Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/22/1997 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 127 - FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD Number 0130 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda as HB 127, "An Act relating to the citizen review board and panels for permanency planning for certain children in state custody; renaming the Citizens' Review Panel For Permanency Planning as the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board; extending the termination date of the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board; and providing for an effective date." He referred to an amendment before the committee. Number 0215 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 127. This amendment would remove two of the three attorney positions on the board, limiting it to one position. Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. BLAIR McCUNE, Assistant Public Defender, Central Office, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. Number 0362 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if a representative from the Public Defender Agency attended the Title IV-E review with the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). Number 0366 MR. McCUNE answered that this occurs sometimes. The agency does not have the staffing to cover all Title IV-E reviews so their attendance is rare. Number 0391 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if the fiscal note included the cost of this rare attendance. Number 0400 MR. McCUNE stated that currently the Title IV-E review doesn't generate a report used or submitted for a court disposition. The court has to make a finding about reasonable efforts to provide services. Under this bill, in Section 23, "the local panel shall submit a final report to Anchorage Court and temporary custody orders and dispositional hearings and reviews". He said this language has changed from the current language. If the foster care review panels are going to be set up as entities whose views are considered in court hearings, then his agency ought to be there to provide representation and input. If the review panels are not used for that purpose and are done on a more internal procedures basis, like the current Title IV-E procedures, then his agency would not have to attend. This bill expands the scope of the review. Number 0529 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if he was referring to the review panel's consideration of their report in terms of the agency having to be present or being present when this report is presented in court. Number 0546 MR. McCUNE answered that he was referring to attending the local review panel hearings. Currently the review panels only review a third of the cases in Anchorage. If this system was implemented statewide for all out-of-home placement greater than 90 days, then he thought the agency should be a participant. Number 0608 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that it was interesting that prior to the adoption of Amendment 1, an agency staff would have been on the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board, setting policy for the review committee. He suggested that his agency would want to be a advocate for their client, not as someone who sets policy for the review committee and acts in the best interest of the child. The attorney general's position and the public defender's position were eliminated from the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board, leaving the director or his designee from the Office of Public Advocacy. Number 0675 JODI OLMSTEAD, Founder, Concerned Parents for Reform, testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. She referred to public law 96-272, the Child Welfare Assistance Act. This law says this review system works as a tool to cut back on the abuses. Nationally 28 percent of abuses happen within the foster care system. Our nation has the highest number of allegations and abuses of our children. These numbers play a role in overzealous social workers. The review panels serve as a check and balance for the foster care system. She referred to a case of her nephew who suffered abuse while in foster care. Fairbanks has a big foster care drift. MS. OLMSTEAD stated that citizen oversight will decrease the amount of cases which go through the foster care system. We need people to be there through every single case plan of each child and the programs they go through. No one has time to listen to the whole thing in the judicial system. Citizens on these review panels need to follow everything that goes on with the child, need to follow them from the beginning to the end and they need to report what they find. The Nebraska review panel tells what is done wrong and how it could be made right. MS. OLMSTEAD clarified that CSHB 127(HES) was extended to June 30, 2000. She asked to hear discussion on this point. There are a lot of children in foster care in Fairbanks and something needs to be done about it. Litigation does not have to be the answer. The interior delegation have been inundated with complaints about this situation. Number 0917 WALTER GAUTHIER testified next via teleconference from Homer. He was in support of CSHB 127(HES), but had some concerns. He referred to page 3, "The board consists of five public members appointed by the Governor". He suggested that part of the problem with the whole social services system is that it is all under the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) which is all under the Governor. He cited an example of a program that was cut from the budget last year which DHSS then funded out of another fund. The legislature has no power over DHSS. MR. GAUTHIER stated that for every Child in Need of Aid (CINA) case there are probably nine agencies, public and private, whom are concerned about the child. No one seems to be concerned about the parents or the family as a whole. The last review panel on foster care report stated that efforts were made to get the children into foster care. Once the children were in foster care, they were practically forgotten about and were in the system for an average of 18 months to two years. He thought the problems stemmed from the DHSS autonomy. MR. GAUTHIER