Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/22/1996 09:00 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 188 VIDEOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
SENATOR MILLER, co-sponsor of the measure, discussed the thorough
review given to the bill by the Senate HES committee, and the
changes made by that committee. Testimony has been heard on both
sides of the issue on investigating suspected child abuse cases.
The original bill required mandatory videotaping: the HES committee
substitute provides for mandatory audiotaping, and where practical,
the use of videotaping, during interviews. The taped interview
will provide a record for the agency to use when pursuing a case,
and to determine whether a case has merit. Currently the success
rate for prosecutions of child abuse in court is only 30 to 40
percent.
SENATOR ADAMS noted the fiscal note for SB 188 projected a cost of
$4 million and asked if a new fiscal note has been prepared for
CSSB 188(HES).
SENATOR MILLER did not know if the new fiscal notes were completed.
Number 205
DIANE WORLEY, Director of the Division of Family and Youth
Services, addressed the changes made in CSSB 188(HES). DHSS
continues to oppose the bill on the mandatory nature of the
audiotaping, as well as the fact that if an interview cannot be
audiotaped, the investigation must cease (page 2, line 24). That
requirement will present serious problems to field workers because
if equipment fails or is unavailable and the investigation must
stop, the child may be placed in additional danger. DHSS believes
this measure will place an undue burden on those involved in an
investigation, since investigations are often coordinated efforts
between Alaska State Troopers, social workers, and school staff,
and often require travel to remote locations. DHSS is not opposed
to the concept of using audiotapes, and is working toward
increasing the availability of such equipment to staff, as well as
transcription. DHSS also believes videotaping is appropriate in
certain cases and will continue to videotape when available and
appropriate and does not interfere with an ongoing investigation.
SENATOR ADAMS asked Ms. Worley to comment on the changes made in
CSSB 188(HES). MS. WORLEY responded the major change is the
requirement of mandatory audiotaping with the use of videotaping
encouraged when possible, rather than mandatory videotaping.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned how the legislature could be assured that
if a provision was added to allow the department to proceed with an
investigation if no taping was available, the department would
audiotape at least 90 percent of all interviews. He did not
believe the purchase of tape recorders to be a large fiscal
expenditure.
MS. WORLEY admitted the only assurance she could offer is her word,
as this is an area she is committed to. She believed the taping is
only one small aspect of problems with child abuse prosecutions.
New staff need a longer orientation period with training in good
interview techniques. A poor interview on tape is of no more
assistance than a written interview. Her goal is to set up and
implement a comprehensive plan of action to improve the abilities
of social workers, the process, and consistency statewide.
Additionally, the tape storage and transcription procedures need to
be designed. DFYS is moving in that direction at this time.
Number 310
FRANK SMITH, testifying from Barrow as a private citizen, believed
the original bill would have been a nightmare to implement. As a
field worker in Anchorage, he had 42 cases in one month. To carry
equipment around and put it in people's faces would have entailed
considerable logistical problems. He believed audiotaping preserves
the rights of the persons involved in the investigation, and
protects the worker who is sometimes subject to outrageous
allegations by the person interviewed when called to account for
abuse or neglect of children. He agreed with Ms. Worley's comments
and expressed concern about the fiscal note since the Division's
budget is already strained.
Number 344
NAOMI HUDSON, representing Guardians of Family Rights, stated there
are a lot of problems when interviews are not recorded because of
false allegations, interviewers asking leading questions, and
interviewers misinterpreting or fabricating responses. Videotaping
protects the child, parent, and interviewer since no one could deny
what was said, and could be used to determine which cases are
legitimate. Parents need to have control, and social workers need
to work with parents. DFYS has a large caseload; several of the
cases are not as serious as DFYS purports, and taping could save
money. The Alaska State Troopers audiotape all interviews.
Number 388
CARMEN LOWRY testified in opposition to CSSB 188(HES) because of
the mandatory nature of taping. The overall goals of DFYS need to
be prioritized and should stress the needs of the child who is the
alleged abuse victim. Although audiotaping is a useful tool, it is
dangerous to require that all interviews be audiotaped.
CONNIE TRUMBLE, testifying from Bethel, felt the bill has merit but
expressed concern about the requirement to tape an interview within
72 hours of disclosure in remote areas. Weather problems and a
lack of trained staff sometimes prevent an investigation from
proceeding for three weeks. Trained workers are not located in
each village.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Trumble for suggestions.
Number 427
MS. TRUMBLE suggested training more people in rural Alaska, such as
VPSOs and Head Start staff, or other people trained in working with
children, to tape the interview.
MARIAN SHARP, testifying from Bethel, strongly opposed CSSB
188(HES), because an investigation must stop if DFYS does not
follow-up on a report within 72 hours; an unrealistic goal on the
Delta. The local DFYS office receives over 200 calls per week and
will be unable to follow-up on all calls within 72 hours. That
requirement may leave many victims unheard, and many perpetrators
will remain free. The court system is set up to protect the rights
of the accused, and very often revictimizes innocent children.
