07-27-2013, 05:30 PM #1
Dina Shacknai: "Parental Disclosure Act" Proposal
Sponsored by State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), the bill was authored late in the 2013 legislative session and did not make it to committee before lawmakers adjourned for the year, Shacknai says. “But that’s good because we’re working to fine-tune the bill so it would be acceptable in a nonpartisan way.”
It appears that the reason the bill "did not make it to committee" is that the "bill" is not yet really a bill. There is no record (that I can find) of this "bill" being submitted "in the hopper" (or "jacketed" is the term, in some states) to receive an official number. Therefore, it did not receive a first or second reading in the AZ House or Senate, and therefore could not be referred to any committee.
Essentially, it is still in the very early/ preliminary "talking about it", thinking about it, writing it, and getting signatures phase. IMO, this proposal has a very long way to go legislatively before even being referred to committee for possible hearings.
And one has to wonder what effect the fact that Dina Shacknai has been named in a $10 million wrongful death civil lawsuit will have on the progress of the proposed bill next session.
Also, it's interesting to remember that the author of this, Craig Outhier is the husband of a former co-worker of Dina Shacknai (Lisa Elder Outhier), and the author of the "Boy Interrupted" article about Dina's response to Max's death.
Info on the sponsor identified in the article, AZ State Senator Nancy Barto (R)
**The next link is NOT the Parental Disclosure proposal-- an example of recent legislation authored by AZ State Senator Barto.
Link to video produced by Maxie's House for the Parental Disclosure proposal.
AZ Bill process
Last edited by OkieGranny; 02-23-2016 at 02:13 AM. Reason: broken link
07-27-2013, 07:49 PM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Thank you for this thread! Was it you who had an excellent post about this bill and/or the goal of it in another thread? I don't know how to find that post, but if I find it or anyone else, I'd love to see it put here.
07-27-2013, 09:47 PM #3Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
Discussion about the bill started with a post by *Lash*
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Dina's KTAR Interview
Then it was moved to the “Maxie’s House” thread with several replies on page three.
Last edited by OkieGranny; 02-23-2016 at 02:13 AM. Reason: broken link“It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
- Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)
07-28-2013, 02:20 AM #4
Bringing this old post from *Lash* over from the Maxie's House thread.
03-12-2013, 02:56 PM
How many children have been murdered by a parents significant other, sadly too many to count. Too many children have been murdered by their OWN parents. We cannot control everything. I understand the desire for Maxie's Law, I truly do. I simply do not believe legislation is possible. Legislation cannot fix every problem we face in this world. Some things are simply out of our hands. We cannot do a background check on our child's classmates, yet every day there is a chance one of those classmates could bring a gun to school. No matter how hard she tried, Dina could NOT control everything in Maxie's life. What happened to Max is horrible. I believe Dina is suffering. I'm sorry Max left this world way too early.
Nina Romano talks about change in the video. Change often begins when truth hits us in the face and we realize it is needed. There is no truth in what is being spewed here. Dina claims there was nothing available in the court system. How does she know, she never took her concerns to court. She made an arrangement with Jonah to avoid court. What did Dina's background check on RZ find that was so concerning that court should intervene? Shoplifting? It has not been proven Max's fatal death was a result of harm caused by the hands of another human being.
The child cases highlighted in this video were proven in a court of law to be murder. Max's cause of death was not murder. His COD has not been changed to murder. No one has been accused by Law Enforcement of murdering Max. He was not raped. ALL of these children were abducted. I cannot grasp how Dina could tell herself it was acceptable to use these crimes against children to promote Maxie's Law. Not just Dina, the whole BOD. I cannot believe ALL these people agreed. No one thought this was wrong, that this could be offensive to the families of these children? Preposterous, what were they thinking? This video is a true example of 'stretching the truth'. It goes beyond all moral boundaries. This video is exploiting the murder and abduction of these children.
With all due respect, even if legislation was possible, Dina Shacknai is not the role model that should be promoting such legislation. Dina has her own history of domestic violence in a marriage with children that were not her own. I do not believe what happened to Maxie should be used as the pilot program to promote this law.
