[
  {
    "issue": "Fee caps and payment restrictions",
    "risk": "High",
    "attack": "Could be attacked as interfering with access to counsel, contracts, or judicial discretion",
    "hardening_response": "Narrow scope, define what is capped, preserve court authority, add hardship/complexity exceptions, require data reporting before broad caps"
  },
  {
    "issue": "Criminal penalties for litigation conduct",
    "risk": "High",
    "attack": "Could be attacked as chilling advocacy or good-faith protective action",
    "hardening_response": "Move from broad criminalization to narrow, knowing, material misconduct with due-process protections and existing-law alignment"
  },
  {
    "issue": "Parental-alienation definitions",
    "risk": "High",
    "attack": "Could be attacked as vague, misused against abuse survivors, or unsupported if drafted too broadly",
    "hardening_response": "Use conduct-specific child-contact interference language, keep abuse/coercive-control exceptions, and require fact development"
  },
  {
    "issue": "Protective-allegation misuse provisions",
    "risk": "High",
    "attack": "Could chill good-faith abuse reporting or safety planning",
    "hardening_response": "Explicit good-faith reporting protection, trauma-informed review, materiality standard, and safe-harbor language"
  },
  {
    "issue": "GAL capacity and independence",
    "risk": "Medium",
    "attack": "Could fail if duties expand without capacity, training, or funding",
    "hardening_response": "Phase implementation, define caseload standards, reporting, conflict checks, and funding mechanism"
  },
  {
    "issue": "DHHS/OCFS screening overlap",
    "risk": "Medium",
    "attack": "Could blur private family court with child-protection jurisdiction",
    "hardening_response": "Separate lanes, use official reporting boundaries, preserve mandated-reporting and emergency processes"
  },
  {
    "issue": "Judicial Branch administration",
    "risk": "High",
    "attack": "Could trigger separation-of-powers objections",
    "hardening_response": "Frame as reporting, timelines, public metrics, and administrative standards that preserve adjudicatory independence"
  },
  {
    "issue": "Due-process safeguards",
    "risk": "High",
    "attack": "Any expedited timeline or sanction risks unfairness if not paired with notice and hearing rights",
    "hardening_response": "Add notice, opportunity to be heard, findings, appeal/review path, and safety exceptions"
  },
  {
    "issue": "Fiscal and implementation capacity",
    "risk": "Medium",
    "attack": "Could be dismissed as unfunded mandate or impossible rollout",
    "hardening_response": "Add phased pilot, fiscal note request, staffing model, reporting schedule, and sunset/review provisions"
  },
  {
    "issue": "Victim-safety and coercive-control exceptions",
    "risk": "High",
    "attack": "Critics will attack any language that appears to force contact where abuse risk exists",
    "hardening_response": "Make safety exceptions prominent, require individualized findings, and preserve protection-order/DHHS/criminal-court routes"
  }
]