Committee backs requiring child‑abuse reports to go to child advocacy centers and expands remote testimony

Representatives Goldstein and Garcia told the House Judiciary Committee HB26‑1103 is designed to reduce trauma for children who are victims of sexual assault by routing investigations through the child‑focused Multidisciplinary Team model and by expanding access to remote testimony for youth up to age 18 when the court finds it warranted.

The bill requires law enforcement to notify the nearest in‑state Child Advocacy Center (CAC) within one week of receiving an allegation so the CAC can consider a trauma‑informed forensic interview and coordinate medical, mental‑health and victim services. The sponsors added a clause allowing the reporting party to explain extenuating circumstances when immediate referral is not possible.

The bill also clarifies the evidentiary process when a child seeks to testify remotely at trial: sponsors removed a rebuttable presumption from the original draft and instead require the trial court to place explicit factual findings on the record explaining why remote testimony is granted or denied — a change the state public defender and other defense stakeholders requested to preserve constitutional confrontation rights.

Child‑advocacy centers, prosecutors, public‑defenders, advocates and parents testified in support, saying a single forensic interview conducted in a child‑friendly setting reduces retraumatization, improves evidence quality and increases the likelihood that cases proceed safely. CAC directors urged the committee to adopt the amendment changing the 24‑hour referral window to one week to account for capacity and resource constraints; committee accepted that change as L001 along with two additional clarifying amendments.

The committee adopted the four sponsor amendments (L001–L004) and voted to send HB26‑1103 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the recorded vote was 11–0.

If enacted, sponsors said the bill would align statewide investigation and courtroom accommodations with best practices for child victims, while preserving defendants’ rights by requiring the court to make case‑specific findings on remote testimony requests.