Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/12/1996 09:10 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 289
An Act relating to runaway minors and their
families or legal custodians.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 289 be brought on for
discussion. Co-chairman Frank explained that the bill was
introduced in response to constituent concern regarding
runaway minors. The intent is to tighten laws to provide
that police officers return runaways to their homes and
allow officers an opportunity to review the situation there.
The Dept. of Law discovered a loophole in existing law which
makes situations in which adults inappropriately harbor
runaways difficult to prove. Provisions within the bill
amend that language.
Co-chairman Frank next attested to the revolving door nature
of community shelters for runaways. Minors are free to
leave at any time. Language in the proposed bill requires
that runaways be taken to "at least a semi-secure type
environment." That entails an alarm or some form of
notification that sounds when a young person leaves. The
appropriate authorities can then be contacted.
Senator Randy Phillips referenced his prior attempts to deal
with the issue and noted a lack of majority support at the
time. He voiced his hope that the climate of the existing
legislature would be conducive to enactment.
Co-chairman Frank MOVED for adoption of a work draft CSSB
289 (9-LS1635\M, 3/7/96, Lauterbach). No objection having
been raised, CSSB 289 (Fin) was ADOPTED.
ALLIE GORDON, aide to Senator Frank, came before committee
and conducted the following sectional analysis of the work
draft:
Sec. 1. New language relates to:
Subsection (3) provisions concerning repeated absences
from school. "Just cause" was removed from statutory
language and "without the permission of the child's
parent, guardian, or custodian" was added. Parents who
keep their children out of school for other than
legitimate reasons would still be in violation under AS
14.30.010 (truancy law).
Subsection (4) provisions relating to harboring of
runaway minors. "Just cause" was also removed from
existing language as was "knowledge or." Removal
strengthens language to the extent that if permission
has been granted, knowledge is inherent.
Affirmative defenses to harboring have also been
incorporated within the subsection. These defenses
require that the defendant reasonably believe that the
child is in danger of physical injury or in need of
temporary shelter. The defendant must also notify
authorities within 12 hours.
Sec. 2. Deals with courses of action available to peace
officers after they pick up a runaway:
(a) The first is to return the runaway to his or her
legal custodian.
(b) The second is to take the minor to a nearby
location agreed to by the legal custodian.
(c) Take the minor to a semi-secure shelter which has
delayed locks or alarms on the doors notifying staff
if a minor attempts to leave.
Sec. 3. Contains definitions.
Sec. 4. Deals with liability issues associated with
shelters. Shelters are not to be held liable should a minor
leave and subsequently sustain injuries.
Sec. 5. Describes runaway programs. Changes deal with the
time limit within which the shelter must notify the
department when a minor enters the shelter or program.
The only changes between CSSB 289 (Jud) and CSSB 289 (Fin)
occur in Sec. 1, subsections (3) and (4), as noted above.
Co-chairman Frank added that in reviewing existing law, he
could see no just cause for a minor to be repeatedly absent
from school. The Dept. of Law cited circumstances such as
an extended vacation, and language relating to parental
permission was added.
Senator Rieger referenced existing law at page 4, line 19,
and noted that it speaks to child abuse and neglect. He
then pointed to language at page 2, lines 22 through 27, and
noted that it addresses physical or sexual abuse. He
subsequently inquired concerning the difference between the
two and whether something was excluded. Senator Rieger also
referenced wording at page 3, lines 29-31, and inquired
regarding the standard for "material factor" compliance.
Senator Zharoff asked why language relating to exercise of
discretion by peace officers was removed at page 2, line 18.
Ms. Gordon answered that the intent was to lay out the
course of action for the police officer. The first response
must be to try to return the child to his or her parent or
guardian. Family reconciliation will be the initial course
of action unless there is reason to believe the child has
been abused.
Comments by Senator Phillips and discussion among members
followed regarding past legislative attempts to deal with
the issue of runaways.
Senator Donley questioned the zero fiscal notes submitted by
the Dept. of Health and Social Services, suggesting that
proposed changes within the bill would require funding.
