Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/30/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB15 | |
| SB101 | |
| SB82 | |
| SB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 86 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 15 | ||
| = | SB 101 | ||
SB 82-FOSTER CARE LICENSING/STATE CUSTODY
1:42:16 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 82
1:42:42 PM
CELESTE HODGE, staff to Senator Bettye Davis, sponsor of SB 82,
said the bill modifies various provisions of Title 47,
prioritizing the needs of children in state custody. This
legislation seeks to achieve permanency for older children in
foster care. Permanency for children in the custody of the
Office of Children's Services (OCS) is best achieved through
reunification with the child's parent, or failing that option,
through adoption or guardianship. If these three options are not
available, another is through Another Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA). This bill seeks to ensure that APPLA is not
chosen unnecessarily, by providing guidelines to OCS and the
court as to when APPLA should be used.
The bill also creates a statutory presumption that siblings are
placed in the same home when possible. When this is not
possible, an OCS employee must document the steps taken in
trying to do so.
When OCS files a motion to release a child from state custody
before the custody order expires, this bill requires OCS and the
court to take extra steps to insure that the child and guardian
ad litem have ample notice of the motion and that the release is
in the child's best interest.
If a potential foster home cannot meet the building code
requirements to be a licensed foster care home, this bill allows
a variance as long as the home is consistent with construction
of other homes in the community and is otherwise a safe
environment for the child.
This bill also requires that paperwork for foster parent
licensing be streamlined as much as possible. The bill also
includes changes to the statute providing for retention of
jurisdiction by a court to make it consistent with 2010
legislation to extend departmental custody or supervision to age
21.
She noted that SB 82 carries a zero fiscal note.
1:45:20 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had a sectional analysis.
MS. HODGE replied that she had a summary, but someone from the
Department of Law was available to answer any questions.
1:46:12 PM
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), said Section 2, page 2, ensures that
when the court is present at a permanency hearing and it finds
that APPLA is the permanent plan, the court actually finds there
is a compelling reason for the plan.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if APPLA is emancipation.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied it could lead to emancipation. It
basically says that the child will remain in foster care until
released from custody. A child could ask to be emancipated at
age sixteen and a half, or he or she could choose to stay with
the foster family.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how permanent a "permanent plan" is.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered any plan can change. A permanent APPLA
plan could also change; the point is to state that "this is the
permanent plan."
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the purpose of this amendment is to show a
compelling need for APPLA.
1:50:25 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE answered yes; the intent is to require a
compelling reason for APPLA. She said that Section 3 reiterates
the importance of keeping siblings together. Section 4 is a
revisor's suggestion, to make the wording consistent.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the problem is that they're no longer
minors.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied in 1998 there was a major overhaul and
one decision was to change "minor" to "child." She explained
that this is a housekeeping change. Whenever there is a change
to a bill, "child" is changed to "minor." A child is defined as
someone 18 or under. The revisor's part has to do with line 17,
"past 19 years of age but not extending beyond the 21st
birthday."
1:52:47 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27-
LS0500\E.1.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSSSB 82()
Page 3, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "[AN] additional one-year periods [PERIOD]
of supervision past [AGE] 19 years of age that do not
extend beyond the person's 21st birthday if continued"
Insert "an additional one-year period of custody
or supervision past [AGE] 19 years of age and
additional one-year periods of custody that do not
extend beyond the person's 21st birthday if continued
custody or"
Page 3, line 20:
Delete "minor"
Insert "child [MINOR]"
Page 4, lines 3 - 5:
Delete "[AN] additional one-year periods [PERIOD]
of supervision past [AGE] 19 years of age that do not
extend beyond the person's 21st birthday if continued"
Insert "an additional one-year period of custody
or supervision past [AGE] 19 years of age and
additional one-year periods of custody that do not
extend beyond the person's 21st birthday if continued
custody or"
Page 4, line 8, following "placed":
Insert "in the custody or"
Page 4, lines 10 - 13:
Delete "[AN] additional one-year periods [PERIOD] of
supervision past [AGE] 19
years of age that do not extend beyond the
person's 21st birthday if continued"
Insert "an additional one-year period of custody
or supervision past [AGE] 19 years of age and
additional one-year periods of custody that do not
extend beyond the person's 21st birthday if continued
custody or"
Page 5, lines 10 - 11:
Delete "Unless the child, department, and
guardian ad litem agree to a release from custody
without a motion and with less than 30 days' notice,
the"
Insert "The"
Page 5, line 12:
Delete "who is under 19 years of age"
Page 5, line 13, following "department":
Insert ", before the date custody is ordered to
end,"
Page 5, line 14, following "is":
Insert "over 16 years of age and"
Page 5, line 15, following "filed":
Insert "unless the parties agree to a shorter
notice period"
Page 5, following line 19:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(r) When custody of a child who has been
committed to the custody of the department is due to
expire, the department shall file a notice of release
with the court 30 days before the date of release
unless the parties agree to a shorter notice period
and distribute the notice to the parties, including
the child if the child is 16 years of age or older and
available."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
MS. RUTHERDALE said this bill recognizes that custody can go up
to age 21.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the amendment is supported by
Representative Gara and the bill sponsor. Both concurred.
