my oldest daughter is, fully alienated for me, and I wasn't even invited to the wedding. And she's having a baby, and who knows? I guess my crinkies. I'm sorry. It's just one page. It's okay. The injustice that occurred to me and the stories from other parents motivated me to become an advocate for change.
I was appointed by former Governor Deval Patrick to the working group on family law. Also Judge Casey appointed me to working group. I was a member with 18 others, including Chief Justice Carey, Chief Justice Ordonez, included the child advocate for the Commonwealth, two child psychologists and members of the, numerous bar associations and worked for two years. We met monthly. We had staff from the judiciary committee present and we came up with this bill. After two years, we came up with this consensus bill. The bill was further refined by the former House chair, Ted Cronin, and the bill passed the house, but regrettably didn't pass this Senate. I ask you to consider this bill, which really is it's not everything I want, and it's not everything everybody wants. But it was a 2-year bill that we all worked on, and, hopefully, the bill took considerably. 2012 and Senate 1032. So I thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions? None? K. Thank you.
SPEAKER33 - Thank you. Have a good day.
SPEAKER1 - House 2 0 1 2 s 10 32, enact relative to child centered family law. We have virtual. Palma McLaughlin.
Also testifying on h 16 59, 11 50 7, 12 60 5, and age 17 10. So you have 2 minutes for all of those bills.
PALMA MCLAUGHLIN - MASS LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS - SB 1032 - Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Palma McLaughlin. I am the children and family specialist at the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts. I appreciate your the opportunity to testify. I will be submitting written testimony with more explanation. We are asking you to oppose Senate Bill 1032 and all the bills that would change the standard from best interest of the child to a presumption of, a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting. Shared parenting in high-conflict cases has proven to be dangerous, traumatic, and harmful. In nearly all of the cases where this bill these bills would apply are high conflict. Probably abusive, but definitely high conflict. Shared parenting and high conflict cases is associated with higher rates of mental health problems, higher rates of trauma, higher rates of disciplinary problems, higher rates of childhood poverty, lower rates of academic achievement, and the parentification of even young children.
Presumptive shared parenting has now been around for long enough to allow longitudinal studies, which are proving the deleterious effects of shared parenting in high-conflict cases, and that the harm is long lasting even years later. There are now studies that are are looking at these cases 4, 5, 10 years later. One of the earliest adopters of presumptive shared parenting, the country of Australia, has found that the presumption has produced such traumatic effects that as of last year, they repealed the rebuttable presumption in favor of a best interest standards, which is similar to Massachusetts' current law. High conflict and potentially abusive cases need an individualized approach. There's a famous opening line in literature. Every happy family is happy in their own way in the same way. Every unhappy family is unhappy in their own way. We're asking you to oppose any change to the statute at this time. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much.4397
H 1659, S 1157, and S 1265 an act relative to determining the best interest of child of children in probate and family court. This we have someone virtually, apologize for the pronunciation, Nayanika, Yelopidi.
Going once.
Okay. We're gonna go on to, H 1942 S 1052, enact relative to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. In person, we have, Jamie Sabino from the Boston Bar Association.
JAMIE SABINO - MASS LAW REFORM INSTITUTE - HB 1942 - SB 1052 - SB 1100 - Thank you, chairs, committee. I'm4466 sitting here in my capacity as,4468 Women's Bar Association ad hoc family law committee, which worked with the Boston Bar Association and also the American Academy Matrimonial Lawyers. This is the time to pass this bill. We are the only state that does not have the UCCJEA, which, regulates how custody matters happen when people move from state to state. We have an older version. It is causing significant problems every day in our courts, particularly for victims of domestic abuse who are sometimes not allowed to leave because of the conflicts between the states. Cases are being held up. There are many, many problems. This has passed the Senate. Unlike many of the bills you're hearing today have been around in session after session, and, frankly, aren't going anywhere, this has passed the Senate. It is even more important now to pass it because of the Massachusetts Parentage Act.
And those people who are able to obtain defective parentage status in4527 Massachusetts will not have that protected if we cannot be in alignment with the4533 UCCJEA. Groups have worked together. There is no bar association opposition to this. There may be some questions on implementation. We did work together to address some of those issues that have been raised by some people in the court. We think we've addressed them. The Women's Bar Association particularly addressed the domestic abuse issues. This needs to pass and it needs to pass now. Taking off my WBA hat and putting on my mass law reform hat, I would like to briefly just address two other bills. An act, relative to determining the best interest of children in probate and family court. This is a well-drafted bill on our custody laws. You have a number of custody laws. As you've heard, presumptive custody, shared presumptive parenting is really bad. The child-centered, bill is really ill-named and problematic. We would suggest that you look at our bill. I'll file more extensive written testimony on that. And with no cat on at all, please pass Senate 1100 on alimony. Mark Bello will tell you why. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much.