DONNA SCHULZ, Juvenile Probation Officer, Division of Family
Services, Dept. of Health and Social Services, came before
committee. She expressed appreciation for ability to work
with the sponsor on the proposed bill which she acknowledged
deals with "very difficult problems." Positive changes
could result from the legislation. Ms. Schulz noted
specifically provisions making it easier to bring charges
for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The bill
expands the parental role and elevates the position of
parents in determining where a child will be placed if the
child is not returned home.
Provisions direct peace officers to use semi-secure
facilities, if possible. And, it strengthens shelters by
allowing them to become semi-secure. Officers will also
advise youth on available mediation services. Ms. Schulz
voiced support for the bill.
Speaking to questions regarding the fiscal notes, Ms. Schulz
acknowledged that the department requested $170.0 as a one-
time cost to assist six shelters in obtaining locks and
other devices needed to make them semi-secure.
Senator Rieger asked if statistics indicate why the majority
of runaways leave home. Ms. Schulz said she had no
statistical information and deferred comment to shelter
staff participating via teleconference.
ANNIE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Dept. of Law, came before committee. Senator
Donley referenced civil division fiscal note language
indicating that secure placement of juveniles will "probably
be determined to be unconstitutional." Mrs. Carpeneti
voiced her understanding that "generally you're not supposed
to lock up children . . . [who] are in custody because
they're children, not because they've done something wrong."
She then advised that she would return more definitive
information to committee. She also noted that changing
language from "secure" to "semi-secure" might cure the
constitutional issue. Co-chairman Frank voiced a preference
for a secure facility, advising that many runaways leave
both home and shelter facilities for a life on the streets.
He then voice his understanding that providing for a semi-
secure facility and a notification system would cure the
constitutional problem.
In response to questions from Senator Donley regarding the
nature of the constitutional issues, Mrs. Carpeneti said she
would provide both federal and state citations.
Referencing CSSB 289 (Fin), Mrs. Carpeneti advised that the
Dept. of Law opposes changes in "contributing to the
delinquency" statutes. She pointed specifically to AS
11.51.130 (a)(3) at page 2, line 2, and voiced a preference
for existing statutory language. Language in the proposed
bill applies to both parents and non-parents. It prohibits
an individual from actively keeping a child from school
compared to truancy laws which are more focused on parents
who are not getting the child to school. Removing language
relating to just cause for absence and inserting wording
relating to parental permission undercuts truancy laws by
implying that a parent can give permission for a child to be
absent from school. She cited instances of child abuse as
an example. Co-chairman Frank advised of desire to remove
"just cause" because "It was just a big loophole." Senator
Donley suggested that both "just cause" and parental
permission language be included.
END: SFC-96, #37, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #37, Side 2
Senator Randy Phillips expressed frustration over Dept. of
Law objection to proposed legislative changes without
providing an alternative approach. Mrs. Carpeneti voiced
her understanding that there was no problem with "just
cause" language in subparagraph (3). Concern relates to
inclusion within (4). Co-chairman Frank advised that "just
cause" was determined to be problematic in both subsections
since it posed problems for prosecution. In subsequent
discussion of prosecution efforts, Co-chairman Frank asked
if the department had prosecuted under subsection (3). Co-
chairman Halford asked that the department return a response
to committee.
Referencing page 2, line 4, Mrs. Carpeneti expressed a
preference for retaining "knowledge or permission." The
department is worried about "throw-away kids"--children
whose parents do not have the thought, attention, or care to
withhold or give permission. Co-chairman Frank suggested
that the department views the bill from the perspective of
an abused child while the focus of the legislation is
frustration felt by parents who have no ability to deal with
or cure runaway situations. Mrs. Carpeneti cautioned
against applying prohibitions to a neighbor who might
provide shelter in instances when a parent is unable to give
rational permission. Co-chairman Frank suggested that
affirmative defense provisions would cover that situation.
Mrs. Carpeneti cautioned against holding people criminally
liable and placing them in need of invoking an affirmative
defense when they are only attempting to do good by taking
in a runaway child. Co-chairman Frank reiterated that the
present situation is a mess. Senator Randy Phillips
stressed need for a "real world" solution from the
department. Mrs. Carpeneti replied that her first
suggestion would be to leave existing law intact. It is
working and poses no problem to prosecution.
Mrs. Carpeneti said the department does not oppose the
provision for placement of runaways in semi-secure shelters.
