Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/24/2022 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB297 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 297-MILITARY MEMBER CHILD PROTECT; ADOPTION
1:07:04 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 297, "An Act relating to the duties of the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to child
protection; and relating to children of active-duty military
members."
1:07:21 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:07 p.m.
1:07:39 PM
CHAIR TUCK said he closed public testimony at the last hearing
on HB 297 and ascertained during the at-ease that there was no
one waiting to testify; therefore, he would not be reopening
public testimony. He invited amendments from the committee.
1:08:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 297,
labeled 32-LS1249\A.1, Foote, 2/23/22, which read as follows,
Page 1, line 13, following "shall":
Insert ",within 15 days of receiving the report
of harm,"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained that Amendment 1 is a response to
discussion during the previous hearing of HB 297 [on 2/22/22]
when it was brought up that it would be good to add a
notification time limit to HB 297. She said that both the bill
sponsor and OCS are comfortable with the number of days
prescribed in the amendment.
1:10:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection.
1:10:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
He asked Representative Story if she would be comfortable with
changing the language "report of harm" to "OCS opening
investigation". He said his concern is having a report be filed
and subsequently found to have been wrongly put forward, but
nevertheless ending up on the soldier's record.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY responded that Amendment 1 just adds a time
frame into the bill, and that the question might be better
suited for the bill sponsor.
1:11:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she would not make such a change. She
talked about the number of reports and the challenges in
substantiating them. She emphasized the increased likelihood of
positive outcomes with earlier intervention.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON reiterated his concern about reports found
later to be false becoming a mar on a military person's record
and added that that can be a "career killer."
1:15:16 PM
TRAVIS ERICKSON, Deputy Director, Office of Children's Services,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) observed that
the point in time when information would be shared and how it is
described is fairly vague in the bill. He said it is important
to specify whether or not a military referral would occur. He
explained that 50 percent of reports made to OCS are "screened
in" and 50 percent is "screened out"; therefore, if the decision
is made to refer only families who had an investigation opened
on them, the statistics suggest that only half of the reports
made would then be followed up with Family Advocacy. He said
the reason for a case getting screened out is due to duplicate
referrals, or that a concern was investigated and did not reach
the level of child maltreatment. He clarified that screened out
reports do not go anywhere, so if there was going to be early
military intervention via Family Advocacy, the family would not
have that information for about 50 percent of those cases
because they were screened out.
1:17:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her understanding of the amendment.
1:18:14 PM
TANIA CLUCAS, Staff, Representative Grier Hopkins, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hopkins, prime sponsor
of HB 296, shared that she spoke with social workers that work
on military bases on whether a timeframe would be a useful tool.
She relayed one worker's comment that most reports relate to
child behavioral health issues rather than base situations, and
that receiving a notification would help provide behavioral
services assistance. She said the family would not be adversely
impacted since there would be no "finding of abuse" via an OCS
investigation.
1:19:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said he is supportive of the bill and
reiterated his concern about career killer situations resulting
from reports made that are later found unsubstantiated.
1:20:14 PM
CHAIR TUCK pointed to page 4 of a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) [included in the committee packet] between the Fairbanks
NorthStar Borough (FNSB) and Fort Wainwright, which he read, "A
credible report is information that appears to be reliable and
factual, or an observation that appears to be accurate, either
of which supports a tentative conclusion that child abuse
occurred or that further investigation is warranted." He said
the goal of HB 297 is getting services early and awareness. He
stated that he shares the same concern as Representative Nelson,
in that there needs to be caution with soldier's records. He
asked Mr. Erickson whether the MOUs provided in the committee
packet are from the military bases reporting to OCS more so than
OCS reporting to the military installations. He read the first
sentence of Section 2 of the bill, which read as follows:
If a report of harm concerns a child of a member of
the armed forces of the United States who is on active
duty, the department shall notify a designated
authority at the duty station where the member is
assigned that the department has received a report of
harm concerning the child.
CHAIR TUCK offered his understanding that HB 297 would not give
the state the ability to eliminate an MOU. He asked Mr.
Erickson to clarify how OCS uses an MOU and whether the office
reports to a military installation occurrences of child abuse
within a military family that lives off base.
MR. ERICKSON responded that once OCS becomes aware that there is
a family involved in a case, it alerts the Family Advocacy
program. As to whether that notification was known to the
worker at the time, he said he is unsure. He explained that HB
297 would bring consistent expectations statewide, and pointed
out that the MOUs in place are individually developed yet
somewhat dated. He said that OCS would still need to set up
MOUs on a local basis regardless.
1:25:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted Representative Nelson's previously
expressed concern and observed that the language in the bill is
not the language of the amendment because the amendment proposes
only a timeframe for providing notice. He pinpointed from the
previously read language in Section 2 the words: "the
department shall notify a designated authority at the duty
station". He asked how that is addressed in a scenario where
the investigation determines there is not enough evidence to go
forward. He said he does not believe the committee will get a
definitive answer on how the military deals with a report of
harm.