Senate bill 1 1 0 0, an act relative to the collateral consequences of animal alimony. Mark Bello.
MARC BELLO - STRIVE PARTNERS - SB 1100 - Good afternoon, everyone. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Marc Bello. I'm the founding partner of Strive Partners LLC. I'm a certified public accountant in Massachusetts, licensed since 1998. I have a master's in taxation from Bentley. For over 20 years, I've been recognized as an expert in the Mass family, probate courts, and by family law attorneys in the areas of alimony, complex compensation, and business valuation. Since 2019, with the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, I have conducted well over a thousand iterations taking into account the impact of the changes in alimony from when it was deductible by the payor and includable by the recipient. There's a serious problem under the 2011 Alimony Reform Act. It provides a range of guidance of alimony percentages based on a need or a 30 to 35% range. These percentages were put in place when alimony was deductible and includable by the payor.
Today, there are two issues. One, is any new divorce after 01/01/2019? That is no longer deductible by a payor nor includable by the recipient. However, modifications to orders put in place before 2019 can remain deductible and includable unless the parties opt into accepting the tax cut and jobs. Together working with the Boston Bar, the Women's Bar, and the Mass Bar, going back to 2019, there was a consensus view that 23 percent to 28 percent resulted in an equitable range of percentages now that the Tax Cut and Jobs Act is in effect. And also in 2022, Massachusetts adopted the Internal Revenue Code where alimony is no longer taxable to the recipient nor deductible by the payor in Massachusetts. After six years, I'm encouraging and recommending that this bill be passed to make it equitable for both the payor and the recipient. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions? Thank you.
SPEAKER36 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - H 1 9 3 2, an act relative to the uniform voidable transactions act. And we have persons we have couple people. I have Frank Frank Morrissey and John Murray. Did you also sign up outside?
SPEAKER9 - I signed up outside.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. But your Attorney
SPEAKER9 - Murray, I think, signed up online.
SPEAKER2 - He'd like to do a panel.
SPEAKER1 - Panel? Perfect.
FRANKS MORRIS - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1932 - Good afternoon, Chair Edward and Chair Day, the committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify in4802 support of house 1932. House 1932 would enact the Uniform Avoidable Transactions Act. It's not a comprehensive act. It's an important necessary clarification and update of existing law, ancient law that goes back to the Statute of Liberty in England 1599. I'm here. I've been a lawyer for my name is Frank Morris. I've been a lawyer for more than 30 years and, almost half that time I've taught at New England School of Law and Boston University School of Law, commercial law. The Mass bar so I'm here on behalf of the Mass bar association, which strongly supports house 1932 as does the Watson buyer association. Written testimony which outlines the details of the bill has already been submitted, and we rely on that.
Where you we rely on that testimony, but just some of the highlights. House 1932 updates and clarifies the important4869 provisions of commercial law, including the choice of law and the burden of proof applicable to certain transactions that can be challenged with the transfer of insolvent. It promotes, business transactions with Commonwealth by providing certainty and predictability to people doing business here. I just in closing, I'd like to say that Massachusetts has always been a leader in commercial law. This state was the second state to enact the Uniform Commercial Code. And following that, the rest of the states all fell in line, and that's the most successful commercial law in the history of the nation. On behalf of the NASCAR Association, I strongly urge you to report 1932 unfavorably. If you have any questions,
JOHN MURRAY - BOSTON BAR ASSOCIATION - HB 1932 - Good afternoon, Chair Edwards, Chair Day. My name is John Murray. I'm with Roberta Israel Weiner of Boston. I'm a member of the Boston Bar Association bankruptcy section of the public policy subcommittee. I'm here to speak as well in favor of HR 1932, the Massachusetts Uniform Bordable Transactions Act. As attorney Morrissey mentioned, this is a, tune up to the existing fraudulent transfer law. I think the principle, change in addition to the, elements that Mr. Morrissey mentioned is just to clarify that not, sort of, clarify that not a transfer need not be avoidable by creditors, only because it is fraudulent. And I think fraud is sort of, you know, has a specific taint, but rather if a transaction is voidable for merely being, the result of a transfer for less than reasonably equivalent value. It is an important distinction to be made. And as a bankruptcy lawyer, we see these issues all the time as entity. I primarily represent creditors in my practice. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER30 - I stand in opposition of House Bill 17 10.
SPEAKER1 - Continue. Sorry.