Senator Donley suggested that an affirmative defense would
not be necessary if language within subsection (4) was
expanded to include "unless the person reasonably believed
the child was in danger of physical injury or in need of
temporary shelter." Mrs. Carpeneti concurred in the
suggestion. She further noted that the department suggested
inclusion of "knowledge and/or permission" at page 2, line
4, for good reason. She characterized as unfair committee
assertions that the department was "throwing up roadblocks"
to proposed changes. She noted that the department worked
with the sponsor and staff on the recent draft.
In response to a question from Senator Sharp, Mrs. Carpeneti
explained that contributing to the delinquency of a minor is
a class-A misdemeanor incurring a maximum $5,000 fine or one
year in jail.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Public Safety, next
came before committee to respond to questions. Co-chairman
Halford asked if there had been prosecution problems under
AS 11.51.130. Mr. Smith said he did not know, advising that
local law enforcement would be more likely to deal with the
issue. He added that he had heard of no objection to
proposals within the bill.
In response to a comment from Senator Donley concerning
fiscal note analysis language citing "inestimable" costs,
Mr. Smith said he did not want to "come up with a cost that
I am unable to support, for any particular reason." It is
unknown how much additional trooper time might be needed
before a minor is returned home or placed in another
appropriate location. Senator Donley voiced support for
funding of the legislation.
Senator Rieger referenced language at the top of page 3 and
noted that it requires that the peace officer give the
"highest priority" to taking a minor to a semi-secure
facility. He then asked if language is, inadvertently, too
strong. He questioned what would happen if a local shelter
was available but the semi-secure facility was some distance
away. A literal interpretation indicates that the peace
officer must take the runaway to the semi-secure location.
Mr. Smith concurred in that concern.
AL NEAR next spoke via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
advised that the runaway problem in Alaska, and the United
States as a whole, is reaching epidemic proportions. It is
increasingly touching the lives of middle-class families
attempting to instill traditional values. Laws enacted to
protect abused and neglected children are being exploited by
rebellious minors challenging authority.
Beginning in the mid-1970s, federal law recognized the
importance of not treating abused and neglected minors like
criminals. Laws from that philosophy require the least
restrictive settings for juveniles in custody. To achieve
mandates at the state level, certain federal funds for
juvenile programs are contingent upon compliance. Detention
of juveniles for running away would place $150.0 in grant
moneys at risk. The foregoing approach overlooks merely
rebellious young people who, on advice of peers, exploit
these laws and manipulate the system. These minors know
that law enforcement agencies do not aggressively pursue
runaways or those who harbor them. The proposed bill
addresses some deficiencies. It falls short of dealing with
runaways who refuse to remain in shelters. Minors must
learn that running away from authority is not an option. If
juveniles run away from a semi-secure facility, "They should
be placed in a secure one." Early intervention is the key
to saving these children. Law enforcement officers concur
that the first hours are the most dangerous.
Mr. Near next attested to a case in Fairbanks where a young
man was cited for contributing to the delinquency of a minor
because on numerous occasions officers found that he had a
number of young, runaway, teenage girls in his apartment.
He noted that prosecution for the offense has not produced
the desired result.
Senator Rieger inquired concerning the number of runaways
fitting into particular categories. Mr. Near voiced his
impression that the majority are young people running away
from authority.
CAROL GORDON voiced support for the legislation, terming it
a "step in the right direction." She acknowledged that it
will not solve the problem of children "on the run" to
escape responsibility for their own actions or who do not
want parental supervision. She told of the inability of her
sixteen-year old to handle the street life he has chosen.
The Dept. of Health and Social Services would not get
involved in the case because he was not abused or neglected
at home.
Mrs. Gordon described the circumstances by which
psychiatrists and psychologists recommended that he be
placed on 24-hour sight and sound watch because he is
considered a danger to others. Yet, he was free to walk
away and is now on the street. Mrs. Gordon said she was
advised there is nothing that can be done about his being on
the street. As an adoptive parent, Mrs. Gordon acknowledged
that she is responsible for "anything this boy may do." He
has stolen automobiles, vandalized property, and been
arrested several times for shoplifting. Loopholes in
existing law must be plugged. Senator Randy Phillips
stressed need to give more rights to parents. He suggested
that much of the problem is simply rebellion against
parental authority. Co-chairman Halford concurred.