This should not extend to the investigative process as well.
Attention should be turned to better training for investigators,
not to revictimizing the children. CSSB 188(HES) originated from
a group of people who are not worried about the rights of the
children.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified the 72 hour requirement is in existing law
and should be complied with today. MS. SHARP asked if the
investigation must stop if the interview is not conducted within 72
hours. SENATOR TAYLOR responded no. MS. SHARP stated her
understanding is that CSSB 188(HES) would require the investigation
to stop. SENATOR TAYLOR noted existing law requires a written
report be provided within 72 hours. MS. SHARP believed a phone
report is more likely to occur in that time frame.
Number 464
SENATOR TAYLOR stated he has not seen the department show any
sincere desire over the last 15 years to use technological
equipment to provide a permanent record that could later be
reviewed. In case after case, interviewers destroy their own notes,
after they have typed up what they believe to be the best record of
the interview, and relying on their recollections or notations.
The typed records are then lost, which requires an investigation to
rely on the interviewer's recollection. He noted, as a co-sponsor
of the legislation, he took umbrage at the remark that he is not
concerned about the welfare of children or families, or about the
slipshod manner in which interviews and investigations are being
done. In most instances, these cases are criminal matters, and
investigators do not even begin to follow any of the procedures
used by the most crudely trained law enforcement officer. As a
consequence, 60 percent of the cases are dismissed because the
interviewing process was sloppy, thereby endangering more children.
MS. SHARP responded if the problem is with investigative procedure,
the investigators should be held accountable. There is no reason
to believe that by mandating audiotaping of interviews, the tapes
will not be lost. She questioned what systems are used by police
officers that make their investigations trustworthy, as those
procedures should be applied to social workers. The focus should
be put on those procedures rather than on something that will
require a lot of technical assistance and places more trauma on the
child.
SENATOR TAYLOR repeated he did not believe tape recorders were
complicated or expensive.
Number 500
MEGAN SULLIVAN, representing the Tundra Womens' Coalition in
Bethel, testified in opposition to the mandatory nature of the
audiotaping. In traveling to villages to work with teachers and
health aides on training for reporting child abuse and neglect, a
concern often expressed in those communities is that DFYS does not
arrive in the village within 72 hours of when a report has been
made, which can further endanger a child. DFYS employees have been
trying to work with local village family service workers, through
ICWA and Traditional Councils, so that someone in the village is
available to work with the child. She agreed those workers should
be trained to do the audiotaping, since DFYS currently makes
telephone contact within 72 hours. She expressed concern that
according to AS 47.17 the purpose of DFYS is to protect children,
but if an interview cannot occur within 72 hours, that purpose will
be unfulfilled.
SENATOR TAYLOR referred to page 2, line 27, to explain the existing
72 hour requirement. Once DFYS receives a telephone call regarding
suspected abuse, staff must file a written report of the
investigation within 72 hours, with the Department of Law for
review. DFYS is not required to fly to the village within 72
hours, only to file a written report with the Department of Law.
MS. SULLIVAN asked if there would be a time requirement for when
the interview was audiotaped. SENATOR TAYLOR answered if CSSB
188(HES) passes, the interview can only be conducted if it is tape
recorded. It is hoped DFYS will conduct the interview promptly.
MS. SULLIVAN pointed out DFYS does not travel to rural villages to
investigate every report. She assumed if CSSB 188(HES) passes, it
will be required to which will necessitate additional personnel and
finances.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that if DFYS is not doing so now, it must be
prioritizing cases. CSSB 188(HES) only requires that when those
interviews are conducted, they be audiotaped with a cheap tape
recorder and cassette tape. He repeated the 72 hour requirement
applies to the written report filed with the Department of Law for
review.
WALTER GAUTHIER, testifying from Homer as a member of Guardians for
Family Rights, asserted that a parent accused of child abuse must
face court-appointed special advocates, the guardian ad litem,
assistant attorney generals, case workers, psychologists and
counselors, DFYS staff, and advocates of womens shelters, therefore
the idea that the court system rules favor the accused is a total
fallacy. In 1994, DFYS spent $24 million for foster care, $27
million for residential childcare, and another $20+ million for
another type of foster care. This system is fueled by foster care,
and once an allegation is made, places the child in foster care no
matter what. Meanwhile the family of the child is bankrupted and
emotionally destroyed by the process, while 20 government employees
try to prove that someone is abusive. Over 50 percent of
accusations are found by DFYS to be unsubstantiated, of the
remaining 50 percent, the abuser is accused of vague concepts such
as psychological and emotional abuse. Teenagers use the abuse
accusation to get out of a home where rules and standards of
behavior are imposed. The foster homes merely warehouse children.
His organization does not advocate child abuse in any way, shape,
or form but only 20 percent of DFYS' cases are for actual physical
abuse. The remainder is caseload generation for the abuse industry
to generate government grants.