MURRAY - Sorry. The issues related to transfers made by debtors sort of in insolvent situations are of paramount importance for creditors. And we believe that HR 1932, is an important act that we urge Massachusetts to adopt. And I would also add that, there are currently 24 states in the country that have already adopted a version of the or have adopted the Uniform Ordable Transactions Act, and we urge Massachusetts to join them.
EDWARDS - Any questions? I have clarifying question. Please. So you're discussing the disposition or the transfer of property during a bankruptcy, and the current standard is that would make that transfer, voidable is fraud. And it let me make sure I'm clear. Take me back to law school in a little bit. But I just wanna make sure I'm clear that you are trying to change the standard for what makes a transfer in bankruptcy voidable is my understanding. And is the current, standard fraud and then you're trying to go to less than than value less than reasonable value?
MORRIS - Well, you know what? Sorry to hear back flashbacks of law school. In broad strokes, fraudulent transfer law is ancient law. And initially, fraudulent transfer law looked at transfers made with actual intent to hinder delay into fraud. That was the history of fraudulent transfer law for a few hundred years, literally. And then the modern insight beginning in the early 20th century, really, is that certain transactions by their nature, irrespective of intent, caused mischief to creditors. And as attorney Murray pointed out, those transfers include transfers made to lack of reasonable equivalent value while the debt was insolent. Fraudulent transfer law is front and center in bankruptcy cases, federal banking cases, and there's a federal fraudulent transfer law section 548. But it's also, front and center commercial or outside of accuracy. And the concept that it relies on is insolvency, and this different Verizon insolvency that the law canvases. You know, assets greater than liabilities, balance sheet, solvency, transfer having less than reasonable equivalent value, etcetera.
The point of the update, the tune up is, I think, is the right way to say it. As it is on the books now, it's Massachusetts version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. One of the major changes, introduced by this new 1932 bill is it changes the name from Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, and that's a that's a recognition that certain types of transactions just by their nature are prejudicial to creditors irrespective of the transfer was in intent. So it's really a cleanup clarification. And, you know, creditors really can't rely on the creditors really rely on fraudulent transfer law to police, transactions that in business they do with borrowers in Massachusetts. And having a uniform law where creditors from outside the state can rely on the same rules that apply in their home forum in Massachusetts promotes commercial transactions and it creates an integrated commercial system that will facilitate interstate transactions.
5196 But5196 I hope I answered your question. But the concept called constructively fraudulent transfers. Fraud really doesn't belong in that formulation because we're not looking at intent. We're not looking at motive. We're just looking at economics. It's and to give you an easy example, if I made a gift, you know, gifts are good, but if I'm insolvent, it damages my creditors. And there was a famous line from Dean Clark at Harvard Law School, be just before you're generous. And I refer you I mean, if you're really a master because I refer you to Ed Smith's wonderful article that kinda walks through some of the history. And it's a show up. It's about 5 or 6 pages that outlines why this is a clarification, not a whole-scale rewrite of private transfer law, which is ancient.
EDWARDS - I appreciate that. And, I'll be sure to reach out if I have additional questions specifically on this.
MORRIS - Thank you for your time and, attention. We really appreciate it. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much. Are there any questions? I'm sorry. Any other any other questions? Okay. Alright. Thank you.
SPEAKER33 - Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - H 1 8 5 6, an act relative to the Massachusetts Uniform Trust Decanting Act. I have virtually Andrew Rothstein from the Boston Bar Association.
ANDREW ROTHSTEIN - BOSTON BAR ASSOCIATION - SB 1112 - HB 1856 - Good afternoon, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and members of the committee. My name is Andrew Rothstein. I'm an attorney at Goulson and Stores in Boston. I specialize in trust and estate planning. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Boston Bar Association as a former cochair of its trust and estate section in support of the Massachusetts Uniform Trust Act, house bill 1856, and senate bill 1112. Trust decanting is a valuable estate planning tool. In a decanting, the trustee of an existing trust transfers the assets to a new trust for one or more of the same beneficiaries of the old trust. This is similar to pouring or decanting a bottle of wine from one container into another. Decanting affects nearly every trustee in the Commonwealth, including Massachusetts banks, trust companies, individual trustees. It also affects ordinary Massachusetts residents of all levels of income and wealth who have5336 either created trusts who or who are beneficiaries of trust.
