March 2006

FAMILY LAW SECTION EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 17, 2006

The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 10:08 am. 

The following members and/or past chairs, attended in person:  Richard Zuber, Steve Lass, Jackie St. Joan, Gretchen Aultman, Fran Fontana, Martin Brown, Kathryn Beck, Bob Malman, Brenda Storey, Robert Smith, Bonnie Schriner, Dave Johnson, Ellen Squires, Terry Bernuth, Michael DiManna, Rob Hinds, David Littman, and Russell Murray.  

Members Katie Hays and Deb Anderson appeared by phone. 

These members had excused absences:  Beth Henson, Kevin Sidel, Marie Moses, Dick Rotole and Denise Cook. 

Gary Abrams and Carol Mullins were present as guests from CLE.  

A motion was made to approve the Minutes from the January 20, 2006, meeting, was seconded, and was passed unanimously. 

OFFICER’S REPORTS:

CHAIR’S REPORT BY FRAN FONTANA:
Fran noted that an expression of thanks to the Section was received from Barbara Quade, for the big get well card we sent to her.  Fran noted that the Section is also going to make a donation to the American Cancer Society in Barb Quade’s name

Fran reported that yesterday, she received a letter from Hilary Greer Fike.  Ms. Fike advised that Judge Bayliss denied her request for a determination that any issue of  mootness should not prevent the court from ruling on the merits of her case because the Pallas case presents issues of important public policy that are capable of repetition yet evading review.   The Section had supported this position in a letter of support directed to Ms. Fike.  The Judge found no exception to the issue of mootness; and found that the case circumstances were not unique.  Hilary’s client has elected not to proceed further in the case.

The Chair noted that we have had recent problems at an administrative level dealing with the hotel regarding our lunches, as well as complaints about the food served.  In the past, Fran Fontana and Kathryn Beck chaired a committee to find a new location, which is not an easy task.  Our contract for next year is usually signed in the summer; Fran questioned whether we need to look for a new spot for our luncheon meetings?  A key factor is the need for easy access from various metro locations, and the need to accommodate 120 to 140 people at each luncheon.  We could consider the following hotels: Warwick, JW Marriott, and Loews.  We need the lunches to cost approximately $25 in order to make some profit.  Kathryn suggested looking at the Pepsi Center as they were very interested in the past when we were looking, but were a bit higher in price.  Bob Malman, David Littman, Melissa Nicoletti, Jackie St. Joan, and Dave Johnson agreed to investigate this issue further, and to report at the May meeting with alternatives for the Council to consider.

The Judge’s Reception was held on February 9, 2006.  The event was well received by those in attendance.  We would like to have an even better turnout next year.  Kathryn and Fran will have lunch with Tim Henderson from the University of Denver to address future plans and to further address logistics.  We concluded that we need to get an earlier date, address ongoing parking issues, and give the judges as much notice as possible.

Concerning the Bench Bar Book:  recognition was again given to Joan McWilliams and to Barb Quade, as well as to all of the authors, for their hard work!  The Book Committee will be selling the Bench Bar Book at the luncheons. 

Fran welcomed Gary Abrams, who introduced Carol Mullens.  Carol is the new Program Attorney at CLE who will be taking over Liz Giordano’s full time position (although Liz will still do some special programs work).

Gary said that the Spring Family Law Update was coming up, as well as the Family Law Institute.  Brochures are being finalized, and the wine is being selected for the reception at the FLI.  There will be also be a fall program, currently set for November 3, 2006.

CHAIR ELECT REPORT BY DAVE JOHNSON:

Regarding the Rule 16.2 Survey:  only 19 lawyers responded and two times this number of Court-related personnel responded to the Survey.  This probably greatly skewed the results.  Consequently, we will take additional responses to the end of the month and hopefully get more feedback from the Bar membership.  Fran Fontana will make an announcement at the luncheon today as well.  Overwhelmingly, responses indicated additional disclosures did not need to be added.  The survey is available on the website, and the Section will send two additional emails asking for member feedback.  Much has been made of the Court’s reluctance to sanction parties for not complying with the Rule.  If members do not respond to the Survey, this will not change.  Further, if there is a concern that a particular jurisdiction is not following the rule, this comment should be made in the Survey.  Fran requests that since everyone complains, we need to give feedback when given the opportunity to do so!  There has also been a listserv posting regarding the Survey, but it did not have the link.  Dave also advised that very few attorneys use the Stipulated Case Management Order.  Denver has a new Case Management Order that will be posted on the Section’s website.

Regarding the Family Law Institute: a reminder was made that the dates are August 4, 5, 6 of 2006.  Planning is coming along well; lightning round speakers are rounded up, and we have a panel of judges from around the state who will speak.  Chip Mortimer has agreed to be a key note speaker, and Ed Budd is the lunch speaker.  Ed’s topic, Wizards and Warriors, promises to be entertaining.  The Committee has asked each presenter to have an ethics component in their topic, given the fact that this is the program emphasis in 2006.  Fran noted that we may want to cover Temporary Maintenance because there has been some feedback from Section members that Judge’s may be misinterpreting the statute. Dave hopes that it will be possible to get all of your ethics requirements at this conference.  We have some new faces making presentations, per the request of the membership.  Steve Epstein and Ron Litvak will do a case law update.  

SECRETARY’S REPORT BY KATHRYN BECK:

Kathryn noted that inquiries have been made for Bench Bar Books, and that we should make the books available at as many CLE events as possible.  The Book Selling Committee is made up of Martin Brown and Bob Smith, and, Denise Cook has offered to serve on the Committee aw well.  Kathryn pointed out that a good selling point for the book is that all of the Judges hearing domestic relations cases are always provided with these books. 

Kathryn gave further feedback about the Judge’s Reception, noting that the food was very good and the wine was well received.  We will likely schedule the event in February of 2007, so plan on attending.

TREASURER’S REPORT BY DAVID LITTMAN:

We have funded $5,000.00 in grants so far this year (last year, we funded $500.00).  David noted that the Section tries to use money in productive ways. 

OLD BUSINESS:

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE BY STEVE LASS:

House Bill 1022, which eliminated a ninety day waiting period has been defeated. 

The House Bill eliminated the parenting class requirement was also defeated.

Regarding House Bill 1066, concerning the licensing of private child support collection agencies: our Section did not take position on this bill.  To date, this bill has passed the house and is moving on to the Senate

House Bill 1111:  This Bill, as initially drafted, would have allowed a Court to order attorney fees in a domestic case if the court determined that unjustifiable conduct by a party or a lawyer had occurred.  The bill was completely revised and passed 6 to 5 in the House Judiciary Committee.  The CBA thinks the Bill will not survive the Senate Judiciary Committee’s scrutiny.  Steve noted that the Bill contains a lot of really quirky language that could pose real problems, but that the Bill not likely to survive.  There is a fiscal note attached to the Bill as well.  Mike DiManna did a great job when he testified on behalf of the Section.  We suggested that if they want a statute on attorney fees, the current rule could be incorporated into a statute

HB 1334:  now very simply states that APR evaluations under C.R.S. 14-10-127 are confidential.  This Bill is proceeding forward.  Ken Gordon is sponsoring it in the Senate

HB 1267: is sponsored by the Child Support Commission, and contemplates a reorganization of the child support statute(s).  This Bill is supposed to simply reorganize the current provisions, not make any substantive changes.  The Section has not taken a position on this Bill although the Legislative Committee has reviewed it.

HB 1169:  the Bill limits access to parts of domestic files.  In 2002, the same bill was sponsored in the Legislature.  We did not take a position on the Bill; it was passed by the House and the Senate but was vetoed by the Governor.   Steve identified two categories of problems:  first, there is some incorrect nomenclature re CFI’s and CLR’s; and, the Bill did not address access to files by the PC or DM.  We have proposed amendments to the sponsor.  We pointed out that the report of a CFI is confidential; and that these people should have access to the Court file.  The second issue:  the Section voted that we did not like the part of the Bill that said a parenting plan is sealed but attorneys would be required to submit a summary parenting plan even though the Parenting Plan would be a confidential document.  This has become a really hot issue; statutes that seal files in the past have been deemed unconstitutional and are really opposed by the press.  By contrast:  the Chief Justice has issued a directive to try to avoid identity theft problems.  Documents with Social Security numbers, for example, are to be sealed.  In certain jurisdictions, the Clerk’s Offices are closing the files since they lack staff manpower to redact files in this manner.  State Judicial has said that they really want to support this Bill as a way to get some things sealed but still be Constitutional.  There is only a minimal fiscal note attached, which is likely quite unrealistic.  We do not have permission from the Colorado Bar to oppose the summary of the parenting plan provision.  We can take no position on the Bill as a Section, but individuals can testify regarding the parenting plan summary.  If we oppose the summary parenting plan, and all parenting plan issues would be sealed, there could be an objection that it is unconstitutional.  In spite of the Section’s overwhelming vote, we cannot take a position on this part of the Bill because the CBA Legislative Policy Committee said no.  The summary of the parenting plan being “public information” may be what is deemed as making this Bill constitutional.  The bill may be vetoed again by the Governor. 

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR BY BONNIE SCHRINER:

ELECTION:  Nomination forms have been submitted and we should have a good slate of candidates this year.  If you are a current member of Executive Council and want to run for Treasurer, you must let Bonnie Schriner know ASAP. 

NEWSLETTER BY ELLEN SQUIRES:

May 15 is the deadline for submission of information for the next newsletter. Ellen will address the issue of making it easier to print the Newsletter. 

BENCH BAR BOOK by JOAN MCWILLIAMS:
We will give the authors and editors Certificates of Appreciation at today’s luncheon. 
Joan suggested an idea regarding future updates/amendments to the Bench Bar Book.  She thought that we could hire someone to flag cases for updating the subsections of the book as these cases or statutory changes come along; and, if the cases would change the content, they could send the cases to a committee member/editor on a particular topic so that it would not be so difficult to update the Bench Bar Book in the future.  Bonnie suggested that we could fund the task to also include keeping the recent family law cases on the Section’s website for immediate access.  Discussion was had as to this issue and we will add this to the Agenda for next month for more in depth discussion.  Joan will make a proposal on how this could be handled. 

NEW BUSINESS: 

We have a deadline regarding scholarship applications for the Family Law Institute; but, we did not advertise the scholarship in January or February, and thus need an extension of the deadline.  Gary Abrams suggested that when we send the Brochure, we can ask for applications at that time. 

A Motion was made to extend the deadline for receipt of scholarship applications by at least 30 days. The Motion was amended to extend the deadline to June 1st for submission of applications for scholarships.  The Motion passed unanimously.

Discussion was had concerning Rebecca Bromley, in Colorado Springs Division 15, who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer.  Further, her husband was seriously injured in a car accident.  It was agreed that the Section would send her a get well soon card. 

A Motion to adjourn was made, and passed unanimously at 11:38 a.m.