referred to page 10, "at the child's request, a child who is ten years of age or older shall be allowed to be present at interviews of the review panel, that concerns that child's case unless the panel determines that for a good cause the child's presence would be contrary to the best interests of the child or there is other good cause for denying the child's request". He felt confidentiality has been used to shield mistakes and creates an overzealous approach. Any time these decisions are going to be made, the child should be allowed to be there. A large percentage of children recant previous testimony, a child will renounce things that a social worker states. On a whole, he is in favor of CSHB 127(HES). Number 1103 CHAIRMAN BUNDE assured him that the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board will be created and administered by the Department of Administration. The board will then recruit the volunteers, so this process will be removed from the Governor and his influence. Number 1149 CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that current laws are inadequate, they don't give enough power to local panels. The panels are a weak duplication of DFYS. In many cases it is important that there be an outside citizen review of government functions. He was not saying that DFYS intentionally does things wrong, but it is important to have an additional review. He said CSHB 127(HES) amends the existing foster care review statutes and gives needed power to local panels, stressing local oversight and local panels. These local panels do not have the power to advocate for children in a court of law. This legislation allows local review panels to place their recommendations into the court record, this might reduce the number of cases where children get lost in the system. This provision gives the panels the power to be heard at the same level as the case worker, public defender, guardian ad litem and other parties who speak in court on the behalf of families. He felt that you couldn't discuss the welfare of a child without also acknowledging the importance of the family. CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented that another problem with the existing statutes is the duplication of services between DFYS and the local review panels. The DFYS completes federally mandated Title IV-E reviews for eligible children in out-of-home care every 180 days. The review process allows DFYS to collect federal funds for eligible children. The local review panels review the same children with a more thorough process every 180 days. The two separate reviews are seen as a duplication of effort, the legislation will not fund a board that duplicates functions of an existing department. This legislation gives the authority to the local review panels to do the Title IV-E and take some of the burden off DFYS. Number 1270 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON mentioned his concern over the fiscal note. He though Alaska's social problems, including dysfunctional families and dislocated children, would be assisted by the citizens' review panels. The DFYS is in stress. Their credibility and the credibility of all state government is in question. The panels provide an objective outside review and oversight. It builds confidence in what government is or should be doing. He stated that his wife, who served on the Anchorage panel, found it valuable. Number 1379 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked someone to explain why the panel might determine that the child's future shouldn't be witnessed by the child. Number 1409 PATTI SWENSON, Legislative Assistant for Representative Bunde, stated that the panel doesn't really decide whether the child is present or not. This decision is made in conjunction with advice given by the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) and the Guardian ad litem. Some children don't want to come to these reviews. Number 1455 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the way in which CSHB 127(HES) is written states that the child may be there unless the panel determines that they should not be there. He clarified that she was saying that the panel does not make this determination. Number 1463 MS. SWENSON stated that the board works closely with all of the people who are in contact with the children. A child would not be invited if it would harm them in any way. Number 1480 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt this language would create a restriction if the child wanted to attend the review. Number 1495 MS. SWENSON explained that some children feel they need to support their parents no matter how abusive their parents have been. The child might say that they want to go back to their parents, when in actuality that isn't what they want. Children that age don't necessarily tell the truth, no matter what their current situation is. The board makes the determination of a child's attendance based on those people who know the child best. A child might say something that could be misconstrued. Number 1524 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN verified that the court determined age 14 to be the age of reason. He clarified that the reason why a child wouldn't be invited to this review process is because their psychological make-up wouldn't stand a review process. Number 1553 CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that first the Guardian ad litem, then the social worker and finally the review panel would help the child make the decision whether or not to attend the review. He shared his concern that if a child wants to attend, there might be three different entities describing why they shouldn't attend. Number 1571 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt that the board had the ultimate decision making power as contained in the language of CSHB 127(HES). Number 1581 MS. SWENSON said she has not seen this happen. Number 1583 CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that the panel works on the advice of professionals. Number 1597 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move CSHB 127(HES) as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 127(HES) was moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|