Decanting is especially useful to protect vulnerable beneficiaries such as individuals with special needs and with mental health and substance abuse issues. And in my practice, I frequently assist Massachusetts trustees with decanting. Currently, our general laws do not expressly authorize decanting. We sometimes look to a couple of SJC cases, which may allow decanting in limited circumstances, but this bill would make the decanting tool available to all trustees while providing clarity and certainty. In addition, the act would protect and strengthen trust business in Massachusetts. Currently, Massachusetts banks, trust companies, and individual trustees are limited in their ability to use the decanting tool. When a statutory decanting is advisable, lawyers in Massachusetts are currently faced with having to advise a trustee to move the trust out of Massachusetts to a jurisdiction with a decanting statute. If the enact if the act is enacted, this trust business will stay in Massachusetts. I served on a committee that's carefully studied this bill, and it is supported by all of the relevant constituencies. Thank you for hearing you this afternoon. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much. We have s 1 0 4 8, an act relative to access to a decedent's electronic mail accounts. Is, Charles Blick here?
CHARLES GLICK - CHARLES GROUP CONSULTING INC. - SB 1110 - Thank you, Chair Edwards and Chair Day, for the opportunity to testify in front of you for, S 1048. My name5454 is Charles Glick. I'm the principal of Charles Group Consulting, and I'm here today to testify, on behalf of our clients, Robert and Maryann Achamian, in support of 10 48, as well as an opposition to senate 1110 as it's presently written. Robert5469 and his sister, Mary Anne, tragically5471 lost their brother at the age of 43 to a reckless driver shortly after their death his death. They were in the midst of trying to plan, memorial service for him and they found out that, they had no access to, his email account. And that was surprising to them given that they had access to everything else, as they were the rightful heirs, to his estate. Robert and Mary Anne quickly learned that, they didn't just file legislation. They actually went to Washington. They lobbied. They helped pass the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, which gave an executor the same rights to access the deceased person's account as the deceased person had during their life.
And that is the framework for this piece of legislation in front of you. Many states introduced that bill. Unfortunately, ISP's realizing that they would lose control over the information in those accounts, lobbied against those bills, and they went further. They actually went to Washington themselves, and passed a revised, uniform law, and that is the industry-backed bill, that is S 1110. That bill reduces the authority of an executor, unless the deceased person explicitly consented to disclosure. Problem with that is that two-thirds of Massachusetts citizens in Massachusetts die without a will, leaving that decision to the hands of the ISP. Finally, if the legislature were to pass S 1110 unamended, the legislature would effectively be overturning a 2017 SJC decision that establishes critical property rights. We think that the Massachusetts legislature should not pass our EFADA, but rather work with us and others in order to pass a piece of legislation, that makes the most sense and doesn't counteract an SJC ruling on privacy on property rights. Appreciate your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions?
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER16 - Thank you, Bill.
SPEAKER1 - An act h 1 9 1 1 s 11 38, an act clarifying a right of a durable power of attorney. We have a virtual panel of Mass Nela, Clarence, Richardson, Patrick Curley, and Lauren DeMatteo.5611
CLARENCE RICHARDSON - MASS NAELA - HB 1911 -SB 1138 - Good afternoon. I would like to thank the chairs in the committee for this opportunity to provide testimony in support of this bill. My name is Clarence Richardson, and I'm the5623 executive director of Mass NAELA, the Massachusetts chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and I'm joined by two of our members today. Rep Murray provided an excellent summary of the legislation, but I would like to add a little bit more context about the Barbetti decision. The particular power of attorney in that case did not contain the explicit authority to create a trust. Therefore, the court deemed the trust created void. We completely agree with that outcome. However, the court did go on to suggest that a trust created using a power of attorney may still be void even if the power of attorney explicitly includes that authority to create a trust. So given this decision, we endorse this legislation, which makes minor changes to the Massachusetts Uniform Trust Code to confirm the long-standing principle that an agent using a power of attorney may create a trust on behalf of the principal. So long as that power of attorney explicitly authorizes them to do so. So I'd like to turn it over to Patrick Curley, and thank you for your time, and ask that this, legislation be reported out of committee favorably. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Patrick, you're on mute.
PATRICK CURLEY - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1911 - SB 1138 - Thank you, committee chairs and fellow committee members. I'm Patrick Curley, and I am an estate planning attorney. The Supreme Judicial Court's Barbetti decision has left uncertain whether a trust created under power of attorney will be deemed valid in the courts. This can leave families feeling they have no choice but to go through a time-consuming, costly, and stressful conservatorship process, in an effort to seek authority to create a trust. Affirming the right to delegate in a power of attorney the power to create a trust is of particular importance and benefit to our commonwealth's older adults, veterans, and those living with disabilities and special needs. The great majority of states, at least 37, have enacted legislation to allow delegation and a power of attorney of the power to create a trust, passing the bills before you would actually bring Massachusetts5748 in line with the rest5750 of the country.