1:28:20 PM
MR. ERICKSON said he considers himself a child advocate, and
that after screening thousands of reported cases, there was
concerning information relating to the child that remains locked
in a government system, thus that information could not be used
to help the family. He said he hopes there is a way to get such
information about children and families in need prior to
escalation to a maltreatment situation, and further, that the
action would not be a career killer. He said the conversation
touches on society's response to child maltreatment and what
goes on in the privacy of home, as well as consideration on how
those who are going through a hard time are treated. He stated
that screened out reports are not getting any attention, and
that there may be families that can benefit from resources.
1:30:13 PM
CHAIR TUCK informed members that Ms. Perreault is present for
questions.
1:30:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON restated his concern for the benefit of
Ms. Perrault and asked her to walk the committee through the
process that follows a report of harm.
1:31:44 PM
TAMMIE PERRAULT, Northwest Region Liaison, Defense-State Liaison
Office, U.S. Department of Defense, relayed that the Family
Advocacy program manager at Fort Wainwright stated that there
are two ways the program is most commonly engaged in response.
One is when it is an emergent case of child abuse and neglect
typically notified via the emergency room or by law enforcement.
She explained that it is not the role of Family Advocacy to be
engaged with providing a report to the chain of command; if
there is information that would be enough to open an
investigation, law enforcement would be the one that provides it
to the chain of command. She explained that if there is a
potential case that has been notified off the military
installation, Family Advocacy would get involved. She said the
second scenario is when there is a notification of potential
child abuse or neglect that has occurred in the past. In this
scenario, OCS and the Family Advocacy office work together to
determine what needs to happen before chain of command and law
enforcement involvement. She stated that DoD has a
responsibility that goes beyond just protecting its soldiers, it
must also protect the family of military members. In response
to a question from Representative Nelson, she clarified that
[under the second scenario] when an investigation is deemed
necessary, [OCS and Family Services] would notify the military
chain of command, and that involves law enforcement. In
response to a follow-up question, she explained that nothing is
put into a soldier's file until an investigation is concluded;
the only thing that would be harmful to the soldier would be
what the investigation found. She said there are scenarios
where the investigation may not find anything, but the stressor
or indication that something happened due to an investigation
can impact the morale of how a soldier may respond.
1:39:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW suggested that the answer to the previous
line of questioning would be "innocent until proven guilty" and
without that, the allegation would not go on the soldier's
record. He explained that, according to an MOU, the supplier is
required to notify OCS if they have reason to believe [that
there was child abuse], and the receiver is required to share
information pertaining to the alleged abuse. He offered his
understanding that the report would not go on the military
member's report until that person was proven guilty.
1:40:16 PM
CHAIR TUCK stated that the various MOUs are pretty good, and
that he is unsure what HB 297 would do to make things better
than what the MOUs already provide. He said the state has no
authority to mandate that the DoD reports to OCS. He pointed to
the DoD MOU with FNSB and read, "The State of Alaska, through
the State Department of Health and Social services ... is
responsible for the protection of abused children within the
Fourth Judicial District." Further, "The commanding officer, by
virtue if his inherent authority as commander, and through the
specific authority granted to him under the Army Spouse and
Child Abuse program ... is responsible for protection of those
abused children of military families." He read, "The commanding
officer's authority to provide protection for children of
military families is limited, however, by the lack of federal
judicial framework." He said that DoD relies on the judicial
framework of the FNSB in order to further adjudicate. He said,
"For Wainwright, therefore, relies upon the State of Alaska,
which has concurrent jurisdiction on the installation to
exercise its authority where necessary, in cases of abused
children of military families." He stated that he likes the
collaborative nature of the MOU, in that it is a two-part
conversation: If OCS needs to go on to a base to respond to a
report of on-base abuse, DoD assists in OCS going into the base;
if abuse is reported to have happened off base, OCS notifies the
military installation. He stated that his concerns are
addressed in the MOUs and he does not want to pass the bill if
that were to make the MOUs no longer necessary. He further
stated that the bill does not replace any MOU that needs to be
in place, rather, it is the state doing its part in reporting to
DoD.
1:43:41 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:43 p.m.
1:44:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
1:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
1:44:21 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced there being no further objection, Amendment
1 was adopted.
1:44:42 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:44 p.m.
1:44:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to report HB 297, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note.
1:45:14 PM
CHAIR TUCK objected to the motion to make a statement. He said
the MOUs do not address the report that goes to the active guard
reserve members, and he noted that the bill addresses that. He
then withdrew his objection.
1:45:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that the military should not have
its limitation to the FNSB because there could be reports of
abuse that relate to soldiers that don't live in FNSB.
1:47:15 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced there being no further objection, CSHB
297(MLV) was reported out of the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 297 Additional Materials DOD Instruction Family Advocacy Program 02.22.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/24/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 Memorandum of Agreement Between JBER and OCS 2.22.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/24/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 Additional Materials NCTSN Child Maltreatment in Military Famlies Fact Sheet for Providers 02.22.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/24/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 Memorandum of Agreement Between US Army Alaska and OCS 02.22.2022.PDF |
HMLV 2/24/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 Amendment 1 02.23.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/24/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |