Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/23/2000 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 409 - GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS REGARDING CINA Number 0209 CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as Sponsor Substitute for House Bill No. 409, "An Act prescribing the rights of grandparents related to hearings on petitions to adjudicate a minor as a child in need of aid and to the testimony of grandparents at those hearings; and amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 17(e), and 19, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules." PETER TORKELSON, Staff to Representative Fred Dyson, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present the sponsor statement for HB 409. House Bill 409 is drafted with the intent to give grandparents more access to the Child in Need of Aid (CINA) hearing process. He explained that in case of an emergency hearing for a child, the Department of Health and Social Services would not be required to notify the grandparents because of the 48-hour requirement; it wouldn't be appropriate to force the department to find all these people in 48 hours, which would delay the hearing. After that initial emergency hearing, the department would then notify each grandparent of the status of the child. After that first notice, the department would only be required to notify grandparents who expressed interest in the case and asked to be kept abreast of the proceedings. If the grandparents are interested and involved in the child's life, then they should be kept in the loop. Otherwise, the department shouldn't be required to keep notifying persons who may not be interested. Number 0384 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 409, version 1-LS1458\G, Lauterbach, 2/16/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version G was before the committee. CHAIRMAN DYSON explained that Version G took out a portion that was superfluous and expensive, which the Alaska Court System had pointed out. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about the fiscal note. MR. TORKELSON explained that the costs reflected in the fiscal note that were saved with the new CS would have been some initial up-front costs with drafting new court rules. The original sponsor substitute required the court to give preference to the parents' testimony over the grandparents' testimony unless a specific finding was made for some reason that the grandparents' testimony should be considered at a higher level. There are cases where grandparents could use their rights as leverage against a long-standing dispute with a son- or daughter-in-law, for example, and that shouldn't affect a child in a negative way. The court already gives precedence to the parents' testimony, and this would get into some sticky issues. The proposed CS removes that direct court rule change. Number 0520 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said a $100,000 fiscal note seems somewhat out of line for what he sees this bill doing. CHAIRMAN DYSON said the court system can explain the costs, but he believes it has to do with the efforts necessary to locate and notify the grandparents. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there are any problems identifying grandparents when people are living together and have a child but are not married. MR. TORKELSON answered that the department would be more qualified to answer how grandparents are defined. Number 0646 JANNA STEWART, Administrator, Central Office, Family Services, Division of Family & Youth Services (DFYS), Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), came forward to testify. She stated that the division supports the involvement of grandparents in child in need of aid (CINA) cases. The division already engages in extensive searches for relatives in every case where there is a risk of a child being taken into custody, because it needs to determine whether or not the relatives are available for placement or available as general resources for these children and families. In the absence of any indication in the division records that grandparents are not suitable for placement or other resources, the division contacts them regularly. There is extensive documentation that is a part of every case record. MS. STEWART said the division has recently heard from social workers and field staff around the state who are feeling increasingly overwhelmed by paperwork and documentation tasks which do not meaningfully add to the protection of children. It is critical to be sensitive to balance the goals of the child protection system and the realities of how this work gets done. This bill has the potential to increase paperwork without meaningfully increasing the services to and protection for children. MS. STEWART noted that the fact is that grandparents are significantly different from the other persons who are currently listed in AS 47.10.030(b) - the child, the parents, the tribe, foster parents or other out-of-home care providers, guardians, and guardians ad litem. The reality is that foster parents and out-of-home care providers are known to - and usually licensed by - the division. The guardians and guardians ad litem can easily be identified because they are appointed through a court process. Tribes can be contacted through tribal directories and ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act] workers. MS. STEWART indicated that the reality is grandparents cannot always be identified or located. Frankly, the division cannot always find and locate parents. When parents can be found, frequently they are not willing to provide names of their own parents. The realities of multi-generational abuse is significant; many of these parents are estranged from their own parents. It is not uncommon for the parents of the children taken into custody now to have had their own parents' rights terminated in previous court actions. Multi-generational divorces cause people to lose track or, in many cases, not even know who their own parents are. Frequently, children are born of temporary unions where the parents who raise them are completely unaware of the lineage of the absent parent. MS. STEWART said it is not uncommon for the department to go through a series of legal procedures just to identify a father, and has had to do termination of parental rights on numerous fathers until the right one was found. All of these factors complicate the division's ability to identify - much less locate - the grandparents. This increases, in some cases dramatically, the number of notices that will be required. In a typical blended family - his child, her child and their child - there are eight grandparents. Number 0897 MS. STEWART referred to a chart in the handout that showed how many grandparents the division would have to locate as a result of HB 409 using the estimate of 600 CINA petitions, which totals 2700 grandparents every year: Petitions filed per year estimated at 600 450 of those petitions include one child or siblings with the same parents 450 x 4 = 1800 150 of those petitions name at least 2 siblings who share only one parent child A 150 x 4 = 600 child B 150 x 2 = 300 Total grandparents 2700 MS. STEWART reported that the division has done estimates on locating those grandparents. She shared some sample genograms from real families in the DFYS, which are complicated family structures. If the division can locate two-thirds of those grandparents relatively easily, that equals a little over 2,000 grandparents that can be identified and located, but the division still has to provide notice to them. The notice requires time, paperwork, postage and phone calls. Approximately 350 of those grandparents are going to take some