LORI BACKES next testified. She expressed pride in her
fifteen-year-old daughter whom she described as fearless,
open minded, kind to those in need, and willing to sacrifice
whatever is necessary for what she believes in. The
downside is that she often places herself in danger and is
easily persuaded by people who can take advantage of her.
Her willingness to sacrifice has caused her to turn away
from a loving home and family. Mrs. Backes stressed need to
find her daughter and bring her home for her own protection.
The first assumption by authorities was that she fled a
hostile situation. That is not always the case.
Passage of the proposed bill would create the support
parents need to protect children. Mrs. Backes urged passage
of the bill but noted the following:
Sec. 3, page 3, line 23, language should say that young
people will be stopped when they leave a semi-secure
facility.
Sec. 5, page 4, supervision should be placed in the legal
guardian rather than the department.
In her concluding remarks, Mrs. Backes referenced language
at page 2 relating to the discretion of peace officers and
suggested that officers be directed to tell juveniles to
obey their parents, for their own good.
FLORENCE LOUCKS, Director, Family Focus, Fairbanks Native
Association, next spoke in support of the bill. She
attested to an "extreme increase" in the number of young
people accessing the shelter in the last five years. In
1990 the number approximated 100. Last year there were over
450. Not all of the children are runaways. In some cases
the parents have requested time out. For others the police
have been unable to locate the parents, and the shelter
performs a holding function. While some are throw-aways,
there is a "whole group of youth that really are evading
parental authority." This is the group that comes in the
front door and out the back. The proposed bill provides
empowerment for parents and makes it possible to take action
against individuals who harbor youths in situations that are
not in the youth's best interest.
Ms. Loucks attested to cases in which runaways have become
involved in drugs or are sexually victimized. She stressed
need for "some way of dealing with that group of people that
sort of encourage youths to be delinquent; to act against
their parents; to be on the street . . . ."
Informal questionnaires completed by those coming through
the shelter indicate that 90 percent have been involved in
drugs or alcohol in some manner (experimentation through
addiction). Ms. Louks reiterated support for the bill,
saying that it would decrease exploitation and victimization
of minors.
Senator Rieger inquired concerning the percentage of young
people fleeing abusive situations at home. Ms. Loucks
advised of 5 to 10 percent referral from the Division of
Family and Youth Services because of abuse. Not all
situations result in an actual finding of abuse. Parents
indicate that current law is written for those children.
The majority of the youth passing through the shelter are
involved in family conflicts at varying levels. Early
intervention before these young people become involved with
street youths or undesirable adult sheltering is essential.
Ms. Loucks noted that one of the areas in family conflict
stems from step parents and "significant others." That
often requires counseling and work with all parties, but it
is doable. Of those with whom the shelter has worked, the
unification rate is approximately 87 percent.
Senator Rieger inquired concerning the percentage of young
people who are not involved in family conflict but attracted
to gang involvement or a home other than their own. Ms.
Loucks responded, "There is always an element, when we're
talking about youth, that decide they don't want to do what
their parents think they should do." Parents may not
approve of friends or activities. It then becomes a
conflict for the youth.
Ms. Loucks further advised of a group of young people that
"have severe emotional problems, and families have done
everything that they can." That is another group--a small
percentage but a very serious one.
JUDY SCHIFFLER next spoke in support of the bill and thanked
members for their efforts at improving the legislation for
the safety of young people and the strengthening of the
family unit. She voiced concern, however, that semi-secure
provisions would not prevent a negative pattern from
continuing. Through the information pipeline, young people
are aware that being picked up by authorities and placed in
a semi-secure facility is "just an inconvenient stop on the
way back to the streets or to the hang out with their group
. . . of undesirables." She attested to the fact that many
of these young people are being used by undesirable adults.
Ms. Schiffler advised of need to strengthen the consequences
for running away from a semi-secure facility. A further
step should be added to place young people in a more secure
surrounding. There is need for earlier intervention and
increasingly tougher consequences rather than a revolving
door. She urged members to add provisions for a second
placement.
