Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2016 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB200 | |
| SB180 | |
| HB334 | |
| SB174 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 200-ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
1:07:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act establishing procedures related to a
petition for adoption of a child in state custody; adding a
definition of 'proxy for a formal petition'; amending Rule 6(a),
Alaska Adoption Rules; and providing for an effective date."
1:08:23 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Health & Social Services, said she was available
to testify.
1:08:40 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Department of Law, said she was available to
testify.
1:08:45 PM
MS. LAWTON advised that she would present an overview of HB 200,
as well as a detailed sectional analysis. The bill was
primarily created to help increase the state's compliance with
the Indian Child Welfare Act, enacted in 1978. The Act seeks to
ensure that Alaska Native and American Indian children are,
whenever possible, kept closest to home and with their family
members, she explained. Cases involving foster care are heard
in a Child In Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings in the superior
court. Although, hearings involving foster children such as
adoption, guardianship, and civil custody proceedings, are
typically conducted in different courts with different judges
outside of the CINA proceedings. This bill creates a "one
judge, one family" model, whereby, all proceedings will be
conducted under the same judge when a child is a dependent of
the State of Alaska.
1:11:00 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the desire to keep a Native child with
their family, and asked whether it works differently for non-
Native children.
MS. LAWTON replied that she intends to speak to that issue later
in the presentation. She advised that in developing the "one
judge, one family" concept, the division worked closely with the
Public Defender's Office, Office of Public Advocacy, and the
Alaska Court System. This concept will save time and money for
state entities and, more importantly, it will help all children
get out of the foster care system faster. This legislation
ensures that the proceedings are timely with appropriate
judicial determinations made, because multiple judges and courts
will not be involved, she said. Another important change in the
bill involves Native and non-Native foster care adoption
preferences in terms of how it looks to find people short-term
or long-term to care for those children. The division looks at
immediate family members first, then extend family, and then
close family friends who have stepped up. She said that with
regard to the Alaska Native children covered under the Indian
Child Welfare Act, after the division has exhausted all
relatives, the division must also consider whether tribal
members associated with the child may be interested.
1:13:05 PM
MS. LAWTON explained that this provision, in relation to a
federal legal decision, puts a burden upon those people
interested in the immediate and permanent placement of an Alaska
Native child. She explained that those interested people must
file a formal petition with the court for those preferences to
be recognized. Currently, when the division looks at the
temporary or permanent placement of a child, it reviews those
preferences along the way, and continues to evaluate and search
for relatives whenever possible, she said.
1:13:44 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that this is strictly with Alaska Native
children.
MS. LAWTON replied that in both scenarios the division is always
looking for relatives and trying to move children in with
relatives whenever possible. When discussing Alaska Native
children, once the division has exhausted looking for relatives,
it also looks to the tribe and other tribal members who may be
willing to care for the child. Under current law when the
Indian Child Welfare Act applies, a formal petition must be
filed to adopt for the adoption placement preferences to be
preserved. People not covered under the Act do not have the
same burden and requirement to file a petition or proxy to have
their preferences preserved to advise they are a relative that
should come before the division looks to non-relatives. She
explained this bill tries to provide a simpler mechanism, such
that those preferences can be acknowledged by the court and
recognized. She explained "It doesn't make it be an automatic,
you know, proceed to adoption that basically then requires us to
do an evaluation and consider their suitability for adoption,
long-term, as well as short-term placement." Under the
division's current policy and Alaska Statutes, the provision
continues to require that the division consider other people
that come forward and looking at all of the options. She said,
"This really just has us put that on the record for the court
and then it would initiate a process moving forward."
1:15:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked her to explain what would be put on the court
record.
MS. LAWTON answered that it would basically recognize, for the
court, that under that Act there are specific adoption placement
preferences that apply, that the court should consider in its
final determination. She explained, it is not forcing the court
to make a final determination one direction or another, it just
reads that "it must at least be considered." [Under current
law, a formal Petition to Adopt must be filed in order for the
adoption placement preferences to be preserved], and this proxy
does that, so [the relatives or members of the Alaska Native
child's tribe] are not required to file the formal Petition to
Adopt early on. Although, she pointed out, when the division
and the court decide who should adopt the child, that person
would, ultimately, file the Petition to Adopt because that
mechanism is still required. It is just not required early on.
