Brief⁽¹⁾

S.B. 67 amends the Kansas Protection from Abuse Act to expand its coverage, to authorize certain information about the plaintiff's location to remain confidential; to allow a court to restrain a person not granted possession of a residence from canceling utility service; and to make various other changes and clarifications to the law.

The coverage of the Act is extended to include persons who have or have had a child in common. Another amendment provides that the plaintiff's address or telephone number may remain confidential if the court finds this is necessary to protect the plaintiff, the plaintiff's minor children, or minor children residing with the plaintiff. The bill also provides that no temporary order shall have the effect of modifying an existing custody, residency, or visitation order unless there is sworn testimony to support a showing of good cause at a hearing.

Any order entered under the Protection from Abuse Act shall not be subject to modification on ex parte application or on motion for temporary orders in any divorce action. Orders previously issued in a divorce action shall be subject to modification under the Protection from Abuse Act only as to those matters subject to modification by the terms of the divorce code and on sworn testimony to support a showing of good cause. Immediate and present danger of abuse to the plaintiff or minor children shall constitute good cause.

If an action is filed under the divorce code during the pendency of a proceeding filed under the Protection from Abuse Act or while an order issued under the Protection from Abuse Act is in effect, the court, on final hearing or on agreement of the parties, may issue final orders authorized by the divorce code that are inconsistent with orders entered under the Protection from Abuse Act. Any inconsistent order entered pursuant to this subsection shall be specific in its terms, reference the protection from abuse order and parts thereof being modified, and a copy thereof shall be filed in both actions. Both actions may be consolidated under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Other amendments are cleanup in nature. The Senate Committee amendments clarify that a court must find the address or telephone number should be confidential and that a temporary order must be issued at a hearing which modifies a previous order relating to custody, residency or visitation and which is based on sworn testimony of one party.

House Committee amendments to S.B. 67 do the following:

• add a provision whereby an emergency order issued when the court is unavailable will expire at 5:00 p.m., on the first day when the court resumes court business;



• add a requirement that sworn testimony must be given "at a hearing" before a temporary order can modify an existing custody, residency, or visitation order; and



• add a provision to the prohibition on canceling utility services so that such a restraining order would expire 60 days after issuance.

Background

The bill was introduced at the request of the Family Law Advisory Committee of the Kansas Judicial Council. Proponents said the bill was intended to conform the Kansas law with the model state code dealing with protection from abuse, to deal with problems which have arisen at the district court level with competing orders in divorce actions and protection from abuse actions, and to make other clarifications of the law. The bill was supported by the Kansas Attorney General.

The bill was opposed by a representative of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, Topeka Chapter.

The fiscal note stated there would be no fiscal impact.

1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supple-mental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/fulltext-bill.html.