moderate search efforts, estimated at three hours each, which is a little over 1,000 hours of time to look for another set of grandparents. MS. STEWART said there is a significant number of grandparents that the division would have to do extensive search efforts which is estimated to take eight hours to track them down. There are situations where the best information gotten from the family is "I think his dad is in California." MS. STEWART pointed out there are some significant concerns with the definition of grandparent. "Parent" is defined in AS 47.10.990(19) as "the biological or adoptive parent of the child." If that definition is applied to grandparent, it isn't known what effect the termination of parental rights will have. Do terminations of parental rights (with or without retention of rights of inheritance), cultural adoptions, incest, or paternity disputes affect grandparent status? It sounds simple until the realities of the families served is looked at. MS. STEWART noted that the division suggests that the law of diminishing returns is at work here. The harder to identify and locate a grandparent, the more likely it is that the grandparent has had no meaningful contact with the child or the grandchildren and the less likely it is that that grandparent is going to be a be a placement option for that grandchild. There are innocent grandparents who are estranged from their children and would love to have contact with and be a meaningful resource in the family. The problem is the cost of trying to assess which grandparents should be located and which are better left alone. Number 1098 MS. STEWART indicated that the division would like to propose a number of amendments to the bill. Those amendments were distributed to the committee members. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked who now does the notification of the people listed. MS. STEWART answered that the division does the work of identifying who has to be notified, and the notice itself is prepared and distributed by the Department of Law. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked who in DFYS does the work to notify the people listed. Number 1168 GLADYS LANGDON, Children's Service Manager, Southcentral Region, Central Office, Family Services, Division of Family & Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services, came forward to answer questions. She explained when DFYS first gets a case, the first notice usually is made by the intake social worker. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what is wrong with allowing the case file and that social worker to be available to interested grandparents with the parents' consent. MS. LANGDON noted there is no problem with that; that is already being done. Number 1231 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if a grandparent can call the intake social worker and talk openly about the case. MS. LANGDON replied unless the parent has given permission, the grandparent is not a party to the case. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the grandparent was obligated to look for the division or would the division look for the grandparent. MS. LANDGON answered currently, the division will initially look for the grandparent to try to find placement. Number 1422 BETTY SHORT, President, Grandparent's Rights Organization, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She stated that the Grandparent Rights Organization is very pleased with HB 409. The bill allows the grandparents to have the opportunity to be involved in the hearings held by the state in cases involving their grandchildren. This is a very important procedure for the courts and DFYS to be able to properly establish what is in the best interest of the child. Of utmost concern is how the initial contact with the grandparents will be established. What steps will be made to ensure that the state follows these statutes? As things stand now, the DFYS does not often follow the statutes that currently exist. The DFYS needs to be held accountable for its actions. MS. SHORT noted it appears that DFYS is looking more at the money side of it rather than what is in the best interest of the child. She knows of people who have gone to DFYS and asked to be notified, and they were told that you are not a party to the case and have no rights, and the grandchildren are put in foster care. She believes that grandparents are a solid part of the grandchildren's lives and being shut out it is not doing the children any good. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if this was consistent across the state. MS. SHORT replied she has gotten over 100 phone calls from across the state and people are glad something is going to be done about the situation. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Short if she had any thoughts on the DFYS testimony about how hard it is to find grandparents. Number 1562 MS. SHORT suggested a newspaper advertisement could be run for a certain length of time seeking certain grandparents. She also suggested phone calls and possibly a state or national registry where a grandparent could register with DFYS to be notified if there is any problem. CHAIRMAN DYSON noted he doesn't want to put a monstrous burden on the department, and he can see where it could be in the exceptional cases. He asked Ms. Short and her group to brainstorm how this could be limited to Alaska's DFYS being responsible for locating and notifying grandparents that live in Alaska. He encouraged her to network with some of the national organizations and see if anyone has figured out a better way to do this. MS. SHORT agreed to look into that. Number 1657 MARY LOU FOSTER, Vice-President, Grandparent's Rights Organization (GRO), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She explained GRO is also a national organization that started about ten years ago. She has nine grandchildren and has been a foster parent for her own three grandchildren. She agreed that the department paperwork takes time away from the children. She wondered if it were better for the children to be raised by their grandparents first and then foster parents. The cost would certainly offset the cost of the paperwork. She noted that grandparents are being denied by the DFYS to have the grandchildren. She feels the rights are blood regardless of whether the parent is married. She indicated that more than half of the grandparents are willing to take over and raise the grandchildren even on their fixed incomes. Number 1766 MARCI SCHMIDT testified via teleconference from the Matanuska- Susitna Legislative Information Office in support of HB 409. She commented it is a shame to have to put into law what should be common sense. Grandparents are coming forward when they find out that their grandchildren are in foster care, and they are denied access or even the right to take in these children. There are relatives out there willing to take in the children so they don't have to go into foster care. The cost would be better served if relatives were eligible to take care of the children rather than turn them away. She urged the committee not to let this bill get lost in the system and not be implemented. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Schmidt how she would see solving a problem if one exists between the grandparents and the parents. MS. SCHMIDT said it is probably a 50-50 thing. She knew of one grandparent who sat in DFYS for five hours after her daughter called her to get her children, and the grandparent was told to go home, it wasn't her concern. She said it comes down to the state balking to place the child with the relatives. CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated HB 409 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|