She explained the reason to not file the petition early on is
because the division may rule a person out, and filing the
petition early on would have been for not, because the division
had not yet evaluated them, she said.
1:16:13 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether, under current law, a grandparent
desiring to adopt the [foster Alaska Native] child would have to
file a petition with the division.
MS. LAWTON explained that, currently, for a grandparent desiring
to adopt their grandchild covered under the Indian Child Welfare
Act, they are required to file a formal Petition to Adopt so
they can be considered a higher preference than a stranger to
their grandchild. Under this legislation, the less formal
process of using a proxy for adoption could be used, she
explained.
1:17:04 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opined that, under this bill, the grandparents
would be allowed a less formal process of using a proxy for
adoption. Currently, she asked, what precludes the division
from considering the grandparents in the first place, because
the grandparents or family members appear to be people the
division would want to consider. She further asked why, in the
first place, the division needs the bill to do the right thing.
MS. LAWTON responded that the division always looks at
grandparents and relatives as a placement and a permanent
placement, with or without this legislation. The bill is
necessary due to a federal law that was changed that basically
said in order for [the adoption placement] preferences to be
recognized and considered by the court, a formal Petition to
Adopt must be filed by the grandparent, family member, or
someone in the category of people considered to have preference
for adoption of a Native child. She referred to the scenario of
the grandmother, and advised that once the case is ready for
adoption, in order to ensure that the court recognizes the
grandmother is the first preference placement because she is a
relative, that information must be on the record. Without that
information on the court's record, if a non-related person also
wanted to adopt the child then the court would look at them
almost equally, as opposed to the consideration that a relative
should have a higher preference for consideration, she
explained.
1:19:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that under federal law they still have to
file the petition, correct.
MS. LAWTON agreed, and she advised they will eventually have to
file the petition, they just don't have to do it early on so
those preferences are recognized while moving forward.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that since this is not changing federal
law, why wouldn't the department help the grandmother early on
to file this petition.
MS. LAWTON opined that it is partly because the division does
not know, at that point, whether the grandmother would be the
permanent person because it does an evaluation with approval
from the court. Oftentimes, several relatives come forward and,
as part of the division's process, it evaluates everyone. The
division wouldn't want to invest the time, nor have the
grandmother invest the time, with a more formal mechanism. The
proxy basically says, "as we consider and as we move towards a
permanent decision about where the child will go, the court has
to recognize that there are preferred placement preferences for
this child." The division would then evaluate the relatives to
determine which relative is the best long-term plan, the other
legal parties then get to weigh in on that, and the court then
ultimately has to agree.
1:20:50 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned why the division doesn't just do this,
why is it taking this legislation to get the division to do
something that it wants to do anyway.
MS. KRALY responded that the reason for the legislation is to
create a system for both the courts, and the Office of
Children's Services (OCS), to establish this "placeholder" for a
relative or a priority preference placement. The system is that
this proxy is issued and it provides a priority of preference
if, and when, the case gets to adoption. While there may be
merit to Chair LeDoux's statement about doing this informally,
she noted, due to the complexities of these cases and the number
of individuals involved, the legislation is necessary to create
a formal recognition of these issues. In the cases that led to
this legislation, the lack of the formal petition created
enormous confusion within the system. She noted that members
may recall news accounts that when permanency was decided, these
family members and grandparents were not allowed to have the
permanency placement of their grandchildren. The legislation
creates the formal process whereby everyone, including the court
system, the tribes, opposing attorneys, and the Office of
Children's Services (OCS), all know who is interested in
becoming a permanent placement. Technically, she commented,
this could be done on an informal basis, but it doesn't create
the efficient guarantee of avoiding the complexities that happen
when the placeholders are not in effect at the time the case
gets to permanency.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the push for the revision to
the adoption code is related to the litigation involving the
Native Village of Tununak v. State of Alaska, Office of
Children's Services, 303 P.3d 431.
MS. KRALY agreed.
1:23:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the state lost the Native
Village of Tununak case.
MS. KRALY said the state lost the case.
1:23:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what the Native Village of Tununak
case held and how these changes to the statute provide the
problem does not arise in the future.