The Uniform Power of Attorney Act, which was drafted5754 by some of the nation's brightest legal minds and has been adopted5758 by a majority of states, also allows delegation of the power to create a trust. The bills before you contain a key provision to reduce the risk of abuse. Individuals have the choice to include in their power of attorney document or not include the power for their agent to create a trust. This is exactly how the majority of other states and the Uniform Power of Attorney Act minimize the potential for risk of abuse while still respecting the rights of an individual to plan for their own future. Finally, the bills before you would quantify the long-standing practice of Massachusetts estate planning attorneys to give their clients the option to delegate in their power of attorney the power to create a trust. Thank you for your support and consideration of these bills.
LAUREN DEMATTEO - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1911 - SB 1138 - Good afternoon, and thank you to the chairs of the committee for this opportunity to testify in support of this bill. My name is Lauren DiMatteo, and I'm an elder law attorney. And I'd like to share an example of how the uncertainty created by the Barbetti decision is directly impacting families here in Massachusetts. I recently worked with an elderly couple. Husband was physically frail but mentally sharp. Wife, however, was just admitted to the nursing home due to dementia. With their lives rapidly changing, they came to me to update their estate plan, something they had long put off. They were a blended family with adult children of prior marriages. Their goal was clear, to provide for each other while ensuring that certain family items stayed in their respective bloodlines. Their plan had full family support, but the wife no longer had the capacity to sign legal documents. She did, however, have a valid power of attorney that explicitly authorized her agent to create a trust on her behalf.
But due to Barbetti, I5866 had to advise the family that they needed to seek court approval anyway. That process took over five months. It involved obtaining a physician's affidavit as5876 to wife's incapacity, making multiple court filings, coordinating public notice in a local newspaper, and in-hand service on the wife by a constable, and attending a court hearing. This was stressful, costly, and unnecessary, particularly for her elderly husband who was already so overwhelmed in5895 caring for his wife. Had there been5897 clarity around the issue created by the5899 Barbetti decision, wife's agent could have quite simply implemented the5903 trust for her just as she had intended. This bill would eliminate that uncertainty. It would reduce the emotional toll on families, restore long-standing practices for estate planning attorneys to counsel clients as to their option to include these trust-making grants, and ease the burden on our already overlooked probate courts. I respectfully urge the committee to report favorably on this bill. Thank you for your time and consideration. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. And any questions?
Hearing none. Thank you very much.
H 1 9 6 4, s 1 2 3 9, enact relative to uniform partition of heirs property. We have, in is it here? Professor Mariani?
Sarah Mancini,
virtually.
SARAH MANCINI - NCLC - HB 1964 - SB 1239 - Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Sarah Mancini, and I'm the co-director of advocacy for the National Consumer Law Center. And thank you, Chair Edwards and Chair Day, for allowing me to testify virtually today in support of the act related to the partition of heirs property. This bill provides extremely important protections for heirs who have inherited a family home and are at risk of losing their home and their home equity if an investor5988 purchases the interest of one heir and for and often that is one of the heirs that's living out of state and with minimal connection to the property. Oftentimes, an investor will target that type of out-of-state heir by their interest for a tiny fraction of its true value and then force a partition sale of the property again for much less than what the land or the home is worth. The National Consumer Law Center works for economic justice in states around the country behalf of low-income people in particular.
And in all of these places, there is growing interest in the issue of heirs property and how to protect heirs from threats to stable ownership and wealth preservation. And it's surprising to many people that Massachusetts has not yet passed. This act, it's been enacted in 23 states plus the District of Columbia and The Virgin Islands. States have been enacting it since 2010, and it has functioned well in those states and has important protections requiring an appraisal of the fair market value of the home, requiring notice, and requiring that the heirs have the opportunity to buy out someone who is filing a partition action so that they can preserve their ownership of the land or the home. Heirs' property occurs very frequently in Massachusetts. However, it's often invisible and difficult to detect because these properties are not labeled, but we have heard of many examples from legal services attorneys and advocates across the state that this is a serious problem, and we ask that they can favorably report this bill out. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much. I do know that 2 other people are on their way to testify on this bill, but we're just gonna continue on, if if, if there's time and, we're6098 still going, they will be allowed to testify. Going to now to h 64. I think we have a Vince Dixon.
