Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/26/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB13 | |
| HB53 | |
| HB275 | |
| SB67 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 275 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
amending the construction of statutes pertaining to
children in need of aid; relating to a duty and
standard of care for services to children and families;
amending court hearing procedures to allow public
attendance at child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
establishing a right to a trial by jury in termination
of parental rights proceedings; reestablishing and
relating to state and local citizens' review panels for
certain child custody matters; amending the duty to
disclose information pertaining to a child in need of
aid; establishing a distribution age for permanent fund
dividends held in trust for a child committed to the
custody of the Department of Health and Social
Services; mandating reporting of the medication of
children in state custody; prescribing the rights of
grandparents related to child-in- need-of-aid cases and
establishing a grandparent priority for adoption in
certain child- in-need-of-aid cases; modifying adoption
and placement procedures in certain child-in- need-of-
aid cases; amending treatment service requirements for
parents involved in child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
amending Rules 3 and 18, Alaska Child in Need of Aid
Rules of Procedure; and providing for an effective
date.
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, which
would insert "court records" on Page 1, Line 3. (Copy on
File). Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, noted
that the amendment added language to the title. It was
important that the title states concise. The court records
were modified in Sections 18 & 19.
2:45:23 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
2:45:44 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Croft explained the amendment would insert
language on Page 5, "to the fullest extent consistent with
the child's best interests". (Copy on File). Ms. Moss
concurred, pointed out that also had been a concern for the
Department of Law.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted.
2:47:05 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss explained that the amendment would add language on
Page 7, Line 7, "or whose safety or welfare may be
endangered by public release of such information". (Copy on
File).
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted.
2:47:36 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4, which
would delete all material on Page 7, Lines 14-20. (Copy on
File). Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
JULIE LUCKY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, explained the
amendment, recommending a policy call by the Committee to
determine whether child-in-need-of-aid hearings should be
open to the public. She resisted sharing that information
and recommended an opinion from Department of Law.
2:51:30 PM
Representative Croft questioned whether public disclosure
could be better. He asked if confidentiality protects
children. Ms. Lucky shared her opinion regarding how it
affects children at risk.
2:52:40 PM
Representative Hawker noted that the crux of the amendment
addresses the language of the bill, making the public
hearing process open to the public and limiting
confidentiality. The proposed language provides strong
"affirmative" duty that the public may not disclose any
information from a hearing by making it a misdemeanor crime
to violate that. He thought that could be a bright line for
an innocent child.
2:54:35 PM
Ms. Moss noted that the Sponsor was in opposition to
Amendment #4.
2:55:51 PM
JAN RUTHERDALE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, related her experience in drafting the bill during the
task force. A lot of time was spent on balancing the
privacy rights of the child with the benefits of opening the
hearings. It was determined that the provision of
Subsection (F), Section 10 was important and the amendment
proposes to modify that section. The protections of not
disclosing the child's name, plus requiring the court to
notify everyone. Subject to the court's sanctions, that
would violate the order.
Ms. Rutherdale addressed questions about the studies. She
said the system is broken with so little funding going into
that system and by opening the hearings, would be one way to
obtain necessary changes. Several states have opened up
hearings without problems. There are already restrictions
in place.
3:00:03 PM
JOSH FINK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PUBLIC ADVOCATE,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY (OPA), ANCHORAGE, concurred with
comments made by Ms. Moss that they support the current
language in the bill. He related history of public
disclosure and the importance of that. He voiced concern
with Amendment #4, indicating that public discussion is
important with the need for "side boards".
3:02:02 PM
Representative Croft referred to the last line of that
section. He asked if a judge had experience in a case with
a reporter who disclosed information they should not have,
then shouldn't they retain the power to exclude that
reporter from subsequent hearings.
3:03:00 PM
Ms. Rutherdale agreed with Representative Croft's
interpretation that the court has the power to close a
hearing.
Ms. Moss inquired if Representative Croft had recommended
any language. Representative Croft recommended deleting "in
the case".
3:04:12 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW Amendment #4.
3:04:35 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5, which
would add a conceptual amendment on Page 11 to Section 16.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Moss indicated that the
sponsor would have no problem with that language.
