Representative Ashley Hudson (District 75) presented HB 1434 as an update to the state’s joint‑custody statute intended to protect children from adverse childhood experiences linked to domestic abuse. Hudson said the bill links the custody standard to the definition of “domestic abuse” under the state’s Domestic Abuse Act (1991) and adds procedural guidance about how courts should determine whether a parent’s conduct endangers a child’s emotional or physical well‑being.

Hudson and supporters said the changes were developed with input from judges, judicial counsel and domestic‑violence advocates to fill statutory gaps the courts identified after the joint‑custody presumption took effect. The sponsor emphasized the bill’s focus on the child’s welfare: the measure would require courts to examine whether abusive conduct endangered the child’s emotional or physical well‑being, allow courts to order safety conditions, and permit but not require rehabilitative programming for a parent.

Judges and family‑law attorneys debated whether the draft language changes the burden of proof or the meaning of long‑standing terms such as “pattern of abuse.” Circuit Judge Amy Moore, who hears family law and probate cases, said courts have grappled with how to apply the existing statutory presumption and described appellate decisions addressing “pattern” language. Several defense attorneys and parental‑equality advocates warned the bill could weaken the joint‑custody presumption enacted four years ago, that deleting the word “pattern” might let single incidents—however serious—automatically defeat the joint‑custody default, and that the bill’s rebuttal standard (a parent must show by preponderance that custody will not endanger the child) could change how judges evaluate cases.

Stakeholders who work with survivors urged stronger protections for children. Beth Sanders, executive director of the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and Brandy Daley of the coalition’s network argued the state’s children face elevated rates of exposure to adverse childhood events and that statutory clarity would better protect child safety.

Several committee members pressed for precise drafting and asked whether the bill would apply to ex parte protection orders, whether criminal convictions should be treated differently from civil findings, and how the bill would interact with current custody statutes and the best‑interest standard. Critics including Brian Vandiver and family‑law practitioners recommended alternate drafting approaches (for example, defining domestic abuse and pattern within the existing custody section rather than broad changes) and noted the bill creates new phrases such as “care” that are not explicitly defined.

After extended debate and substantial public testimony for and against the measure, Representative Hudson asked to pull HB 1434 to work on amendments with Judge Moore and other stakeholders; the committee granted that request and the sponsor indicated she will continue discussions before reintroducing the bill.