Committee advances bill letting parents who finish mediation skip 60‑day waiting period in divorce cases

The House Standing Committee on Families and Children voted 13–2 to give House Bill 109 a favorable recommendation after a morning hearing in which supporters said the change would spare families unnecessary delay and an opponent warned it could weaken marriage protections.

Representative Dietz, the bill sponsor, told the committee HB 109 would amend KRS 403.044 to exempt couples who have completed collaborative family law or mediation from the statute’s 60‑day waiting period before a divorce decree can be entered. "All I'm proposing is that if they've put in the hard work ahead of time and they've chosen to keep their divorce private ... they'd be allowed to put their decree on and go ahead and get divorced," Dietz said. She emphasized the exemption would not apply to litigated divorces where a petition is filed and civil rules are followed.

The bill’s sponsor described collaborative cases as front‑loaded with document gathering, financial disclosure and repeated meetings; she told the committee that collaborative cases in her practice typically take about six months on average and sometimes a year or more for high‑asset matters. Dietz also noted that certain post‑decree mechanics, such as qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) for dividing retirement accounts, can take several months to process, and that the 60‑day statutory waiting period has practical purposes beyond a "cooling off" interval.

David Walls, executive director of the Family Foundation, urged lawmakers to oppose HB 109, saying "by making divorce easier for parents with children, HB 109 would harm marriages, families, and children." Walls cited research he said links waiting periods to lower divorce rates and presented state and national fiscal cost estimates related to family fragmentation. He also described a new initiative, "Greater Than," aimed at promoting marriage and family stability.

Committee members gave mixed reasons for their votes. Representative Mosher, who praised the collaborative model and said the bill could improve the process for some families, said she was "struggling with the counseling bit" and voted no while offering to work with the sponsor on possible enhancements to counseling safeguards. Representative Stalker and others who voted yes stressed that the bill recognizes work already done by parents and that the measure does not make a litigated divorce faster.

Chair Heffern announced the committee's recorded vote as 13 yays and 2 nos and said the bill "passes with favorable expression" and will likely move to the House floor for further consideration.

The committee record shows the bill explicitly targets KRS 403.044 and leaves the statutory waiting period in place where the litigated procedure applies. Several members asked staff and the sponsor to consider whether counseling or parental‑education options could be strengthened in some circuits where judges already require additional safeguards.

What’s next: HB 109 now moves to the full House for further action; committee supporters and opponents indicated interest in continuing negotiations over counseling and implementation details during floor consideration.