3:05:00 PM
Ms. Lucky spoke to the duty of the Department to notify
adult family members while termination is happening. There
are many families where there is a cycle of abuse. The
amendment would not preclude the Department from looking at
a family member that might have had trouble in the past.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #5 was adopted.
3:06:11 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #6. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
3:06:49 PM
Ms. Rutherdale explained that she had proposed the language.
The language clarifies that the parties including the
parents have access to agency records. Currently, a person
would have to obtain a court order. She spoke to that
limitation.
Representative Kelly asked if that had fallen out of favor.
Ms. Rutherdale replied that the language has fallen out of
favor, but the amendment has not.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #6 was adopted.
3:07:53 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #7. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Rutherdale noted that she had recommended the amendment,
which would delete language on Page 5, Line 24, "Guardian ad
litem appointed by the Court" and insert "a guardian ad
litem appointed by the court".
Representative Croft pointed out the need for renumbering.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #7 was adopted.
3:09:41 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #8. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Rutherdale explained the amendment provides
clarification that caregivers include a parent or guardian
of the child. The language covers situations in which the
caregiver should be warned regarding information. Often
they have no connection with OCS. The proposed language
covers licensing and day care agencies.
Co-Chair Chenault asked about warning day care providers and
if the language would apply to only licensed day care
centers. Ms. Rutherdale replied it applies to licensing
agencies and to any caregiver of a child. If the person has
control, they need to be warned to protect that child.
Co-Chair Chenault mentioned a felon doing day care in his
area and inquired if the law would apply to that person.
Ms. Rutherdale advised that OCS would need to know about it
in order to provide the warning and would affect anything
regarding the child's safety.
Co-Chair Chenault explained that the man was accused of
kidnapping 15-years ago and currently, he is providing day
care out of his home. He cares for only four children,
under the number to require a license. Ms. Rutherdale
responded it would cover that situation.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #8 was adopted.
3:14:26 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #9. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss indicated that the amendment addresses a concern
regarding multiple children with multiple fathers. She
added that grammatically the sentence needs to delete the
second comma.
Representative Hawker MOVED a friendly amendment to delete
the second comma. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #9
was amended.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #9 was adopted.
3:15:43 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #10. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss explained that the amendment addresses an
oversight. Additionally, the word "member" was left out in
the insert of Section ©.
Representative Hawker MOVED to AMEND Amendment #10 with the
addition of that language. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
amended.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #10 was adopted.
3:16:56 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #11. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Rutherdale explained that the amendment would insert
language on Page 20, Line 29, following "child", "under AS
47.10.088(i) or under (e) of this section". The language
clarifies that the paragraph refers to both sections,
identifying adoptive placement homes.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #11 was adopted.
3:18:06 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #12. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss advised that Amendment #12 would delete language on
Page 21, Line 23: "and shall be closed to the public",
because the purpose of the bill is to open proceedings to
the public.
Representative Croft asked if they were closed to the public
before. Ms. Moss said no and that the language had been
taken from other federal statutes.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #12 was adopted.
3:19:06 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #13. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss explained that the original language mandated audio
and videotaping. That could create a burden for OCS and a
fiscal note if for some reason the federal dollars
disappear. The requested language would be more permissive.
TAMMY SANDOVAL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ACTING
DIRECTOR, OFFICES OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES (OCS), DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES, ANCHORAGE, stated that it was
best practice to have children audio and video taped
whenever possible, but she realized that they do not hold
the purse strings to mandate that.
3:20:08 PM
Representative Croft said that under current law, it is
permissive. Amendment #13 establishes a tiered system for
physical abuse. Ms. Moss stated that they did not add the
"shall" on Line 8.
Representative Croft asked why that was the best practice in
certain cases not severe or sexual. He asked why, in the
sexual abuse cases would they want to create a "shall"
standard. Ms. Moss concurred and agreed that would create a
check and balance.
Representative Croft asked if an implication was created
when using "may" for severe physical abuse and "shall" for
sexual abuse.
STACY KRALY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
agreed with the premise, however, understood that "shall" on
Line 8, creates a large fiscal impact on OCS, because the
mandatory nature creates an obligation.