DANA BROWN next spoke in support of the legislation, saying
that it represents a step in the right direction. She
advised that the problem is much larger than issues
addressed in the bill. She then described situations
involved in dealing with her twelve-year-old, ADD-diagnosed
son. Ms. Brown told of his rebellion against teachers, and
the junior high school's inability to physically restrain
him. She attested to attempts to obtain a court order to
have him detained for 72 hours and evaluated and controlled.
In the meantime, her son survived a gun shot wound to the
chest from a seventeen year old using a stolen gun.
Ms. Brown stressed that parents with children in this
situation have no control under current law.
END: SFC-96, #37, Side 2
BEGIN: SFC-96, #38, Side 1
Co-chairman Halford acknowledged complaints from
constituents that present law does not provide authority for
parents to "do something that we thought was a legitimate
parental responsibility." The Co-chairman next addressed
constitutional issues associated with the bill. [A
transcript of those comments follows.]
Co-chairman Halford: One of the things we've got to face
head on is the constitutional question. And one of the
ways to face that, I think, is with a findings and
purpose section in this bill. We have got to be
able to deal with the question of confinement or
we'll never get to the second tier.
. . .
Co-chairman Halford: The question of the constitutionality
and the rights of a minor with regard to confinement . . .
I know they're different than the rights of an
adult. But, we really need some kind of an
analysis of what the courts have said in this
state, and what we could put in a bill that was a
set of findings and purpose that said essentially
. . . that the problem is epidemic, that we find
it to be a threat to both the public health and
safety and the individual health and safety of the
person. Try and reach out to whatever terms the
court has used every time they've overruled or
worked against us on control of minors and pick up
the terms that they use to allow us the maximum
amount of control in this area.
. . .
Senator Sharp: I think also that, hopefully, there's some
way with that preamble, in trying to build it into statute,
in defining the seriousness of the problem, there
should be some way to justify extended protective
custody for juveniles. Which could be the next
step up from just . . .
Co-chairman Halford: Well, we have to beef up the penalties
against people who enable that kind of performance and
don't do it in the sense of helping a kid, because
there really is a problem. And we need to find out if
there's a finding that we can put in the bill that says
that 90% of these people are, in fact, acting out
against authority, and 10% are avoiding a truly unfair
situation. [If that is the case,] then we ought to be
knowing that. There has got to be a standard there
somewhere--in the court cases. And it's going to take
some research. I'm not willing to wait for a
commission. But I do think we have to, at least, get a
legal analysis of what we can do to make our best
constitutional argument.
. . .
Co-chairman Halford: [To Mrs. Carpeneti] Could you propose
a findings section for us that is as strong as we can
get?
. . .
Co-chairman Frank: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify your
request. Are you referring to the idea of a secure
environment?
. . .
Co-chairman Halford: Yes. Unless we have a situation where
parental authority is going to, in some way, be enforced,
then it's going to be ignored. If we're going to hold
parents responsible for the actions of their kids, then
parents have got to have the tools to be able to control the
actions of their kids.
. . .
Co-chairman Halford: It's not just the loopholes in
existing law, it's the constitutional protections that we
haven't worked our way around, basically.
And I think we have to figure out how to do
that. Number one, a juvenile does not have
the same set of rights as an adult,
particularly as compared to the exercise of
parental authority. We need to know what the
definition of that is . . . . There have got
to be some limits there, and they've got to
be set out by court cases, and we need to
know. And we want to go as far as we can
possibly constitutionally go.
Co-chairman Halford reiterated need for ability of parents
to control the actions of their children. If a minor leaves
home when he or she is not to, the police should bring the
minor back home. Co-chairman Frank voiced need for the next
step. If a youth runs from a semi-secure facility, he or
she should be placed in a secure place. Lack of that is the
weak spot in the system. Senator Sharp stressed need to
ensure that those who encourage juveniles to leave home and
shelter them should be guilty of an automatic violation
unless they notify the police or parent within 24 hours.
Current statutes and punishments relating to contributing to
the delinquency of a minor are not effective. Co-chairman
Frank suggested that the state is not able to effectively
prosecute because of loopholes in existing law.
Co-chairman Halford thanked teleconference participants for
their interest in the legislation. Co-chairman Frank
concurred. Co-chairman Halford directed that the bill be
held in committee for additional discussion during the
coming week.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|