MS. LAWTON responded that under Native Village of Tununak II v.
State of Alaska, 334 P.3d 165, the case was in the Alaska
Supreme Court and involved a non-native, non-related foster
family seeking to adopt an Alaska Native child. The other party
was the child's Alaska Native grandmother. The court was
litigating and trying to make a determination about that case,
and at the same time the United States Supreme Court was hearing
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), out of South
Dakota. In the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the United States
Supreme Court was contemplating a non-native, non-relative
foster family seeking to adopt the child. The other party was
the child's biological father who was seeking to have his
parental rights reinstated. He had been active military and
when he returned to the United States, unbeknownst to him, his
child was up for adoption. The United States Supreme Court
basically concluded that in order for the adoption placement
preferences, under the Indian Child Welfare Act, to be upheld
and recognized, a person had to first file a formal petition to
adopt. When that decision was made, the Alaska Supreme Court
had no recourse except to rule in Native Village of Tununak II
case on behalf of the foster family because they were the only
party that had previously filed a Petition to Adopt that was
being held in abeyance. The grandmother had not filed a
petition nor was she required to file at that point, but they
had initiated those proceedings and because they were the only
party that had initiated, the Alaska Supreme Court decided the
case in favor of the foster family and the child went to them
for adoption.
1:25:50 PM
MS. LAWTON continued that this provision basically reads that in
recognition of the United States Supreme Court's decision,
Alaska wanted to create something less burdensome such that they
wouldn't have to file a formal petition upfront. She pointed
out that close to 60 percent of children in foster care are
Alaska Native and half of them end up going to adoptions with
non-related extended family members (NREFM). The division sorts
out when the child should go, and where the child should go as
it works on possible reunification. Relatives come in and go
out because interest sometimes waxes and wanes. The [proxy]
could serve as a placeholder that there are specific adoption
placement preferences the court can't ignore when it gets to the
final decision. It does not mean that the court can't consider
interested people, but the court must look at that with a little
more weight in terms of the people identified.
1:26:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether one of the issues under
Native Village of Tununak case was that the grandmother had sent
a letter or provided some notice to the Department of Health and
Social Services that she was interested, but she had not filed
the formal notice. He surmised that this statute change will
provide that a person in the grandmother's position could send a
letter to the department to protect their ability to go in later
and formally seek to adopt because the department would have had
notice they were an interested party.
MS. LAWTON said he was correct. The grandmother had informed
the department orally, and in writing, of her interest, but she
hadn't taken the step of filing the formal petition. Ms. Lawton
related that the closest court to the grandmother was Bethel,
which is an $800 travel ticket away from her home, she didn't do
that and she wasn't required to do that. She opined that the
court had told her she didn't need to do that, but due to the
United States Supreme Court's decision, the Alaska Supreme Court
had to say that filing the formal petition is the only thing
that matters now.
1:27:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that the department issued
regulations allowing for the more formal notice as an interested
party, and opined that those regulations have been in place for
roughly a year.
MS. LAWTON agreed, and she commented that emergency regulations
were enacted; however, they only apply to what the department
does, it doesn't require the court to change any of their
processes or system. Without the support of the legislation the
regulations do not have the intended effect, she said.
1:28:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the regulations are working
well after a year.
MS. LAWTON opined that she was unsure whether the department had
seen it tested entirely. Although, she commented, it hasn't
heard of any cases where it has not worked. She described the
regulations as being enacted backwards because usually the
statutes come first.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that this legislation basically
puts in place [a statute] where the Native Village of Tununak
case won't happen again in Alaska.
MS. LAWTON answered, absolutely.
1:29:07 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that federal law still requires the
petition, so under the Village of Tununak case, the grandmother
hadn't filed the petition, but she put the department on notice
that she wanted to adopt the child. Under Native Village of
Tununak, she asked whether the department went to bat for the
grandmother.
MS. LAWTON related she was not familiar with the case in the
early beginnings and she couldn't speak to why, or why not, the
department did not pursue the grandmother earlier in that case.
1:29:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there is an exception in federal law
that says a person does not have to do the petition early if the
state has regulations or a law allowing a placeholder.
