Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/28/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB343 | |
| Overview(s): Presentation on Fasd and the Justice System | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 343 - DISCLOSURE OF CHILDREN'S RECORDS
1:08:47 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 343, "An Act relating to disclosure of
records of the Department of Health and Social Services
pertaining to children in certain circumstances; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB
343(HSS).]
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON indicated that the committee would be
addressing proposed amendments a bit out of order.
1:09:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 27-LS1394\M.2, Mischel, 3/27/12, which read:
Page 2, line 9, following "jurisdiction":
Insert "that operates under child protection
standards similar to the standards for a law
enforcement agency in this state,"
Page 3, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "or another jurisdiction"
Page 3, line 2, following "minors":
Insert "or another state or municipal agency of
another jurisdiction that is responsible for
delinquent minors and that operates under child
protection standards similar to the standards for this
state or a municipal agency in this state"
Page 3, line 23, following "jurisdiction":
Insert "that operates under child protection
standards similar to the standards for a law
enforcement agency in this state,"
Page 4, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "or another jurisdiction"
Page 4, line 18, following "services":
Insert "or another state or municipal agency of
another jurisdiction that is responsible for child
protection services and that operates under child
protection standards similar to the standards for this
state or a municipal agency in this state"
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, relaying that he would be withdrawing
Amendment 2, expressed concern that HB 343's use of the wording,
"or another jurisdiction" in its Sections 1 and 2 could result
in information about a child being disclosed to jurisdictions
that don't have standards for protecting children similar to
Alaska's standards. He acknowledged that the Department of Law
(DOL) and the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
are opposed to Amendment 2, however, because it would require
the administration to first undertake an investigation into
whether another jurisdiction's standards for protecting children
were sufficiently similar to Alaska's standards. In conclusion,
he reiterated that he would be withdrawing Amendment 2.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON removed his objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 2, and noted that Amendment 2 was withdrawn.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON then mentioned that public testimony on
HB 343 had previously been closed.
1:13:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 27-LS1394\M.1, Mischel, 3/26/12, which read:
Page 3, line 4, following "safety":
Insert ", if notice and an opportunity to object
is provided in writing to the child and the child's
guardian ad litem not less than 10 business days
before disclosure"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated that Amendment 1 would add a
stipulation to Section 1's proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15) that the
Office of Children's Services (OCS) shall disclose information
about a case to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) if the
OCS provides to the child [that is the subject of the case] and
his/her guardian ad litem (GAL) written notice of, and an
opportunity to object to, the disclosure. Amendment 1 is
intended to address a concern expressed by the Public Defender
Agency (PDA) during HB 343's last hearing that as currently
written, Section 1 might have a chilling effect on how
forthcoming a child is with the OCS because he/she would know
that the DJJ could obtain information about him/her from the OCS
and then possibly use it against him/her during a DJJ
adjudication. In conclusion, she urged adoption of Amendment 1.
1:14:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 343, expressed concern with Amendment 1's proposed change to
Section 1 of the bill. Under current law, the OCS and the DJJ,
both agencies of the DHSS, can [and do] share information about
mutual clients, but because of some misunderstanding, this point
needs to be clarified in statute [as Sections 1 and 2 are in
part proposing to do]. Amendment 1 could result in information
[from the OCS] necessary to protect the public and to provide
help to the child not being disclosed [to the DJJ] in a timely
fashion, because Amendment 1 also stipulates that the notice and
opportunity to object be provided not less than 10 business days
prior to the disclosure occurring.
1:15:36 PM
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), concurred with Representative Munoz's comments,
additionally predicting that Amendment 1 would negatively impact
the ability of the OCS and the DJJ to work together for the
betterment of Alaska's children.
1:17:12 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
a query, relayed that Amendment 1 does address his concern [with
Section 1 as touched on earlier by Representative Holmes]. He
indicated a belief that under Amendment 1, the court would
become involved whenever the child and/or his/her GAL object to
the OCS disclosing information to the DJJ.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to a query, reiterated her
concern that the adoption of Amendment 1 would result in
important information not being disclosed in a timely fashion,
and that such delay in disclosure could result in the child not
receiving appropriate care or necessary services as soon as
he/she otherwise would.
MR. NEWMAN - pointing out that the OCS and the DJJ, both
agencies of the DHSS, work together to promote and enhance the
health and wellbeing of Alaska's children, and offering examples
of such collaboration - proffered that delaying the sharing of
information by the OCS for at least 10 days as would be required
under Amendment 1 could also delay the DJJ's efforts to provide
the child with necessary and appropriate assistance.
1:25:15 PM
CRISTY LAWTON, Director, Central Office, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
explained that the type of information the OCS compiles about a
mutual client that the DJJ wouldn't already have isn't
information that would have an impact on a DJJ adjudication;
instead, such information is helpful to the DJJ in determining
what type and level of service and placement is necessary to
assist the child. Adoption of Amendment 1 could therefore
result in [at least a 10-day] delay in the DJJ being provided
the information it needs to appropriately help the child. In
response to comments and a question, she mentioned that under
the Alaska Rules of Court, Rule 9 of the Child in Need of Aid
Rules of Procedure addresses a GAL's ability to protect certain
records in [child in need of aid (CINA) proceedings].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments and questions,
observed that Section 1 of HB 343 is proposing to amend
AS 47.10, the statute governing the OCS, and that Section 2 of
the bill is proposing to amend AS 47.12, the statute governing
the DJJ.