ALL of these children suffered horribly. ALL were murdered and abducted! Sexual predators were involved. Maxie's death cannot be compared to these awful murders nor the legislation that occurred because of these crimes. These laws were created by parents who suffered horribly because their children were abducted and murdered.
Megan's Law - Megan Kanka
Code Adam - Adam Walsh
Amber Alert - Amber Hagerman
Jessica Lunsford Act - Jessica Lunsford
Sarah's Law - Sarah Payne
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children - Adam Walsh & Ethan Patz
Adam, Amber, Ethan, Jessica, Megan and Sarah were all ABDUCTED!
07-28-2013, 02:24 AM #5
Bringing my old post over. (The discussion was in response to the video released by Maxie's House on Youtube, "Parental Disclosure Act". (Link in first post in this thread.)
Old 03-13-2013, 11:00 AM
I agree completely, Lash. Thank you for that well written post. The children used for comparison in that video were unquestionably abducted and murdered in the most awful and violent of crimes. To glom onto those tragedies and fraudulently embrace that pain and horror to further a carefully manufacturered false narrative is pure evil, IMO. Absolutely despicable exploitation.
That whole "false narrative" in purpose and video furthered by Dina and her enablers on the MH BOD feels like a preemptive self defense to me. Repeat the false narrative loudly, and often, and try to persuade listeners that it is grounded in truth. Distract, falsely blame, falsely accuse, fabricate, attack. Lather, rinse, repeat. But it is still a false narrative, no matter how loud or how often it is repeated.
To even attempt to compare Maxie's sad and tragic accidental death to horrific abduction, sexual abuse, and violent murders of these children is not just misguided, but intentionally exploitative with the most evil of intentions, IMO.
Legislators and philanthropists by necessity have to listen to a lot of appeals for money and political action related to special interests, some legitimate, and some not. There is just no way this will gain political momentum. There are simply too many serious faults with the premise, as well as the legislative and judicial processes for implementation. No legislator will touch this, let alone would a bipartisan coalition emerge. It's preposterous.
I do hope that there are cease and desist actions taken against MH to prevent them from further exploiting these murdered children and their memorial organizations. It's despicable.
Really despicable. And does not honor Maxie, or his memory, IMO.
07-28-2013, 02:26 AM #6
03-13-2013, 03:21 PM
Thank you KZ!
The video promoting Maxie's Law is cloaked in falsehoods. The foundation mission is providing safety to children in blended families. The video begins highlighting laws that were painfully constructed by families whose children were abducted and murdered. I understand that out of tragedy sometimes we can bring much needed change and as these cases brought forth exceptional legislation. These cases had their day in court, an awful person was found guilty and punished for the murder of their children. Max's death has not been presented in any court nor has anyone legally been accused or found guilty of harming Max.
In my opinion, Dina and the board are bordering on fraud in this video. Possibly crossed that border. Max's accident had nothing to do with the safety of living in a blended family. It has not been proved in a court of law that Max was murdered let alone by a member of his blended family. It has not been proven in a court of law that Max's accident resulted from a lack of safety in his blended family. Max's death was an accident. This video grossly misrepresents the truth and blatantly lies to viewers. A person who has not followed Max's case after viewing this video would most likely believe Max was murdered by the persons Dina has publicly accused. Completely untrue.
Let's promote safety in blended families by lying. Lying is already a big problem for people who live in blended families. How can a foundation based on finding support for blended families consciously lie to promote their legislation? Dina is not only exploiting murdered and abducted children, she is exploiting the fears of people who live in blended families. Dina is telling worried parents that her child was murdered because resources were not available to protect her child. Absolutely false and intentionally misleading. Dina may believe this is what happened. A belief, not a fact. In my opinion, she is preying on the emotions of parents that have real fears and concerns for the safety of their children.
07-28-2013, 02:33 AM #7
07-19-2013, 07:04 pm
Originally posted by *lash* view post
a new article in phoenix magazine by dina's friend, craig outhier.
author: Craig outhier - print issue: August, 2013, page 42
dina romano shacknai wants to reform child-custody laws – not just in arizona, but nationally. And abroad.
