Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/05/1998 08:40 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 375
"An Act relating to children in need of aid matters
and proceedings; relating to murder of children,
criminally negligent homicide, kidnapping, criminal
nonsupport, the crime of indecent exposure, and the
crime of endangering the welfare of a child; relating
to registration of certain sex offenders; relating to
sentencing for certain crimes involving child victims;
relating to the state medical examiner and reviews of
child fatalities; relating to teacher certification
and convictions of crimes involving child victims;
relating to access, confidentiality, and release of
certain information concerning the care of children,
child abuse and neglect, and child fatalities;
authorizing the Department of Health and Social
Services to enter into an interstate compact
concerning adoption and medical assistance for certain
children with special needs; authorizing the
establishment of a multidisciplinary child protection
team to review reports of child abuse or neglect;
relating to immunity from liability for certain state
actions concerning matters involving child protection
and fatality reviews and children in need of aid;
relating to persons required to report suspected child
abuse or neglect; relating to foster care placement
and to payment for children in foster and other care
and the waiver of certain foster care requirements;
relating to the access to certain criminal justice
information and licensure of certain child care
facilities; amending Rule 218, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure; amending Rules 1, 3, 15, 18, and
19, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules; and providing
for an effective date."
Representative Kelly explained that Amendment #5 would
replace the most substantive changes as recommended in the
previous proposed amendments. [Copy on File].
BRUCE CAMPBELL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, explained
that the new version of Amendment #5 would create "clean-
up" language. He pointed out that Page 2 of the old
version of Amendment #5 would be deleted and would be
replaced with Amendment #11. [Copy on File].
Representative Martin inquired if this would create a
twelve-month waiting period for a hearing.
SUSAN G. WIBKER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, acknowledged that the wait would be long, although,
within the context of the bill, the State would be going
before the Court, requesting that the State terminate
services to return the child to the home.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt the new version of
Amendment #5. Representative J. Davies MOVED to amend
Amendment #5 with Amendment #12. [Copy on File].
Representative Kelly OBJECTED.
Representative J. Davies explained that Amendment #12 would
reverse a couple of deletions made in Amendment #5, which
remove the references to domestic violence. He noted that
the purpose of HB 375 is to address child safety and those
circumstances in which the child is placed at risk. A
reference contained in Amendment #12 speaks to the issue of
how domestic violence affects the safety of a child.
Representative Kelly replied that the bill addresses the
child's best interest with a judge delegated with the
authority to consider the child's best needs. He commented
that the portions deleted are addressed. He believed that
the inclusion of Amendment #12 would be an expansion of the
domestic violence laws, which would be better addressed in
a separate bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON indicated support for language
recommended by Representative Kelly. Representative J.
Davies asked if the consideration of domestic violence
would limit the considerations of other concerns.
Representative Dyson responded that it is presumed that a
judge would have the "tools" needed to evaluate the harm a
child is suffering as a factor to determine the child's
best interest. Discussion followed among Committee members
regarding the child's placement with relationship to
witnessing domestic violence within the home.
Representative Kelly remarked that language addressing that
concern was contained in Title 25.
Ms. Wibker advised that the Department of Law would not be
involved in Title 25 cases which address two parties
getting a divorce. Representative J. Davies asked where
the safe place for the child be.
JAYNE ANDREEN, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL
ASSAULT, JUNEAU, agreed that there was language contained
in Title 25 which addresses child custody and contested
custody between two parents. She recommended that an
underlying premise, which needs to be addressed, is the
fact that domestic violence is harmful for children. The
impact of even being exposed to domestic violence has on
children is serious. At this time, estblished in Court, a
rebuttal presumption is used to address contested child
custody cases. When there has been a history of domestic
violence between the parents, the established presumption
is that it would not be in the best interest of the child
to be placed in the custody of the batterer. At this time,
it is up to the non-offending parent to prove to the Court
why the child should not be placed with the batterer. She
emphasized that the rebuttal presumption shifts the focus
of where the burden of proof stands from the victim on to
the batterer.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Moses, J. Davies
OPPOSED: G. Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder
Representatives Foster, Therriault and Hanley were not
present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
There being NO FURTHER OBJECTION to the new version of
Amendment #5, it was adopted unamended.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt the new Amendment #10.
[Copy on File]. Representative Mulder OBJECTED for the
purpose of discussion.
LISA TORKELSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, explained
that the language of the amendment would allow the foster
parent the ability to access the child's records. Ms.
Wibker noted that the Department of Law supports that
language. Ms. Torkelson noted that the Department of
Health and Social Services had provided the proposed
language. Representative Mulder WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO FURTHER OBJECTION, the new Amendment #10 was
adopted.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #11.
Representative J. Davies OBJECTED. Representative Kelly
noted that the proposed section presented the greatest
struggle for the entire working group. New federal law
indicates that some form of emotional damage must be
addressed. Each state can determine how they want to
address the rule. He noted that group had agreed upon the
language "mental injury". He continued, the definition was
narrowed down, defining the term and resulting in Amendment
Representative J. Davies commented that there is a typo in
the amendment placement. Mr. Campbell agreed, pointing out
that it should indicate Page 26, Lines 6 & 7 and Page 57,
Line 20. Representative Kelly stated that the proposed
amendment would define what "mental injury" is, bringing
the bill a long way from the emotional abuse concern.
Representative J. Davies asked the significance of placing
"witness" at the end of the amendment.
LISA NELSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
ANCHORAGE, replied that it would be a "witness" in the
preceeding and that witness could either review the child's
records or testify based on a hypothetical situation.
Representative J. Davies asked if it would be detrimental
to drop the word. Ms. Nelson explained that language came
from an already existing child welfare act. Ms. Wibker
explained that a qualified expert witness is a "term of
art". There is a specific statute which deals with
testimony provided by an expert; it does not require that
the expert witness be at the scene of a crime.
Representative J. Davies WITHDREW the OBJECTION to the
language of Amendment #11. There being NO FURTHER
OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative J. Davies WITHDREW Amendment #13, #14, and
were WITHDRAWN.
Representative Kelly MOVED to report CS HB 375 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CS HB 375 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with fiscal notes by the Alaska Court
System, the Department of Health and Social Services dated
4/7/98, the Department of Corrections dated 4/7/98, and the
Office of Management and Budget dated 2/2/98.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 152, Side 2).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|