1:37:07 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), concurred, adding that at one
point the OCS and the DJJ were one agency with a disclosure
provision that referenced department records, and when that
agency was split into two separate agencies due to federal
legislation and funding issues, the resultant two separate
statutes mirrored each other, but inadvertently did not
expressly stipulate that the OCS and the DJJ would continue
sharing information. Sections 1 and 2 of the bill are intended
to statutorily clarify that point because currently some
misunderstanding exists. Section 1, addressing the OCS, refers
to the DJJ in its proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15) via the words,
"agency ... responsible for delinquent minors"; and Section 2,
addressing the DJJ, refers to the OCS in its proposed AS
47.12.310(b)(2)(M) via the words, "agency ... responsible for
child protection services". Furthermore, the wording in both of
those provisions - "a state or municipal agency of this state or
another jurisdiction" - was specifically included in order to
allow the sharing of information with sister OCS and DJJ
agencies in other jurisdictions. She acknowledged, however,
that perhaps the words, "who is" ought to be added to
Section 1's proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15) and to Section 2's
proposed AS 47.12.310(b)(2)(M) just before the words,
"responsible for".
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, characterizing HB 343 as a good bill,
said he opposes Amendment 1 because he didn't think the
legislature wants there to be [at least] a 10-day delay in the
DJJ's being provided information by the OCS. He added that he
is still uncomfortable with [Section 1 and 2's] inclusion of the
wording, "or another jurisdiction", however.
MS. KRALY, in response to other questions, indicated that
because some misunderstanding exists regarding the ability of
the OCS and the DJJ to share information about mutual clients,
the statutes themselves still need to be clarified, as
Sections 1 and 2 of HB 343 are proposing to do, regardless that
subsection (b)(3)(F) of the aforementioned Rule 9 of the Child
in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure addresses a GAL's authority to
[waive or claim] the psychotherapist-patient privilege in a CINA
proceeding.
1:50:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she's very uncomfortable with
Section 1 as currently written, but is unsure whether
Amendment 1 would address her concern.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES therefore withdrew Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to a proposed amendment in
members' packets labeled 27-LS1394\M.3, Mischel, 3/27/12, and
indicated that he would not be offering that proposed amendment,
which read:
Page 5, lines 18 - 22:
Delete all material.
Insert "the minor has entered a guilty plea to a
delinquent act contained in a petition seeking
adjudication of the minor as a delinquent for the
offense or has been adjudicated delinquent by a court
for the offense."
1:53:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, labeled 27-LS1394\M.4, Mischel, 3/28/12, which
read:
Page 5, line 17, following "if":
Insert "a court has adjudicated the minor as a
delinquent for an offense contained in a petition
seeking adjudication of the minor as a delinquent for
the offense."
Page 5, lines 18 - 22:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - expressing disfavor with the actual
wording of Conceptual Amendment 3 - explained that it addresses
Section 4's proposed AS 47.12.315(b)(3), which stipulates that
for certain minors alleged to have committed certain offenses,
certain information may be disclosed to the public only if,
after a petition has been filed and the particular minor has
been arraigned, a finding of probable cause that he/she
committed the alleged offense has been entered by the court.
The concern that's arisen with regard to that proposed
subsection (b)(3) as currently written is that information about
such a minor could be disclosed to the public even if he/she
isn't subsequently adjudicated delinquent for the alleged
offense. Any such disclosure should only occur if the minor is
so adjudicated, he opined, but again expressed disfavor with the
actual wording of Conceptual Amendment 3.
1:55:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ - mentioning that she supports Conceptual
Amendment 3 - observed that another proposed amendment in
members' packets also addresses that provision of Section 4, and
ventured that perhaps that other proposed amendment might
alleviate members' concerns with Section 4 as currently written
in a much more straightforward fashion; that proposed amendment,
labeled 27-LS1394\M.5, Mischel, 3/28/12, [and later referred to
as Conceptual Amendment 4,] read:
Page 5, line 17, following "if":
Insert "a court has entered a judgment that the
minor is delinquent."
Page 5, lines 18 - 22:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether the wording,
"entered a judgment" was the correct term of art to use with
regard to a DJJ adjudication.
MR. NEWMAN suggested that the language to be inserted by
[Conceptual Amendment 4] should instead read, "a court has
entered a finding that the minor is delinquent."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3.
1:57:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 4 [text provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to a query, suggested amending
Conceptual Amendment 4 such that the language being inserted
would instead read, "a court has entered a finding adjudicating
the minor as a delinquent."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Conceptual
Amendment 4 [as suggested by Representative Munoz]. There being
no objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was so amended.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 4.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that there were no
further objections, announced that Conceptual Amendment 4, as
amended, was adopted.
1:59:42 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON - referring to the earlier suggestion by
Ms. Kraly regarding a possible change to Sections 1 and 2 - made
a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, to add the words, "who
is" after the word, "jurisdiction" on page 3, line 2, and on
page 4, line 18.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion,
and expressed favor with Conceptual Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the drafter would have
leeway to use the most appropriate wording.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection to the motion.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON ascertained that there were no further
objections, and announced that Conceptual Amendment 5 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to comments regarding
withdrawn Amendment 1, indicated that she would be objecting to
moving HB 343 from committee because [the PDA's aforementioned]
concern with Section 1's proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15) has not
yet been addressed to her satisfaction.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to a question, reiterated her
disfavor with withdrawn Amendment 1, opining that it would place
a tremendous burden on the DJJ and the OCS.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON noted that HB 343 had no further committee
referrals.
2:10:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 343(HSS), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Keller,
Pruitt, and Thompson voted in favor of reporting CSHB 343(HSS),
as amended, out of committee. Representatives Gruenberg and
Holmes voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 343(JUD) was reported
from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 343 Amendment M.1.pdf |
HJUD 3/28/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| CSHB 343 Amend M.2.pdf |
HJUD 3/28/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| CSHB 343 Amend M.3.pdf |
HJUD 3/28/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343 Amendment M.4.pdf |
HJUD 3/28/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| CSHB 343 Amend 5.pdf |
HJUD 3/28/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |