The House Judiciary Committee on Monday reviewed a subcommittee amendment to Senate Bill 2186 that would change how courts respond when a parent denies another parent scheduled parenting time, proposing a remedy that awards the wronged parent up to double the time lost, ties criminal penalties to contempt of court and creates a task force to study implementation.

The amendment, presented by subcommittee chair Representative Vetter, removes portions of the prior draft that had placed some enforcement responsibility on law enforcement and instead focuses on restoring parenting time, a higher evidentiary standard and judicial remedies. "What this bill would do is if you take time away from one party ... the other party would then get up to double time back," Vetter told the committee. He said legislative counsel had inserted language requiring "clear and convincing" evidence for additional parenting time.

The change matters because law enforcement and some witnesses told the panel that custody orders are often not detailed or readily available to officers and that criminalizing routine pickup disputes could carry disproportionate consequences, including job loss. Vetter said witnesses at the subcommittee included people with differing perspectives; one told the subcommittee that an infraction could jeopardize a firefighting job.

Key provisions in the proposed amendment:
- Double-time remedy: If a parent is denied scheduled parenting time, a court could order additional parenting time for the aggrieved parent, up to double the amount of time taken, and the additional time must be comparable in type and duration (for example, holiday time for holiday time).
- Evidentiary standard: The amendment uses a "clear and convincing" evidence standard before awarding additional parenting time.
- Contempt of court link: Criminal penalties for noncompliance would be enforced through contempt proceedings at the judge's discretion; the amendment leaves the range of contempt sanctions to judicial authority.
- Parenting apps: The amendment recommends that judges may consider ordering parents to use a co‑parenting application to document schedules and communications, but it is presented as an optional tool rather than a mandated requirement.
- Task force: The amendment establishes a task force of professionals to study implementation, alternatives and further statutory changes.

Representative Olson questioned whether language in the draft might be confined to situations involving an "allegation of harm to the child," noting that certain sections read as if they applied only where harm allegations were involved. Vetter and Chairman Clamine agreed to have legislative counsel review phrasing and section placement; Clamine suggested legislative counsel determine whether the language belongs in the same section or should be a separate section.

The committee paused before a formal motion. After questions about a missing reference to contempt of court, the panel agreed to defer action until legislative counsel confirms cross references and final wording. "I don't think we want to make a motion to approve the amendment yet until you clear that out," Clamine said.

Next steps: Committee members said they will await corrected language from legislative counsel and may add or remove items before a formal vote. The subcommittee chair said the amendment reflects the subcommittee's intention to give courts a noncriminal remedy to restore parenting time and to provide a structured review of broader changes through the proposed task force.

Ending: The committee took no final vote on the amendment; members will reconvene after the floor session to consider revised language and any additional committee changes.