HB3783

The introduced bill proposed the protections in a different form, including an unconditional family-violence-training requirement. The House substitute, retained in the engrossed bill, kept the court’s relevance condition for that training, used a credible-evidence trigger, and reorganized the prohibited practices. It expressly covered accompanied overnight stays, transportation coercion beyond private transporters, and temporary or permanent changes in possession or access periods rather than the original custody-transfer wording.

The Senate substitute restored the court’s general power to order payment of counseling costs, which the House text had removed, while adding the explicit protection against charging a victim when credible evidence of violence or abuse is presented. Those provisions survived in the final law; the bill is not a general promise of free counseling for every party.

The amendment index lists no separate amendments, but that does not mean the text never changed. The Senate amendments packet, pages 4–6 contains the adopted substitute, and the Senate journal, printed page 2875 records passage of the committee substitute. The substitute and enrolled operative text match. Full version index.

The House initially passed the bill 143–0, with one present but not voting; the Senate passed it 31–0; and the House concurred in the Senate changes 128–7, with one present but not voting. Those votes met the immediate-effect threshold. The governor signed it June 20. Official history.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Children and victims of family violence or sexual abuse gain limits on harmful court-ordered counseling practices and, for qualifying victim parties, protection against being ordered to pay counseling costs. Courts and counselors must work within those limits. Other parties may still be ordered to pay; the act does not create a state fund to cover every counseling bill.

The final-posted fiscal note, dated May 28, expects no significant state fiscal impact. Local costs are uncertain: the Office of Court Administration warns that motions to modify existing orders could increase because the law supplies a new material change in circumstances, and says the local fiscal implications cannot be determined. Earlier notes carry the same distinction. “No significant state impact” does not mean no added court workload or private expense.

Review boundary: This describes statutory protections and grounds for seeking modification, not a finding that abuse occurred in an individual case or advice to disregard an existing court order. The restrictions apply to the counseling authority the law names.