Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/03/2002 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 295 - LICENSING:DISCLOSURE OF MINORS' RECORDS Number 0366 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 295, "An Act relating to the disclosure of information regarding delinquent minors to certain licensing agencies; and providing for an effective date." Number 0393 GWENDOLYN HALL, Staff to Senator Pete Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, said on behalf of Senator Kelly, sponsor, that SB 295 was introduced to help ensure that individuals in child care facilities and adult care facilities receive quality care. She elaborated: Currently, both state and federal laws require all child and adult care licensing authorities to review criminal histories of every individual age 16 and older who is either seeking a care license, employment with a care provider, or residing in the home of a care provider seeking licensure. However, ... for those age 16 and younger, that information is inaccessible. MS. HALL said that SB 295 will allow licensing agencies to obtain, from the [Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)], information on people age 16 and younger who are living in the home of care providers seeking licensure; for example, an individual who is seeking licensure for an in-home daycare facility may have a 13-year old child who is a convicted child molester. Currently, licensing agencies do not have access to that information, but passage of SB 295 would allow licensing agencies in Alaska, as well as those from other jurisdictions, access to that information. Number 0571 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative & Administrative Liaison, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), said that the DJJ and the DHSS support SB 295, and noted that Senator Kelly is actually sponsoring this legislation on their behalf. He said that SB 295 plugs a hole in a statute that currently does not give the DJJ explicit authority in all cases to provide this information to licensing agencies; the language in this bill would take care of that problem to the betterment of those who provide care services to seniors and children. MR. BUTTCANE, in response to a question regarding what kind of information would be disclosed, pointed out that SB 295 says "appropriate information". He surmised that the DHSS would develop regulations and policies that would provide guidance as to what "appropriate information" would actually entail. He said, "In general, what we would want to do is to make sure that the licensing agency had the information that they needed to make appropriate licensing decisions." While in general that would be delinquency adjudication information, in other case- specific situations, they may also simply need the referral information. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, noting that he is concerned about whether just conviction information would be released or whether "charging" information would also be released, asked what the regulations delineating "appropriate information" might look like. MR. BUTTCANE said: Without knowing what the end product of something that we haven't started work on will look like, in a delinquency system, the conventional terms of "charges" [and] "convictions" ... don't really apply; they're not consistent with delinquency language, which relates to referrals or adjudications [and] adjusted offenses versus adjudicated offenses. That's why the bill was crafted in the way that it was, where it's "appropriate information". So as we work with licensing agencies to make sure that they get what it is that they need, ... we still preserve some level of protection to juveniles who have had offenses that were adjusted appropriately, so that they don't forever bear the consequences of adolescent decisions. Number 0755 It's a fine line to walk, but I think that the statute that we propose here would do that. Certainly, any type of referral for a sexual offense is probably one of those, even though it might be adjusted through a series of diversion activities, [that] would probably be appropriate for a licensing agency to know. A shoplift of a candy bar probably is unnecessary if that has been adjusted. That's why this language "appropriate" give us some latitude to help craft exactly what it is that a licensing agency needs in order to make an appropriate decision. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether there has "been discussion of any protocol for a system." MR. BUTTCANE said: That issue has not come up in [the] committee hearings that we have had [for] this bill; ... those questions were really not discussed as part of the committee. But as we have worked with the Department of Education [and Early Development], for instance, who is responsible for child care licensing, we did address some of those issues, and they have a need to know whether or not the kid has had any violent offenses, physical assault offenses, [or] certainly sexual offenses. And those are probably the type of offenses that will be listed [for] the information [to be] provided to a licensing agency. Certainly felonies, even though they may be felony property offenses. While, again, we haven't specifically figured out how we're going to define this, in all probability, anything that has been adjudicated delinquent, of any nature, will probably be made available to the licensing agencies. And then those offenses that relate to personal injury or suggest the possibility of a physical assault or some kind of physical interaction would probably also be on that list even though those offenses might be adjusted, that is "not convicted," but handled through an informal community diversion process. A fight at the school is an assault in the fourth degree - a [class] A misdemeanor; we might adjust that out with an anger management class, an apology letter, some community work service, but that is the type of offense that might be appropriate for a licensing agency to know. Number 0922 MR. BUTTCANE added: Again, certainly any of the sexual offenses. A sexual abuse of a minor in the fourth degree is [a class] A misdemeanor, and while most of those are actually petitioned into court, some of those are not; they don't rise to the level, given all of the case circumstances, to warrant formal action in court. The matter can be resolved through a diversion process involving some counseling [and] separation of the offender from the victim. And assessments don't always show that the offender in those cases is predatory, so we don't necessarily have to commit the resources of the state to do a formal adjudication. But, because of the nature of the offense, it's probably one of those offenses, for instance, [that] the Department of Education [and Early Development] should know about so that they do not license a daycare center or a daycare program in somebody's home when an adolescent resides in the home who has a history of inappropriate sexual behavior. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recalled that in his youth, many times after basketball games, they had to "settle the score outside the gym." He mentioned that sometimes accusations can create damaging records. He added, "I don't want to just be mounting a history against children who are going through a normal course of life." MR. BUTTCANE said: You are absolutely correct in that, and that is part of what we do in the juvenile justice system, which gives it one of the different characters from the adult criminal system. There is an element of subjective assessment as to whether or not the juvenile needs to be processed through the formal court system where a formal delinquency record is documented, or whether we can work with that young offender and their family and resolve the matter without creating a formal public record or an official record that basically follows them into adulthood. It's as much art as it is science. In the scenario that you used, ... that is the type of assault that probably would not be transmitted to a licensing agency, because, absent any other indicator, it would not suggest that that person poses a risk to other people - it was a situational response. If there's a lot of history of acting out, a lot of other assault referrals, [and] a lot of criminal referrals, then we're dealing with a situation that probably they do need to know about in some cases. So that's the subjective work that we do in the juvenile justice system; it's hard to delineate those specifically in statute as to where ... you draw the line. Number 1089 MR. BUTTCANE concluded: At some point you have to look the kid in the eye, listen to what the parent has to say, and then make your best judgment. While we don't do that [and] get it a 100 percent right, ... I believe that our staff is pretty well practiced at making those distinctions between young offenders who are truly criminal and those who are stupid and need some help growing up. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he would like to see some degree of distinction between egregious behavior and behavior that children just "get into." CHAIR ROKEBERG closed the public hearing on SB 295. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report SB 295 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, SB 295 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|