MS. LAWTON explained that the formal petition will eventually
occur, and this legislation is another mechanism, a temporary
solution, of preserving those placement preferences until the
petition is actually required. She reiterated there could be
several family members or other members of the child's tribe
coming forward, and as the division sorts out those folks, all
but one are not viable options. The folks [not chosen] will
never get to the step of filing a Petition to Adopt. This
legislation, she explained, would provide for the recognition of
where they fall in those placement preferences, and without the
use of the proxy they would have been required to file the
formal Petition to Adopt in order for the court to recognize and
consider them.
1:31:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the Native Village of
Tununak case had to do with filing by proxy, or not. He pointed
out that the inference made from that case was that Alaska
needed to have a law changed to formalize this process. He
queried whether without this law there can be an informal
placement put in, such as a letter, telephone call, fax, or
filling out a form, or whatever. He noted surprise that it is
needed where it wasn't a direct corrective action in the
lawsuit.
MS. LAWTON related that the inference earlier was that if under
Native Village of Tununak II the provision for the use of a
proxy wasn't in state law, then the grandmother, when she had
identified herself to the court as someone interested in
placement and adoption, would have preserved her right. When
that decision was ultimately decided it wouldn't have mattered
who had filed the formal Petition to Adopt because that would
have still been considered, but it wouldn't have guaranteed the
judge would have ruled in her favor. She offered that she
doesn't know all of the facts of weighing the placement options,
but she opined that if they don't file the proxy in a case
involving a Native child, and later relative A comes forward
saying they want the child, and foster family A also wants the
child, the court does not have to recognize that there is a
higher preference. This child is covered under the Indian Child
Welfare Act and this is a relative of the child, the court could
almost look at them as equal competing interested parties.
Whereby, the division believes it is important for children to
be with their families, and if they can't be with their families
to keep them within their tribal communities or close to home
and, she related, that is what this provision ensures the
division do.
1:33:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX offered a scenario of the grandmother telling the
division she wants the child, writes a letter, send an email,
and orally puts it in on the division's record. She asked
whether it is then the division's responsibility to make certain
the grandmother files a petition, and without this law the
division won't make sure the grandmother files the petition.
1:34:12 PM
MS. LAWTON explained that the division's responsibility would
be, after the grandmother identifies her [desire to have the
child], the division would [investigate], have a home visit and
further conversations with the grandmother to evaluate her
ability to take immediate placement. She said, "It's just, you
know, call me -- call me a year from now if things don't work
out, you know, with the biological mom, but I'm willing to take
the child now and permanently, if needed." The division is then
required to provide a written report to the court advising what
it learned about the grandmother. A court hearing would then
take place to evaluate whether anyone has disagreements with
this potential placement. Assuming she is suitable and willing
to take immediate placement, the division would move forward
from that perspective. The petition still would not necessarily
need to be formally filed until, and if, reunification fails and
the division must actually move to an adoption.
1:35:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to why the division doesn't just do
that, why a law is necessary to tell the department what to do,
and if that is the best practice why hasn't the department been
doing it.
MS. LAWTON responded that it has been the division's practice,
and opined that the law is necessary in order to ensure that the
adoption placement preferences are not ignored, or otherwise not
considered by the court. She offered that it has nothing to do
with the department's efforts to find relatives or evaluate the
relatives, it has to do with a judicial determination that,
without this legislation or a formal petition, may have family
members or other tribal members not given the consideration they
are due.
1:35:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether she was saying that the
court would ignore a letter that was on file and managed by the
division. He further asked the difference between "what we're
doing" and information the division receives through whatever
means that there is a potential placement out there. He quiered
whether the courts would take that into consideration,
MS. LAWTON answered that in Native Village of Tununak it was
exactly seen that the court didn't take that into consideration
even though that request and notification had occurred. Except,
by the letter of the law, the grandmother had not filed the
formal Petition to Adopt and court said the grandmother's
actions were not good enough, she explained.
1:36:49 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that if this legislation had been the law
and the grandmother still hadn't filed a formal Petition to
Adopt, that would not have been good enough either.
MS. LAWTON responded that if the grandmother didn't file the
formal Petition to Adopt and the division didn't have the proxy
provision, and a family member came forward at some other later
date, the court would not have to recognize the adoption
placement preferences. For example, if the child was residing
with a non-related extended family member (NREFM), the court
could look at them equally, weigh the pros and cons, and make a
determination as to who would best meet the child's needs and
not give consideration to a relationship with the child, per se.