Two years after her only son perished in a san diego hospital room, dina romano shacknai marches closer to her goal of creating a child-protection law in his name. The parental disclosure act, aka “maxie’s law,” has a legislative sponsor, an impressive roster of well-connected backers and a compelling mandate in this era of split-custody child rearing and blended families.
i can't see why this "law" would even be worth the resources to pontificate on it, and pass and print it. A voluntary provision for a fully consented, voluntary background check? With the individual being checked providing one form of id?? I think we have that in place in all 50 states now. Divorcing parents can agree to all that today in all 50 states.
This is an (expensive, time consuming, pointless, and ineffective) solution, desperately in search of a problem. This is not even a "bipartisan" issue, imo. This will not keep a single child "safe" from anything or anyone, imo.
And being that az is a fairly conservative state, politically, i doubt it has any chance to pass. Everyone feels sympathy for a grieving mother, but this is not a solution to any kind of societal problem that can be fixed with 3 legislative sessions or so of debate, ending in a neat, tidy new law. Dina did her stalking of rebecca, she found the old shoplifting charge without this proposed "law". None of that had anything to do with max's accidental fall. Imo.
I understand dina feels like she needs a "cause". Particularly one that again attempts to paint (no pun intended) rz responsible for max's accident. But ds is soon to be very busy attending to the issues surrounding being named as a responsible party in a wrongful death lawsuit.
I think this proposed legislation will die on the vine pretty quickly. What legislator wants to be associated with the mess that is all this?
Last edited by K_Z; 07-28-2013 at 02:54 AM. Reason: comment
07-28-2013, 03:28 AM #8
I have to throw in these comments, as they are directly related to Dina's quest for the "Parental Disclosure Act".
If the "Parental Disclosure Act" had been a law or statute at the time Dina and Jonah were dating and married, Jonah's first ex wife Kimberly would have been "entitled" to background checks on Dina. Dina has used several names in the past-- would she have voluntarily provided "one form" of identification to Jonah's ex wife Kimberly, so Kimberly could have run background checks on her before they were married?
Dina had fairly regular contact with Kimberly and Jonah's 2 minor children. Using Dina's ideas about what should be done with information discovered in ongoing "background checks", should Kimberly have taken Jonah to court to prevent Dina from having any contact with their minor children? After all, there were several instances of violent behavior on the part of Dina where police were called and reports filed. (Links below.)
Does Dina believe she should have been under court order to not have any contact with these minor children due to her unstable, impulsive, violent behavior? After all, she acted out with her own minor child present in the home, and at one point actually flung herself on the hood of a moving car. Are we all just supposed to drink her koolaid, listen to her false narrative, and pretend none of that ever happened?
Having this documented history of domestic violence, IMO, renders Dina uniquely unqualified to advocate for safety of children in "blended families". How, exactly, does Dina believe that she is an authentic "voice" to advocate for children of divorce?? She is delusional, IMO, and surrounded by enablers.
It boggles the mind that ANY legislator would risk their reputation and career in politics to become associated with a person promoting a law that promotes "stalking" of the friends and associates of their ex-spouse. Particularly when the person promoting the "ex- wife's stalking law" actually DID stalk the new GF of her ex husband-- and then is named in a wrongful death lawsuit for responsibility for the death of that GF in a particularly gruesome manner. So.... a shoplifting charge versus multiple instances of domestic violence--which would the courts decide is the better situation for a child?
07-28-2013, 11:57 AM #9Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Thank you cynic, Lash, and KZ for the links and reposting.
And, KZ, I completely agree:
Having this documented history of domestic violence, IMO, renders Dina uniquely unqualified to advocate for safety of children in "blended families". How, exactly, does Dina believe that she is an authentic "voice" to advocate for children of divorce??
07-28-2013, 12:42 PM #10
What does Senator Barto have to say about this proposd bill?
I'm guessing from Dina's ccomments in the Phoenix Magazine article that AZ Senator Barto has given Dina clear permission to use her name in press releases or articles about the Parental Disclosure proposal.
