Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
02/09/2005 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB84 | |
| SB51 | |
| SB75 | |
| SB73 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 84 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 84-CHILD PROTECTION CONFIDENTIALITY
1:33:25 PM
CHAIR FRED DYSON announced SB 84 to be up for consideration.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
said she had prepared some amendments for SB 84. The first
amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT 1
Page 6, line 26 after "department" add: ",the governor, or the
legislature"
Page 8, line 9: delete "may" and add "shall"
Page 8, line 15-16: delete "in accordance with" and add "under"
MS. RUTHERDALE explained that the first change addressed Senator
Elton's concern with the Governor or the Legislature convening
an investigative body to review a specific case.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN joined the committee at 1:35.
1:36:36 PM
CHAIR DYSON noted that there were no objections to the first
change.
MS. RUTHERDALE explained that the change on page 8, line 9, was
in response to Senator Elton's concern about changing the
original language of "shall" to "may". She didn't think it
mattered either way and put the original language back. However,
she explained:
This is a little wider. This covers all the
regulations including that specific concern about the
sufficient legitimate interest paragraph that had been
moved from another section. So, it may not be
necessary in some cases.... Apparently there is case
law that requires whenever there's a term or standard
is used for the public, we're required to have
regulations. The case law puts that "shall" in there,
so it doesn't matter either way....
CHAIR DYSON asked what is a reasonable expectation for a time
frame in which regulations get promulgated after a law is passed
and if it had been challenged in court.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied that she didn't know the answer. However,
she said:
I want to amend a statement I made last time, which
was that I didn't believe there was any regulations
that had been promulgated and there are regulations
that apply to confidentiality, but those are very
old.... I didn't want to leave the impression there
are no regulations....
1:38:17 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE said the third change on page 8 was the result of
a technical edit that had replaced "under" with "in accordance
with" and a person in her department with expertise in tort
liability said it would be important to use the word "under".
SENATOR WILKEN moved to adopt Amendment 1. There were no
objections and Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR DYSON announced that Amendment 2 was up for consideration
and dealt with the issue of why parents aren't on the list of
folks who can get confidential information.
AMENDMENT 2
Page 5, line 13: delete "and"
Page 5, line 14: after "section," add "and as provided to all
parties in a child in need of aid proceeding in accordance with
court rules,"
Page 5, line 22: delete "(1) a guardian ad litem appointed by
the court;" and renumber accordingly
1:40:05 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE explained why section 3 belongs where it is and
not in subsection (b). Concern was raised at the last hearing
that parents aren't on the subsection (b) list of people that
the agency can disclose confidential information to and she
explained that parents are parties to a case and they get all
this information and more. It's not discretionary. They have
access to the file on the child. She read the definition of
"parties" in Child In Need of Aid Rule 2(l):
Party means the child, the parents, the guardian - you
won't always have a guardian, but sometimes you have
both parents and guardians caring for the child - the
guardian ad litem and the department.
Those people would be the parties to the case in all
cases. Then:
An Indian custodian who has intervened - an Indian
custodian is a term out of the Indian Child Welfare
Act... but it would be like a grandparent who has
assumed a parental role in raising the kids. They are
not legally a guardian, but they are the custodian....
It's not an automatic intervention. They actually have
to move to intervene before they get party status.
And then the Indian child's tribe - if there is an
Indian child's tribe - who has intervened - it's not
automatic; they have to actually move to intervene.
Then any other person who has been allowed to
intervene in the court....
So parents, no question, they are a party to the case
and as parties to the case, like in all civil cases,
they are entitled to discovery and there is court
rules and specifically in the Child In Need of Aid
(CINA) case, but it generally refers back to the civil
process with a few exceptions.
1:44:46 PM
She explained a discovery order in terms of access and said the
point is, it's not appropriate to place access into statute.
"This is sort of the province of the court to have these orders
determining what the discovery is...." The district attorney's
office said the criminal discovery process is the same. She
thought this amendment was a good solution. The other amendment
- removing subsection (b)(1) a guardian ad litem appointed by
the court - doesn't necessarily have to be done, but a guardian
is a party and it seems odd that they are the only party that is
actually listed. So, the amendment cleans that up.
1:47:56 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked if subsection (a) talks about parties of a
case that are always considered a party to a case unless they
are excluded or non-existent and subsection (b) talks about non-
parties that may be included.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied that was correct.
SENATOR WILKIN moved to adopt Amendment 2. There were no
objections and Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:49:49 PM
BETTY ROLLINS, Fairbanks resident, took exception to Ms.
Rutherdale's statement because they are not talking just about
court action where people are parties to a case, but about day-
to-day operations. She asked why the state is fighting so hard
to keep parents out of the loop. Public defenders have up to 100
cases during a year and this doesn't give them time to respond
to each parent. She insisted:
The parent must be privileged to any information that
the foster parent, the guardian ad litem, anyone in
this case...without their attorney - because many
times I've seen cases where the parent will
continually call their attorney and they don't see him
until the date of the hearing.
She said the federal law doesn't really state that people are
allowed to get public information and she thought that should be
clarified.
1:51:44 PM
SCOTT CALDER, Fairbanks resident, stated that the Permanency
Planning Act of 1990 in Chapter 1.17, SLA1990 concerned the
citizen review panel that was never properly implemented. His
experience is that things are not as they are represented by the
state. He agreed with the changing "may" to "shall" amendment.
His experience was that parents were abused or shuffled around a
little too harshly in these proceedings. He also wanted to see
greater respect for tribal representatives.
1:55:49 PM
CHAIR DYSON reiterated that the primary issue here is to protect
children.
MR. CALDER responded that you can't promote safety of children
by keeping information from their parents.
1:57:43 PM
SENATOR KIM ELTON moved to report CSSB 84(HES) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|