1:37:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER surmised that the state lost the Native
Village of Tununak lawsuit and the state is attempting to fix
that. He referred to the committee packets and offered that
they include information in which First Alaskans, AFN, and many
tribes and Native Corporations show support for the state's
proposal to fix it. He then voiced support because he is
comfortable where the bill is going with this issue.
1:38:29 PM
The committee took a short at ease.
1:38:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX listed the names of witnesses available to answer
questions, and hearing no requests opened public testimony.
1:39:49 PM
AMANDA MacADO, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, offered
the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association's support of the
legislation. After listening to the confusing discussion, she
stated the Child In Need of Aid (CINA) process can be a long and
confusing process for communities and villages across Alaska.
These are formalities that many Native individuals do not
understand. Allowing these families to express their interest
in the CINA proceedings, not having to wait until the permanency
goal where the parents have already terminated their rights and
wait until probate, gives them an opportunity to have time to
prepare, time to have a full understanding of what will happen
and what will take place, rather than waiting until the end.
She explained, once it goes to the point of permanency and
adoption, it is similar to a race and not easy for someone out
in the village, who does not understand the process and possibly
the families don't speak English, this gives them more time. It
also gives ECHO workers more time to help the families
understand the process and have their voices heard. The
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association supports this bill 100
percent and the committee would be doing a great service to not
only Alaska's children but to their extended families by
approving this bill.
1:42:22 PM
CRISTY WILLER, Chief Operating Officer, Cook Inlet Tribal
Council (CITC), said she serves as Chief Operation Officer for
the Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) and it offers strong
support for HB 200. This bill provides an important correction
to the Alaska Supreme Court decision in the Native Village of
Tununak case. Within CITC's child welfare services there is a
broad continuum of care, from intensive in-home case management
to supervised visitation. It is especially proud of the work
within its Father's Journey Program where 90 percent of the
parents have increased contact with their children within 90
days. She advised the CITC works closely with OCS and with
families for these results. House Bill 200 removes barriers for
Alaska Native families who want to adopt these children who are
connected to them by family or tribal membership. The
legislation makes the process realistic and understandable, and
remove obstacles that have resulted in children unnecessarily
being disconnected from their families. Unfortunately, she
noted, currently well over 40 percent of Alaska Native children
are adopted annually by non-Native non-family members. The bill
will increase the number of Alaska Native children to reach
permanency with their family culture and traditions, and will
reduce litigation based on lack of compliance with the Indian
Child Welfare Act. This bill seeks to eliminate procedural
barriers in the adoption process for children in custody and
Alaska Native families can be considered for adoption through
the CINA proceedings rather than through an entirely different
proceeding held in probate court. As a result, children in an
out-of-home placement would reach permanency more quickly,
lessening the burden on the Alaska Office of Children's Services
(OCS). She thanked the committee for its support in keeping
Alaska's children with their families and in their own home
communities.
1:45:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether the current ratio is
disproportionate in terms of Native and non-Native children in
foster care. Statistics, she stated, there is a
disproportionate number of Native children and this legislation
is a way to move children into tribes and this is way to move to
a more proportionate number.
MS. WILLER opined the ratio is approximately 60 percent of
Alaska Native children, and this bill would allow that
permanency to be achieved more quickly and reduce the
inequality.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that the legislation is geared
toward better placement and better opportunities for the
disproportionate population to find permanent homes.
MS. WILLER agreed.
1:46:31 PM
MELANIE FREDERICKS, Community Member, Association of Village
Council Presidents, offered support for HB 200 because currently
Alaska Native families, in her region, encounter many challenges
and barriers throughout the life of a Child In Need of Aid
(CINA) case. The barriers can include language because often
English is the region's second language. These barriers cause
complications and confusion such that paperwork is often
discouraging and confusing, and they often do not receive the
help or undivided attention they need because advocates and
social workers may not reside in their communities. Relatives,
especially those living in rural communities, often feel
intimidated and confused with the court system which could
potentially deter family members from moving forward with issues
such as the formal Petition for Adoption. In passing this
legislation the State of Alaska would ensure removal of one of
these many barriers for families and children in her region to
gain permanency, and the opportunity to take care of one of
their relative children, she said.
1:48:41 PM
ANDREW BEAVER, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of
Kwigillngok, said they strongly support HB 200 because it makes
it easier for families to work with OCS and also lets the court
know that the Native Village of Kwigillngok is willing and able
to take care of its families in their village. He expressed
there shouldn't be complicated paperwork when everyone is
already aware that a family member is willing to adopt their own
relative. He described this bill as "making a lot of sense" and
noted it can prevent a lot of grief for children and families.
He thanked the legislature for honoring the Native Village of
Kwigillngok's volunteer child protection team with an Alaskan
sealed certificate on March 26, 2010, signed by the Speaker of
the House, the President of the Senate, Bob Heron and Senator
Lynn Hoffman as prime sponsors, and 57 other co-sponsors. He
expressed appreciation for recognizing the child protection
team.
1:50:54 PM
MELANIE BAHNKE, CEO, KAWEAK Incorporated, advised that English
is her second language and she would prefer giving her testimony
in Yupik simply so the committee could get a sense of what the
court system can feel like from the other end of the spectrum.
She remarked that Child In Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings and
the court system may as well all be held in Chinese. She echoed
support for the legislation and stressed that Chair LeDoux hit
the nail on its head when she asked why people can't just do the
right thing in the first place without requiring a law. She
expressed her wish that people and systems would automatically
do the right thing, but they don't always. The current
Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Office of
Children's Services administration has been good to work with
from her end of the tribal partner's perspective, but
administrations come and go, people come and go, judges come and
go, and that is why things need to be put into regulation, and
placed into law. "You represent 20 percent of the overall
population in the state" she said, and yet its children
represent 60 percent of children in OCS custody, and half of its
children are adopted out to non-Native people. She implored the
committee to do the right thing in the first place and enact
this law. She reiterated barriers such as language and the
court system, and offered that the OCS system can be
intimidating, confusing, and a total power imbalance. Even she
as a highly educated person, she said, she can be intimidated by
the process. The legislature should be looking to reduce
barriers wherever possible for her people to take responsibility
and take care of their own people.
MS. BAHNKE referred to the question asking why the legislation
only applied to Alaska Native children, and commented that if
this bill would be killed because it only addresses Alaska
Native children, then she urged the committee to look at
expanding the scope. The State of Alaska claims authority over
children's matters, court matters, and it needs to fulfill its
responsibilities, which includes compliance with federal laws.
In this case, the Department of Health and Social Services is
earnestly working to reduce barriers for Native people to adopt
Native children, and she asked that the committee do the right
thing and pass this bill.
1:54:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER remarked that Ms. Bahnke is a good friend
[of his]. She is also the CEO of his regional Native nonprofit
representing Little Diomede Island. He described Little Diomede
as small, with no roads, no railroad, no airplanes, and the only
transportation is by helicopter. Therefore, the challenges for
someone living on the small island include the possibility that
two weeks may pass before someone can leave the island, there
are telephones but working face-to-face is more effective,
especially when it comes to a situation like this where adoption
is involved, and not understanding the legal system. He said
the bill is good because distance is an issue and added that
there are many more challenges.
1:56:14 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed to Ms. Bahnke that she was not thinking
the bill should die because it may only apply to Alaska Native
children, she was thinking that the idea of family reunification
and reunifying with other relatives should be applied along the
gamut for all children.
MS. BAHNKE related that she had that sense from Chair LeDoux,
she just didn't want "perfect be the enemy good." She suggested
that possibly this could be considered a starting point and then
see how things develop.
1:57:15 PM
NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Alaska Federation of Natives, said there is a lot of support for
the bill within the Alaska Native community and the Alaska
Federation of Natives (AFN). The AFN has been heavily involved
in the bill since it originated since AFN drafted it in close
partnership with OCS and the governor's office, she explained.
She said she echoes Chair LeDoux's words relating to people just
doing the right thing and said that, unfortunately, for all the
reasons previously identified, that doesn't happen and this
legislation is necessary to protect the right thing.