Because it would not be good for Dina OR the proposed bill if Senator Barto hasn't explicitly given permission for her name to be used publicly in conjunction with discussion of this proposal.
Wouldn't it be interesting to hear from State Senator Barto about her thoughts on the proposal for the Parental Disclosure bill? I, for one, would be very interested to hear what Senator Barto has to say about the progress of this proposed bill, and which other AZ legislators are supporting the language for the bill.
In my experience working with legislators in my state, they typically would not appreciate being identified publicly as a sponsor for a proposed bill, especially a controversial proposal, unless they had made a clear and public commitment to that proposed bill themselves. It is "blindsiding" a legislator to name drop them "too early" as a sponsor for a bill, if the details for that bill aren't already worked out, with the legislator clearly on board. And that usually means there have been MANY meetings with the legislator and their staff. It is wise never to misconstrue a legislator's receptivity until it is abundantly clear the legislator intends to publicly support "your" issue. And if a legislator sponsors, or intends to sponsor legislation (especially controversial proposals), they will usually make an announcement themselves from their office. (And that is after they have had hallway consults with other legislators to gauge support from their legislative peers.)
Is there a collaborative committee that is working on the language in the proposed bill? Legislators almost never write bill language themselves; it is typically a collaborative process with many, many experienced stakeholders participating.
What other social service and public safety groups are supporting this proposed bill? Other than Dina and Maxie's House, who is lobbying in support of this proposal?
If I were on the BOD for Maxie's House, I would ask Senator Barto to stand with our group and do a press conference about the Parental Disclosure proposal for a bill. Session is over now, so legislators often have more time for media appearances.
I think public discussion of this bill proposal would be a very good thing for Arizonans, and may help Senator Barto make decisions about the language and introduction process for the proposed bill. An engaged electorate is a good thing, and if this is good for AZ, Senator Barto will want her name clearly associated with it. That's helpful to legislators at re-election time, right?
07-29-2013, 11:55 AM #11
Thank you for all the info KZ! I agree the article is misleading as Maxie's law is not a bill at this time, has not been assigned a number and is simply at the proposal stage. Not even complete.
Senator Nancy Barto has introduced and helped pass several bills concerning the protection of children and as stated is a leader for AZ families. She is a member of the Public Safety and Human Services committee. I found a bill she sponsored, SB1072. The bill is interesting as it is dealing with the rights of parents and parent time in regards to relocation. After reading this bill, I can see the likelihood Sen. Barto would sponsor the Parental Disclosure Act. Of course we don't know how Dina being named a defendant in the civil suit may affect further movement of this proposal. If there is an out of court settlement, I believe Dina's alleged involvement in the suit would be forgiven, just as Dina's own DV that occurred while children were in the home has been overlooked.
SB1072 - Rights of each parent; parenting time; relocation of child; exception; enforcement; access to prescription medication and records
07-29-2013, 11:13 PM #12
Correct, Lash-- Senator Barto has supported a number of proposals and bills that have to do with families and children.
I'm hopeful we will see the BOD of Maxie's House give a press conference together with Senator Barto. But if that doesn't happen, perhaps an enterprising reporter/s could query her office staff about what her position is on the Parental Disclosure proposal. It would be especially helpful to see an interview with Senator Barto where she is asked questions about the provisions Dina has discussed in her Phoenix Magazine article, and what Senator Barto is aware of about Dina's documented domestic violence history, and her present situation.
I'd also be interested in hearing what Senator Barto has to say about the fact that the child Max, for whom Maxie's House is named, was never the victim of any sort of abuse that can be substantiated, and that Maxie's House has linked his very sad and tragic accidental fall to the horrific violent crimes of sex abuse, kidnapping, and murder for children who were TRUE violent crime victims, like Megan Kanka. That is exploitation, IMO. And IMO, that is absolutely despicable.
The "parental disclosure" proposal is a solution for only one thing-- satisfying the ongoing vindictive vendetta of Dina Shacknai against her ex-husband's dead and murdered GF, Rebecca Zahau, IMO. This is not something, IMO, that any prudent legislator should support.