Ms. Sandoval added that adding "shall" on Line 8 relieved
their office. She agreed, however, it was determined that
having the burden of that language to transport a child or
interviewer would create difficult costs. She mentioned the
best practice issue could be dealt with internally.
3:25:17 PM
Representative Croft pointed out that the mentioned
situation could not be feasible and thought that it could
result in trauma to the child. He maintained that it was
"best practices" to audio and videotape victims,
particularly sexually violated victims and that it should be
required. He suggested that on Lines 5 & 6 of the
amendment, deleting language "alleging severe physical abuse
by a parent or caregiver". He preferred that all reports of
harm be taped but was comfortable with it being those
involved with sexual abuse.
Ms. Kraly agreed with the "unless" phrase. She reiterated
that best practice requires a fiscal note. She requested
time to determine if the change would work with a 1985
Supreme Court case decision, regarding requirements that a
police officer tape interviews with suspects.
Representative Croft MOVED to AMEND Amendment #13, Lines 5 &
6, deleting language "alleging severe physical abuse by a
parent or caregiver". Additionally, Lines 8 & 9, deleting
the phrase, "except that an interview of a child may not be
videotaped if" and insert "unless". There being NO
OBJECTION to the amended language, it was incorporated. Ms.
Moss indicated that the sponsor would support that change.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION, to the amendment.
There being NO further OBJECTIONS, amended Amendment #13 was
adopted.
3:30:08 PM
th
Representative Foster mentioned that 15 years ago, the 9
Circuit Court made a judgment, which was recently overturned
because the right of the accused was unable to cross-examine
the tape. He did not know the value of the amendment.
Ms. Rutherdale explained that the purpose of the taping is
to guarantee that there is accurate information coming from
the child. Generally, it is not used in court.
3:32:00 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #14. Co-Chair
Chenault OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss stated that Amendment #14 defines child advocacy
centers and that the State directs OCS to utilize them when
available.
Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #14 was adopted.
Representative Kelly pointed out an extra common on Line 8.
He MOVED to AMEND Amendment #8 by deleting the comma after
"neglect". There being NO OBJECTION, it was amended.
There being NO further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #8 was
adopted.
3:34:09 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired the change to the fiscal note.
3:35:16 PM
Ms. Moss responded that she could not provide an accurate
number at this time, noting possible lost federal funds.
OPA and the Public Defenders Office have reduced their notes
by approximately 66%. Ms. Moss pointed out the substantial
increase for budgeting of front line workers.
3:36:41 PM
Representative Hawker voiced concern passing a bill out of
the House Finance Committee that does not indicate true
fiscal costs.
3:37:43 PM
Representative Croft referenced Section 38, Page 21, the
panel open to the public. He voiced concern with the
confidentiality in Section 41 that the members and staff may
not disclose. He thought that they ought to have similar
obligations as those listed in Section 10. Ms. Moss
understood that was already covered.
Ms. Kraly pointed out that Section 41 contains a
confidentiality provision that has a restriction regarding
what can be divulged. Representative Croft read Section 41,
"The members and staff of the State panel do not discuss".
Ms. Kraly agreed with Representative Croft's interpretation
that if the meetings were going to be open, there should be
a similar limitation to the individuals that attend.
3:40:35 PM
Ms. Moss said she was under the understood that
confidentiality would be created for any child-in-need-of-
aid proceedings. Representative Croft requested
reconsideration on Page 7, regarding a person attending a
hearing. Ms. Rutherdale advised that Page 7 does not apply
to the Citizen's Review Panel.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #15a on Page
22, Line 15, "a person attending a hearing of the State
panel and" before "members". Ms. Moss indicated that would
be okay.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #15a was adopted.
3:42:27 PM
Ms. Sandoval reported on the reworking of the fiscal notes
and removing the jury trial. The Division has reduced the
notes to just over $200 thousand dollars.
3:43:28 PM
Co-Chair Meyer stated that HB 53 would be HELD in Committee
for further consideration of the fiscal notes.
AT EASE: 3:44:10 PM
RECONVENE: 3:52:31 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|