1:59:09 PM
KATHERINE MOSES, Tribal Administrator, Asa'carsarmiut Tribal
Council, was not available and Lorraine Mung spoke on her
behalf. Ms. Mung advised that they live in Mountain Village,
and support HB 200 for the same reasons previously mentioned,
and many people in villages, communities, and cities throughout
the state agree. She asked the committee to understand the
importance of the legislation to Native families, and to not
make the process complicated for a family care for their own
relatives in situations where good family members are ready to
adopt.
2:00:35 PM
EVELYN PETERSON, Echo Worker, Asa'carsarmiut Tribal Council,
said she lives in Mountain Village. She said she agrees with
Ms. Mung's reasons for supporting this legislation, and asked
that the bill pass.
2:01:35 PM
DAPHNE JOE, Asa'carsarmiut Tribe, said she lives in Mountain
Village and fully supports HB 200. She pointed out that too
many of their tribal members have been adopted out of their
families, when there are families that want to take them in.
This legislation will make it easier for family members to let
the court know they are willing to raise their relatives, or
children, by changing it to only one judge following the case.
She remarked that that will save a lot of time and importantly
keep children close to their families, communities, and culture.
2:02:46 PM
ELIZABETH STEVENS, Echo Worker, Napaiap Tribal Court, said she
works with the Association of Village Council Presidents (Avcp)
in Bethel and with OCS workers. She stated she supports HB 200,
and if this bill passes it will be easier for members.
2:04:13 PM
DON SHIRCEL, Director, Client Development, Tanana Chiefs
Conference, offered strong support for HB 200. He said that as
a social worker who spent the last 33 years working for the
Tanana Chiefs Conference and working closely with OCS, he
recognizes the practical implications and significant
contributions this bill could make toward improving the Office
of Children's Services, and the court system. He opined that
HB 200 makes possible a common sense approach that could easily
fix a problem, potentially save time, effort and money by
consolidating and streamlining court processes. Most
importantly, he said, it could provide more children traumatized
by abuse, a safe, healthy, nurturing and permanent home that is
fully connected to their family, community and culture. This
legislation could significantly help the state comply with the
spirit, intent, and letter of the law regarding the Indian Child
Welfare Act by ensuring that a relative willing to adopt a
family member will always have their voice heard. He commented,
it is one of those bills that just makes sense for all of
Alaska's children who won't have to wade through another court
process to have a permanent home. The bill also makes sense for
all of Alaska's families that are ready, able, and willing to
provide a home right now. He asked that the committee actively
support the passage of this bill this session.
2:06:22 PM
DARLENE PETE, Tribal Administrator, said she fully supports the
bill because too many of her tribal members have been adopted
out of their families and communities when they have family
willing to take them in. She related that it is heartbreaking
that many children have been adopted out and are sometimes
nowhere to be found by other family members. This bill would
make it easier for a family member to let the court know they
are willing to raise their relative by changing it to one judge
following the case. Money will be saved, and most importantly,
it will keep their children close to their family, community,
and their culture, she said.
2:07:59 PM
APRIL FERGUSON, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
Bristol Bay Native Corporation, said that she has served as
Senior Vice President and General Counsel to the Bristol Bay
Native Corporation, and she chairs the AFN litigation and
legislative committee. Hard work has gone into this bill by a
number of experts having experience in all areas of the state.
She noted that every process needs periodic review and this bill
contains a number of corrective fixes that will help streamline
the process in moving forward, and save the state money.
The foster care system in this state is in desperate trouble and
the state must utilize all of its resources to do the best for
the children. She asked that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee become a champion for this cause, and she asked that
the committee support the bill.
2:10:14 PM
ELIZABETH MEDICINE CROW, President/CEO, First Alaskans
Institute, said she supports this bill and for the past twelve
years, First Alaskans Institute has had the honor, privilege,
and responsibility in helping develop its community's
leadership. The First Alaskans Institute has touched the lives
of over 8,000 children, young people, youth, and young adults
from across the state. Throughout this time, it has seen its
young people seek to strengthen families or already have a deep
cultural connection to who they are through relationships with
their families and communities. These young people have an
inherent ability and capacity to lead their people and
contribute to Alaska. She related that, "At the root, of the
root, of the root of this bill" is common sense, practical
application, and experience of all Alaskans to place children in
families and communities within their culture, where they have
the best chance of thriving." She said that all people of
Alaska have that responsibility. The First Alaskan Institute
thanks the sponsors of this bill in supporting and fighting for
children's rights, she said.
