HBA-DMH C.S.H.B. 1363 77(R) BILL ANALYSIS Office of House Bill AnalysisC.S.H.B. 1363 By: Goodman Civil Practices 3/20/2001 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Currently, different types of alternative dispute resolution procedures are encouraged to bring about a peaceable solution instead of litigation. Collaborative law, a new dispute resolution method, is being used primarily in family law cases relating to the dissolution of a marriage and the parent-child relationship in which the costs of a court battle can be both personally and financially overwhelming. The collaborative law process offers parties the option to negotiate in good faith for an out-of-court settlement. The process is entirely voluntary and participation may be terminated at any time. The parties agree to a full exchange of records and to jointly hire experts. If a settlement is not reached, the attorneys must withdraw and the parties will then employ trial counsel. C.S.H.B. 1363 includes the collaborative law process among other dispute resolution methods encouraged in actions relating to the dissolution of a marriage or suits affecting the parent-child relationship. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 1363 amends the Family Code to provide that a collaborative law procedure (procedure) is a specified process, conducted under written agreement of the parties and their counsel, to reach a settlement agreement with minimal judicial intervention in a dissolution of marriage dispute or a suit affecting the parent child relationship. The bill sets forth provisions for what the agreement must include. A party is entitled to judgment on a collaborative law settlement agreement if the agreement: _provides in a specified manner that the agreement is not subject to revocation; and _is signed by each party to the agreement and the attorney of each party. The bill prohibits a court that is notified 30 days before trial that parties are using the procedures to attempt to settle a dispute from dismissing the case, setting a hearing or trial in the case, imposing discovery deadlines, or requiring compliance with scheduling orders until a party notifies the court that the collaborative law procedures did not result in a settlement. The bill requires the parties to notify the court if the procedures result in a settlement or file a status report, within a certain time period, if the procedures do not result in a settlement. If the procedures do not result in a settlement on or before the second anniversary of the date that the suit was filed, the bill authorizes the court to set the suit for trial on the regular docket or dismiss the suit without prejudice. EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2001. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE C.S.H.B. 1363 differs from the original bill by specifying in the Family Code rather than the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, that the collaborative law procedures may be conducted for dissolution of a marriage proceeding and a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. The substitute removes provisions prohibiting the court from approving a collaborative law agreement (agreement) unless the agreement complies with specified mediation procedures. The substitute provides that a party is entitled to judgment if the agreement states that the agreement is not subject to revocation and is signed by each party and the party's attorney. The substitute adds the language relating to the status report and the language relating to the court's authorization to set the suit for trial or dismiss the suit. The substitute sets forth notification and discovery deadlines and requires compliance with scheduling orders.