Max was a victim of a terrible accident-- that alone is bad enough. He was not a victim of any kind of crime. It's very sad to me that Dina missed a golden opportunity to structure a nonprofit that could actually make a difference-- one that is aimed at household safety for children, particularly stairwell safety, or even working to ensure railings in historic buildings should be modified for children's safety.
But instead, IMO, she exploits his accidental death in creating a false narrative about Rebecca, and then bases her nonprofit in the child's name on this false narrative. IMO, that is exploitation for her own vindictive purposes. It does not honor the memory of who Max really way or how he really died, IMO.
07-30-2013, 12:21 AM #13
SB 1072 Relocation reform – passed the Senate – passed House committee, failed to advance to final floor votes in the House. When divorced parents share parenting time current law inadequately protects parents when one of them decides to pick up and move without considering how it might affect the child’s circumstances or the other parent’s parenting time. SB 1072 would have made the system fairer for all parties – especially the child.
Senator Barto is up for re-election in 2014.
This source says her committee assignments in the 2013 session were Elections, Health and Human Services, and Judiciary.
07-30-2013, 03:01 PM #14
Who is the REGISTERED lobbyist for Maxie's House?
Arizona has some of the strictest lobbyist rules in the country. In any of the 50 states, whenever “your” group has decided to pursue a direct relationship with a legislator for the purposes of influencing any type of bill—proposed or “live” in session, it is necessary to do some homework and research about how to participate in the process so that your organization is clearly within the law. (Going about influencing things the "wrong" way is a surefire method to have your ideas or issues killed early in the legislative process.)
Basically, in AZ, anyone who contacts a legislator for the purpose of influencing any type of legislation, or proposed legislation, must be a registered lobbyist in Arizona. AZ has over 7,500 registered lobbyists.
Anyone who is not strictly and only a private citizen representing only themselves is required to be registered with the Secretary of State of Arizona, and file quarterly expenditure reports (among other lobbyist responsibilities outlined by law). Anyone representing any organization, public, private, or nonprofit, must be registered.
No one on the Maxie’s House Board of Directors is listed in the Arizona SOS Lobbyist database, which is easily searchable. Specifically, Dina Shacknai, in her role as Executive Director of the non-profit, Maxie’s House, and who is speaking very publicly about her relationship with AZ State Senator Nancy Barto for the purpose of promoting proposed legislation “Parental Disclosure”, is not listed in the lobbyist database. And no one else is listed as representing Maxie's House.
I wonder why no one from Maxie’s House is registered as a lobbyist for that organization? Have they hired a professional lobbyist?
There are legal consequences (misdemeanors) for not registering. Surely, with 2 attorneys on the BOD, someone should be all over this, right?
Now that Dina has “name dropped” AZ State Senator Nancy Barto in a public interview as the sponsor for the legislation Maxie’s House is promoting, Maxie’s House is required to have a principal lobbyist identified and registered. I recommend that they better get right on that little project, right?
Here's a link with more information, for any interested.
Edited to add: David Bodney (BOD for MH) is listed as an INACTIVE lobbyist for the Children's Action Alliance, terminated 1-15-2009. Not current, and not associated with Maxie's House
Last edited by K_Z; 07-30-2013 at 03:40 PM. Reason: found more info with additional search
07-30-2013, 03:39 PM #15
Going with Dina Romano's past actions...not knowing what and how to get to where she wants or just doing it her way (Maxs H.O.U.S.E., various interviews, giving her speech where she declared herself a scientist) I'm not surprised she and her team are not jumping through all the hoops that need to be jumped through. In fact, it's what I expect.
If and when she takes the proper steps to reach her goal for any of her projects, I'll probably fall out of my chair.
It's a good thing she has you K_Z, otherwise she'd be up the creek with no paddle!
By wfgodot in forum Up to the MinuteReplies: 3Last Post: 08-24-2012, 01:15 PM
By neese in forum Lisa IrwinReplies: 66Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM
By StephenAWatkins in forum Missing ArchivesReplies: 2Last Post: 10-08-2009, 12:15 AM
By tabbykiki in forum Haleigh CummingsReplies: 174Last Post: 04-13-2009, 05:52 PM