2:12:22 PM
MELVIN EGOAK said he fully supports HB 200. He said he has seen
too many tribal members adopted out even though families advised
OCS and the court, that families are willing and able to "take
care of our family right here in our villages." He related,
paperwork shouldn't be necessary when everyone is already aware
that the family members are willing to adopt their own relative.
This bill can relieve families of heartbreak, please pass this
bill, he asked.
2:13:42 PM
ELIZABETH HENSLEY, General Counsel, Maniilaq Association, said
the Maniilaq Association is a consortium of the twelve tribes of
Northwest Alaska. She related that she is preparing to take the
children, in the emergent school, ice fishing this week, and
while fishing, will speak their native language. The fish will
then be taken back to the classroom, cut up, viewed under a
microscope to identify various parts of the fish, and then
cooked and eaten. She said that what she described is some of
what Kotzebue children do at home, and these children would not
receive that education any place else. She requested the
passage of HB 200, and keep children home in their communities
across the state so they can be enriched in the beautiful
cultures thriving throughout Alaska. She noted that she comes
from a family wherein her aunties and uncles were raised in four
different communities, she did not know them growing up, and she
does not know their children. She asked that the process of
adopting their children be as simple as possible, to help keep
children at home, and save the state money.
2:17:36 PM
LORINDA WESTIN O'BRIAN pointed to the importance of HB 200, and
related it is all about [children] knowing who they are, and
grown adopted people want to know where their family is located.
Although, she remarked, some children will never know, [where
their family is located] due to sealed records. She acknowledge
that information may seem separate, but it is relevant to a
person knowing who they are. Clearly, this legislation is in
line and connects to the federal intent of the Indian Child
Welfare Act, keeping children with their families and
communities, and keeping those children connected to their
heritage.
2:19:41 PM
MARY TUNUCHUK, Chefornak Tribal Council, said she is "all in"
for HB 200, and echoes the support from prior witnesses. She
asked the committee to understand the importance of HB 200 to
Alaska's families and not making it complicated for a family to
take care of its own relatives. There are situations, she said,
where good family members are ready to adopt in order that the
child is not misplaced outside their village, and raised not
knowing their blood line.
CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
2:21:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Ms. Lawton to walk the committee
through the 60 percent - 40 percent population, and discuss the
difficulty of finding adoption for Alaska Native foster
children.
2:22:34 PM
MS. LAWTON responded that currently there are just under 3,000
children in foster care, and of that amount, approximately 55
percent are Alaska Native. She referred to difficulties to
adoption that this bill will help improve, and noted that
sometimes, due to workloads and other reasons, OCS struggles to
identify all of the family members in the beginning. There is
federal and state law and policy governing how much family
searching is taken on, and at which point it continues to
search. Although, she said, as the case moves along, often
family members come forward late in the game, and sometimes
parents are not always willing to tell OCS all of their family
members in the beginning, which can cause delays. Sometimes,
she pointed out, given the historical context the Alaska Native
population has experienced in Alaska, and around the country,
there is some caution and concern about "jumping on board" to
work with OCS. Particularly, she said, when OCS asks a relative
to be in a position where they may see that as "they're kind of
being an agent of the state," because if they are caring for the
child, OCS will tell them what the rules are in terms of contact
with relatives. She described that as a difficult place for a
relative to be in when working with the state, working with the
authority that comes from working with OCS, and the historical
distrust. She opined that sometimes relatives are nervous about
stepping forward early, and OCS believes the bill will help
because it allows its colleagues in tribal child welfare to have
earnest conversations with relatives and advise that this is
their opportunity. Also, the Office of Children's Services
(OCS) will explain that they can't wait until they see that
reunification fails, because that is when the state gets into
terrible situations where the children have become attached, and
the foster families have fallen in love with them. This bill
not only requires that the party is interested in permanent
placement, but it also requires that they are willing to take
immediate placement. She related that that will help to promote
earlier decision making to get people on board with families
within their tribal communities earlier.
2:25:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 200, Version 29-
GH1262/H, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
200(HSS) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.