Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
03/14/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB97 | |
| HB50 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 50 - CHILD PLACEMENT COMPACT 2:21:49 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 50, "An Act relating to the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children; establishing an interstate commission for the placement of children; amending Rules 4 and 24, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 50(HES).] REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 50, related that the bill addresses the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) that was originally formulated in [1960]. The compact language and rules adopted by the interstate commission for the placement of children relinquish state's rights and supersede state law. He opined that Alaska has been instrumental in improving the compact and bringing it into the 21st century. He related that some of the changes surround issues pertaining to home visits and grandparents. He characterized HB 50 as a good bill. 2:26:02 PM RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Coghill, one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 50, opined that Alaska has gained a good reputation in working with other states in the placement of children. She stated that Representative Coghill has been interested in the issues surrounding the placement of children in part due to discussions held with former Judge Niesje J. Steinkruger who described the difficulty in placing children with a parent residing in another state. MS. MOSS explained that under HB 50, the state would not be involved in home studies and other bureaucratic "red tape" when placing a child with a parent if the child is not in state custody. It also removes the applicability of the compact in instances in which the child is placed in residential treatment in the Lower 48 by his/her parents. Ms. Moss noted that HB 50 would change the background checks necessary for placing children with relatives from a thorough background investigation and home study to requiring only an assessment, which will eliminate unnecessary delays in placing the child. 2:28:11 PM MARCIA PICKERING, Deputy Compact Administrator, Office of Children's Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), relayed that for the last four years she has served on the executive committee for the National Association of ICPC Administrators. She offered that during the past year she has been heavily involved in rewriting the new compact. She noted that the ICPC was written in 1959 and adopted by New York in 1960, but did not go into effect until 15 years later, with Alaska joining in 1976. MS. PICKERING stated that the concept behind the new compact is to provide uniformity in the process and accountability. She opined that the old ICPC did not have any accountability or enforcement of reciprocity to ensure that each state is not charged by another state for the services provided. The changes in the ICPC will lessen the time it takes to place a child, while still ensuring that the home is safe for the child. She highlighted that the ICPC has been endorsed by executive committees of the National Council of Human Services, Public Child Welfare Administrators, the executive committee of the ICPC, and the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. MS. PICKERING continued that the new ICPC provides for administrative rule-making enforcement; penalties for the "sending state" for an illegal placement, but not for initiating activity in the "receiving state"; for supervision services; for guidelines for tribal governments that will include tribal government participation in the development of those guidelines; and will create an option for purchasing services such as home studies and supervision from private agencies not previously accepted by states. MS. PICKERING said that two types of home studies will be authorized, a "home study" and an "assessment." She noted that the assessment will be an abbreviated version, and this will help to provide placement. Although a relative would still be required to submit to a home study, the initial placement could happen much more quickly. The new ICPC would allow for provisional approvals and will allow selection of either the "sending" or "receiving" state's law; with regard to the U.S. Armed Services, this will make that a much smoother transition when determining which jurisdiction has precedence. She offered that the new ICPC will require a state advisory committee. MS. PICKERING stated that the executive branch, judiciary branch, and the legislative branch will oversee and advise the agency that will carry out the compact. This bill deletes applicability to private-parent placements, to avoid private family business, and would exempt the compact in instances of private family placements with relatives and non-relatives when it will not result in an adoption. She related an example of a mother who sends a child to live with her friend while she attends school; HB 50 will make it clear that the decision to send the child to live with the friend is solely the mother's decision. [Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.] 2:35:03 PM MS. PICKERING, in response to Vice Chair Dahlstrom, answered that this new compact would apply to members of the armed forces. She added that applicability with regard to foreign adoptions has been deleted because the federal government is regulating activities through the visa process and adoption agencies must facilitate the adoption. Thus, the necessity for the states to be involved is eliminated. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 28, lines 1-6, , which gives the Interstate Commission on the Placement of Children the right to intervene in a judicial proceeding pertaining to the ICPC, and asked whether this is permissive intervention or mandatory intervention. 2:37:51 PM JAN RUTHERDALE, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Child Protection Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), stated that the bill does not say, but her assumption is that it is a permissive intervention. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the language on page 28, line 2, ought to clarify that the court rule being amended is Rule 24(b) of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to be clear that Rule 24(a) is not being amended. MS. PICKERING said that the intent is to allow the ICPC, if invited, to testify to the rules, regulations, and any mediation in a case that necessitated court intervention. She pointed out that if a lawsuit occurs between two states, it will be in federal court, and the ICPC may petition to be a party. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to the term, "entitled" which he opined would provide the DOL the right to have a standing in the matter. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 22, lines 19-25, paragraph, which read: (4) The Interstate Commission shall be entitled to receive service of process in any action in which the validity of a compact provision or rule is the issue for which a judicial determination has been sought and shall have standing to intervene in any proceedings. Failure to provide service of process to the Interstate Commission shall render any judgment, order or other determination, however so captioned or classified, void as to the Interstate Commission, this compact, its bylaws or rules of the Interstate Commission. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that this paragraph provides for the ICPC to receive notice, which he stressed is a different issue than focusing on what action the ICPC will take once it receives the notice. The purpose of this paragraph, he opined, is to provide the commission notice so that it could file a motion to intervene if it so desires. Representative Gruenberg again asked whether the ICPC has a right to intervene and, if so, if it is permissive or mandatory, particularly given that the aforementioned Rule 24 covers both. He opined that the ICPC should have the right to intervene, but that it should only be permissive with the court. MS. RUTHERDALE agreed. 2:41:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, to insert "(b)" on page 28, line 2, after "Rule 24". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that his intent to allow the state to challenge the validity of the placement under the compact. He indicated that he would be amenable to Conceptual Amendment 1 as long as it results in an accurate reference. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 1. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the aforementioned language on page 22, lines 19-25, is typical such that when the validity of a compact provision or rule is challenged, that the commission shall be given the right of process. MS. PICKERING answered that the drafters consulted with a couple of national organizations that specialize in compacts and determined that this language is uniform. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a letter in members' packets from the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys dated January 14, 2008. He opined that this group is the premier group of adoption attorneys in the country. MS. PICKERING, in response to Representative Gruenberg, answered that the estimated three months to a year to complete home studies and to arrive at placement decisions will be cut dramatically under HB 50. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that from a child's point of view and sense of time, that reduced time represents a tremendous savings. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 50. 2:46:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 50(HES), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 50(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|