TAPE 96-27, SIDE B
Number 580
HARRY NIEHAUS, a member of Guardians of Family Rights, believed
interviews should be videotaped just in case problems arise. DFYS'
reputation has been questionable, and its policies have not been
consistent since 1984. Notes are not nearly as accurate as a tape,
and tapes will lead to more convictions of a guilty party, and save
money in the end. Taping will lead to less false allegations and
court time, and will help to protect children from the real
perpetrators.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded his purpose in introducing the legislation
is to make prosecutions more effective. He discussed the analogy
of the use of technology, such as breathalizer tests and
videotapes, which has resulted in a higher rate of conviction for
DWIs, especially the use of videotapes. CSSB 188(HES) encourages
DFYS to use a hammer to obtain good techniques for criminal
investigations. He believes the bill will enhance the state's
ability to convict the bad actors, and will prevent unnecessary
interference in other's lives.
Number 550
JODI DELANEY, testifying from North Pole, stated she originally
contributed to the creation of this bill as it is the one step that
can be taken to cut back the amount of money spent on false
allegations that are so detrimental to a family. Such an
allegation has destroyed her family, and she is still awaiting the
result of a grievance she filed in September of 1994. There has
been no accountability on the part of those who did the
investigation; many are no longer in the same positions. Many
communities are using videorecording for interviews around the
country with success.
SCOTT CALDER, stated he filed a child abuse report on his son's
behalf to the school counselor and received no support from the
school. The son has been locked in a building for seven months and
had drug experiments performed on him and he has been to court 25
times. He agreed with Mr. Gauthier that investigators attack the
family in a feeding frenzy style to perpetuate a system driven by
foster care. He estimated the State of Alaska has spent
approximately $1 million dollars systematically abusing his son.
In response to Director Worley's comment that DFYS cannot change
overnight, Mr. Calder noted DFYS destroys families overnight. He
believes the needs of DFYS are only of concern in how it serves the
needs of the people of Alaska. He felt the 72 hour requirement to
be reasonable.
Number 469
CAM CARLSON testified in strong support of SB 188. She cautioned
that current trends and legislation are interpreted to mean every
child with a scratch or bruise needs to be reported by teachers as
suspected child abuse victims. A previous Interior director of
DFYS stated, when interviewed, that children should have freedom of
movement to go wherever they please after age 8. Taping interviews
will protect children and the family unit.
DICK NEELEY testified from Fairbanks on his personal experience
when Alaska State Troopers interviewed his children as suspected
child abuse victims. The children were interrogated by the Alaska
State Troopers until they were brainwashed and the tape recorder
was turned off repeatedly. No charges were ever filed against him.
NICK TARGANSKI testified from Kenai in support of SB 188. He has
had problems with DFYS divisions in Kenai and Anchorage losing
paperwork. He does not believe budget constraints are the cause of
DFYS' problems.
Number 390
LAURIE HUGONIN, Executive Director of the Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, discussed the need to monitor
interviewers, but the more important need to listen to children and
take necessary steps to ensure their safety. Previous testimony
was case specific and focussed on agency accountability for harming
adults, rather than the best interests of children. There are
instances where the system fails families, but instances exist
where children were failed. Taping will not solve interviewing
problems, particularly if investigations will not be conducted if
equipment is not available. She questioned who will have access to
the tapes if the allegations are unfounded, and noted that some
children are not verbal. She suggested intensive training and
adequate financial resources be provided to improve overall case
management. Regarding accountability of interviewers, the training
requirements and qualifications of investigators need to be
reviewed. She commented on interviewing problems specific to
children.
ANGELA SALERNO, representing the National Association of Social
Workers, testified in opposition of the measure and recommended
better training of investigators and that professionals be hired.
STEVE GRUENSTEIN, representing Guardians for Family Rights, stated
interviewers interrogate and question children to elicit certain
responses. He read excerpts from the Alaskan Senate Family Review
Task Force Report (July 1990-1991) to demonstrate that a system of
checks and balances needs to be imposed on DFYS. He supported
video and/or audiotaping as it can be especially useful in custody
cases.
SENATOR ADAMS informed committee members according to Dean Guaneli,
the Department of Law has taken a neutral position on SB 188. He
stated he would object to a motion to pass the bill from committee
because the public defenders in his district oppose this bill.
SB 188 VIDEOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
SENATOR MILLER moved CSSB 188(HES) from committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ADAMS objected. The motion carried with
Senators Taylor, Green, and Miller voting "yea," and Senator Adams
voting "nay."
SENATOR TAYLOR noted there is still an opportunity in the next
committee of referral to provide for some variance to incorporate
some extenuating circumstances so that if, in fact, equipment was
not available, and reasonable efforts had been made to acquire that
equipment, an interview could still go forward, but any subsequent
interviews would have to be audiotaped.
SENATOR MILLER felt making an accommodation for equipment
breakdowns to be a worthwhile goal, and agreed that subsequent
interviews would have to be recorded.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated his intent is to continue to work on the
legislation in the Finance Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|