VINCENT LAWRENCE DIXON - CONCERNED CITIZEN - Thank you, chairs, senators, representatives, and staff. This is in support of 864, a proposed legislative amendment to the constitution of Massachusetts for a constitutional right to health care. My name is Vincent Lawrence Dixon, resident of 60 Lake Street, Unit N, Winchester, Mass, 01890. I'm strongly testifying for this proposal that health care should be established as a constitutional right, a position that I came to originate based on extensive discussions with hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people over the last several years. This proposal for health care as a constitutional right received voter support in all 15 precincts of the 30 First Middlesex State Representative District as a public policy question in November 2018. It was placed on the ballot by myself and the signatures of hundreds of voters in the district. This district had all of the eight precincts of Winchester and the seven precincts of Stoneham, and the district-wide percentage was just over 55% supporting the yes position. While The US constitution specifically does not describe the world word health at this point, about 1 third of the state constitutions do in some manner.
An article from the Journal of Constitutional Law, a reference, which I will further provide your committee, provides a survey6205 of several health concepts, which vary, including often public health, less frequently, the6211 mentally ill, the indigent, and more recently, environmental. One or more of these ideals in at least 15 state constitutions. As I considered this, I confirmed that many think that the right to health care is a fundamental concept, part of the foundations of a civilized society. Distinct from most other proposals on this subject matter, it does not stipulate a program. Rather, like many fundamental concepts, it simply states that there is a constitutional right in a way very similar to the general concepts of rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and voting, education, and other similar ideas. I urge serious consideration. Be happy to talk further on this. I think it's an interesting area, because many nations and countries have such provisions in basic documents, and we've tended to view health care as a statutory area. Some states have looked at it as a fundamental right. And thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions? Okay. We're gonna continue to hear from thank you very much.
SPEAKER36 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We're gonna continue to hear from folks who signed up to speak today. I have a,
Kayla Knight on 1102.
She don't? Okay.
Make sure I guess what's her. And then I have a Samantha Fine
on H1852S1164.
SAMANTHA FINE - LMSW - HB 1852 - SB 1164 - Dear Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and members of the judiciary committee, my name is Samantha Fine, and this testimony represents coalition members from Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, Autistic People of Color Fund, Veteran Legal Services, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, and the Disability Policy Consortium. We appreciate the opportunity to testify in strong support of H 1852 S 1164, an act prohibiting discrimination against adults with disabilities in family juvenile court proceedings. Parents with disabilities are disproportionately involved in the child welfare system and have their children taken away from them at higher rates during custody disputes. This family separation is often the result of discriminatory assumptions about disabled people's competency to parent rather than an individual's actual ability to love and care for their child. Unnecessarily separating a child from their primary caretaker is traumatizing and can have devastating consequences for both the parent and the child.
Additionally, disabled parents may stay in abusive relationships out of fear that their disability will be weaponized against them in divorce or custody proceedings. Disabled parents can also be reluctant to seek supportive services due to fears of discrimination that could potentially result in losing custody or parenting time. H 1852 S 1164 addresses these issues by requiring courts to provide written findings that the parent's disability causes potential harm to the child, if the parent's disability is to be used as a factor in making negative custody or family time decisions. The legislation serves an important purpose in requiring judges to examine their own decision-making processes before needlessly separating a family. It ensures that all parents are judged on their actual parent inability and keeps children with their families and connected to both parents whenever possible. Thank you for reviewing our testimony. Please move this bill forward swiftly and support its passage so that we can protect parents with disabilities across the commonwealth. Thank you. Any questions? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
We have c r Lyons for 16711217.
C.R. LYONS -MASS FUNERAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION - SB 1217 - HB 1671 - Thank you, Chair Edwards, Chair Day, members of the committee, and also for Representative Kerans giving us a brief plug at the end of our statement, earlier this afternoon. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is C. R. Lyons, and I represent the Massachusetts Funeral Directors Association, the professional association serving over 450 funeral homes across the Commonwealth. Collectively, our members serve more than 47,000 families annually, and we welcome more than 3,500,000 visitors into our funeral homes each year. Today, we respectfully urge your support of Senate Bill 1217 and House Bill 1671 legislation establishing a clear right of disposition for Massachusetts. Ours is the only state in the nation without such a law, leaving grieving families and funeral professionals navigating uncertainty when conflicts or ambiguities arise over who has the authority to make final arrangements for a loved one. These bills provide a clear, consistent legal framework by defining who holds the legal right to make funeral and disposition decisions, by establishing a priority list of decision makers, by allowing individuals to designate an agent for post death arrangements, by offering clarity to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, the office of the chief medical examiner, and others involved in the care of the deceased by creating a court pathway when families are at an impasse and offering good faith immunity to funeral homes relying on proper documentation. Simply put, this legislation brings order to what is often a time of emotional chaos, protecting families from conflict, and ensuring respectful care of the deceased. On behalf of funeral professionals who serve in every community in the Commonwealth and the families they support, we ask you to support this essential legislation out of the committee favorably, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much. Have a question?
DAY - Thank you, chair. Mr. Lyons, thanks for testifying. Could you speak a bit to the committee on the regulation recently passed by the board that I believe, when we reviewed, does similar, similar effect as to what the language in this statute.
LYONS - You're referring to the, the reg the what the regulatory board passed?
DAY - Yes.
LYONS - Sure. So6610 that well, that certainly, helps define things, for funeral homes, you know, it's an administrative regulation. And outside of the scope of a funeral director, it doesn't necessarily help the grieving family. It certainly helps protect us as we're guiding them, but, an actual actual6629 statute would be, I think, more appropriate.
FLUKER-REID - Thank you so much. As it6641 relates to the immunity for the funeral homes, can6643 you just walk us through what type of, I hate to say due process or diligence? So for example, certainly, you receive, the body of the decedent, you're trying to make the arrangements for their final rights of passage. Yeah. Then let's say there's, like, a life insurance policy that might be paying for that I presume the funeral home might wanna take a look at? Like, kind of what steps do y'all take to verify, not only what you're receiving, but that the person who's giving you the information is authorized to be the one to provide it. Thinking of, for example, if someone has a DPOA, but then another family member is, I hate to say it, running rogue, so to speak, of the arrangements.
LYONS - Well, and that's what these look at these situations where things get a little complicated because, you know, the power of, power of attorney ceases at death, guardianship ceases at death. So, and in most instances, funeral homes take have to take people at their word and in good faith. We don't ask, for example, for a family member to produce a marriage certificate to indicate that indeed they are the spouse of the person they're claiming to be the spouse of or the child of the person they're claiming to be the child of. So, the majority of our work is good faith. There have been a handful of times I can think of, where I've personally said, I'm gonna need to see some documentation, but those are, the average person isn't gonna come into a funeral home and say, I'd like you to bury my mother, and it turns out it isn't really their mother.
FLUKER-REID - That's helpful. Thank you.
LYONS - Yeah. But these are really predominantly instances where, if you're thinking, about nontraditional relationships, immigrant groups, guardianship situations in particular, these are the places where we're finding that this legislation would be very helpful. Also instances where the, decedent has outlived their community. People are living longer. And there have been, a number of instances, I can think of where, I've served the, a decedent who has outlived all of her children, and we're dealing especially the ability to appoint someone who can be in charge of6776 someone's, arrangements would be, would be very helpful.
FLUKER-REID - Yeah. No. I appreciate6782 that. I think in light of your testimony protection from something. So I was just curious to know what steps on average the homes take to try to shield themselves and make sure that they're as on the up up up and up as possible.
LYONS - Sure. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER10 - Representative.
REP HIGGINS - We recently had a constituent case that involved, domestic violence and a restraining order. In this case, because the risk the courts argued the restraining order ceased to exist once the person had passed, would this also allow a family with a history of domestic abuse to be able to add protections to make sure someone who traditionally would be?
LYONS - Yes. It does include language that, would allow for, situations where, for example, if the, specifically, if the, decedent is a victim of, of murder, then that person would be it be removed. Or if a physical violence led to the death. In both of those instances, the claim can be, you know, of the right of disposition can be removed from that particular person.
HIGGINS - But barring that, if there had been a restraining order in place prior to the passing, and say that was against their parents
LYONS - Yes.
HIGGINS - Would they be able to make a disposition that removed their parents from
LYONS - Yes.
HIGGINS - Okay. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - You want further growth? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. We have S1206H1817, Ali Blank, Jeremy Cohen, and Steph Steve Harris. Sorry. I couldn't read the handwriting. Steph Harris. Sorry.
ALLY BLANCK - ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE OF BOSTON - SB 1817 - SB 1206 - Chair Edwards, Chair Day, my name is Ally Blanck. I am with the Animal Rescue League of Boston. I am here, with my colleagues today to testify in support of H 1817 filed by Representative Kilcoyne and S. 1206 filed by Senator Moore. I can speak from Ariel and say that we support these bills because we believe that pets are family. Right now, traditionally, in divorce and separation cases, property is divided by judges. Legally, animals are property. So the judges may consider the animal's interest, but usually ownership is gonna be determined in the same way as other personal property. This could be an adoption fee. This could be vet records. But this is gonna be the sort of things that they look at. And this fails to consider other factors that are relevant. The goal with this legislation is to create a consistent framework to determine the ownership of a pet, but it does still allow for discretion. This can help protect the animal. This can protect children in the home, and this can protect survivors of domestic violence.
Although these are both new files this session, it really does fall in line with Massachusetts statute, most notably the coercive control bill that was passed through this committee last session and signed into law. The 209 a orders that have been able to include animals since 2012. This legislation has a support of the Animal Rescue League of Boston, the MSPCA, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Maine World for Animals, as well as the National Link Coalition. My colleagues will speak more in-depth about legislation itself. But, I just want to sort of note the reason we bring up domestic violence, the bond between people and their animals often results in individuals risking their own safety to protect their pets. This helps provide a safeguard in these situations. We know that up to, 40 percent of domestic violence victims choose not to leave over fear fear of violence of the pet. 71 percent of pet owners entering domestic violence shelters report threats and violence towards the pet, and about 48 percent delay leaving. So this is just to put something in the divorce and separation process to make this a consideration.
JEREMY COHEN - BOSTON DOG LAWYERS - SB 1206 - HB 1817 - Good afternoon. Thank you for the time. Attorney Jeremy Cohen. I'm the founder of Boston Dog Lawyers, and we represent pet owners around the7025 state. And pet custody disputes7027 are a real thing. We receive at least one call a day, seven days a week. We're in court 3 times7033 a week dealing with these, but we're not in probate court because judges are not authorized to hear from us and to consider pets in any decisions they make, including the enforceability of shared agreements. It is the Wild West. And we are in the Northeast, and we have a chance to be a leader here. If we could authorize our judges to consider the fact that, people have rights to their pets. Pets are now, according to the appeals court, a special type of property. And the disputes that are happening now sometimes are being resolved in parking lots or through fist fights or through people just arbitrarily taking the pet and disappearing, having no fear that the courts will act against them. By passing this act, now the legislator legislature and the courts would at least show with seriousness they're taking these disputes and perhaps enforceability won't be necessary because just by virtue of it, being the law and judges being authorized to consider it will keep people, to honor the terms of a shared pet ownership agreement. Thank you.
STEPHANIE HARRIS - ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND - SB 1206 - HB 1817 - Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Harris. I work for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The language in this bill was carefully crafted, noting Massachusetts process and procedures, but also the best of what we've learned from the eight other states and DC that have taken action on this, including nearby, Rhode Island, Maine, New York, and New Hampshire. This, as you've heard, provides guidance, but also flexibility for judges to consider the animal's best interests when awarding custody. It provides a framework for considering soul and shared custody and certain factors for that shared custody, and includes consideration of things like the emotional attachment of the parties to the animal, as well as any children, a history of abuse or neglect to humans animals. It provides an option for a modification in the future if necessary, as well as for a temporary order during the course of the proceedings. And I also just wanna add that I have had a personal experience with this issue. When I was in my early twenties, I got married and subsequently divorced, and my ex husband called me to tell me that he had filed for divorce and that, if I didn't agree to all of the terms as he outlined them, that he had the paperwork to prove that he had paid for our corgi, Levi, and that I would never see her again. I was young. I agreed to everything, and I also never saw her again. It took me, over 10 years to be ready to get another dog. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any questions?
Okay. Thank you so much for your testimony.
I believe we've come to the end of, test
okay. Sorry. There's 1 last, professor Mitchell on on s excuse me. +1 239, 1964.
THOMAS MITCHELL - UNIFORM LAW COMMISSION - SB 1239 - HB 1964 - Good afternoon, Chair Day, Chair Edwards, and members of the committee. My name is Professor Thomas Mitchell. I'm a law professor at Boston College Law School, and I'm here to testify in support of S 1239 and H 1964, the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act. I served as the principal drafter of the UPHPA, and I'm here to testify, on behalf of the Uniform Law Commission. The bill seek to protect family-owned properties whether in urban or rural places that often but not exclusively are transferred without a will or some other estate plan. These properties that are transferred are often inherently unstable and susceptible to forced sales that result in prices that are well below the market value, leaving the families extinguished of their property rights and a substantial part of their family generational wealth. The UPHPA has three main pillars.
It enables, owners who common owners who enables, owners who common owners who wanna retain ownership of the property to buy out the fractional interest of the co owner who seeks the for sale. It makes the physical division of a property if it's, for example, a rural farm much easier than the forced sale. And then under the open market sales procedure, it, establishes a process that mimics a sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer, which is much more likely to return a price that approximates the market value. The UPHPA has now been enacted into law7348 in 25 states, half7350 red, half blue states, and in every region. And, it's been enacted into law in New York and Connecticut. We have bills in New Jersey and Rhode Island that are doing exceptionally well. In these states, that it's law, it is led to a reduction of forced sales and a much higher sales prices that have a better7370 economic, that retains the economic value of these properties.
EDWARDS - Thank you very much, professor. Any questions? Questions? Thank you. With that, if there's anybody else who would like to testify. If not, thank you so much. This, hearing has ended.
© InstaTrac 2025