1:54:19 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE said Section 5 has to do with the licensing
provisions and makes sure that when a court is considering
foster care, it can consider whether a child should be placed
with a family member. This clarifies that waivers and variances
can be allowed for family members.
1:55:49 PM
Section 6 is a new section.
Subsection (o) sets up the general rule that guardianship and
adoption is the hope if reunification fails.
Subsection (p) clarifies that APPLA does not apply to young
children, only to children 16 years or older. It is a last-ditch
option when others don't apply.
Subsection (q) says when an older child is getting ready to be
released from state custody that child must be given notice of
release. Before OCS can file release from custody, it must give
30 days notice. This gives the child 40-60 days advance notice.
It also allows the parties to request a shorter notice if
everyone is in agreement. It is important that the release is in
the best interest of the child.
The rest of the amendment goes to subsection (q). Only the court
has the power to amend its own orders.
2:00:08 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if subsection (q), line 10 would read "The
department may release."
MS. RUTHERDALE answered yes. And then in the amendment on page
2, line 20, it says "unless the parties agree to a shorter
notice period."
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it's line 21 of the amendment.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered yes, and in the actual bill it is on
page 5. On the amendment page 2, line 11, deleting "who is under
19 years of age" is included so that all children will receive
notice, including 19 and 20 year olds.
Page 2, line 14: that insertion clarifies that OCS is trying to
end custody early.
Page 2, line 17-18: the insertion of over 16 years of age
clarifies this is the age group that they are trying to focus on
and reach.
Page 2, line 19: adds a new subsection (r) which recognizes that
custody can end in two ways.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for clarification that prior subsection (r)
will be deleted
MS. RUTHERDALE answered no; there will be renumbering. She
explained that this new subsection covers the situation of
automatic lapse of custody.
Subsection (s) says that siblings should be kept together
whenever possible.
CHAIR FRENCH asked about the age of majority on page 6.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied it is 18.
CHAIR FRENCH asked why it doesn't say 18.
MS. RUTHERDALE asked where he was looking in the bill.
CHAIR FRENCH read "age of majority."
MS. RUTHERDALE confirmed the age of majority is 18.
2:05:05 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE returned to the bill.
Page 5, line 28: gives examples of what compelling reasons could
be. She noted that it is not an exclusive list.
Subsection (t) defines APPLA.
2:06:28 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if AS 47.10.080 is about the declaration
of state custody.
CHAIR FRENCH answered that this is the statutory reference.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that is the provision that allows full
custody, as opposed to supervision.
She continued with Section 7 which has to do with foster care
licensing. It streamlines the application process and states
that it shouldn't be overly restrictive.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what the rule to date has been on the
application process
MS. RUTHERDALE replied this section of the bill does not
substantively change what is currently happening. It makes
changes to the statute. As long as the home is safe it is
important to keep the child with the family.
SENATOR COGHILL wondered whether they are doing better or worse.
He asked for confirmation that it is codifying an ongoing
effort.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered yes.
2:09:27 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, Statewide Coordinator, Facing Foster Care in
Alaska, testified in support of SB 82. She highlighted the
provision on APLA -- putting restrictions on APLA gives older
youth more of a chance to be adopted. Everyone needs a family.
In terms of early release from custody, they have had a number
of youth over the past year that have been released and were not
notified until the day of release. This leaves some youth
homeless. It is important to notify youth and make sure that
they have input.
Keeping siblings together is also very important, especially for
children who have experienced abuse in the family.
2:13:32 PM
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and seeing no further
objection, announced Amendment 1 is adopted.
2:13:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA introduced himself.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what led him to file the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the ideas came from Ms.
Metevier. They put in the provision that would make it necessary
to sign off before separating siblings. The APPLA provision is
huge, because the goal of foster care is to try and find a
permanent placement in a family. APPLA means they have given up.
The head of OCS has written an article stating that APPLA has
been overused. Sometimes there is a very good placement in a
village for a child, but the house does not meet building codes
which most homes in the area don't meet. This bill now allows a
variance if it is the best placement for the child and is safe.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what percentage of foster care is decided by
the courts and OCS.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered she did not understand the question.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for confirmation that a judge is not involved
in every decision.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied OCS makes the decision on placement, and
the court implements the decision.
CHAIR FRENCH said the written guidelines are for OCS to follow.
MS. RUTHERDALE said yes. OCS has to notify 30 days in advance.
2:18:23 PM
SENATOR COGHILL wondered if subsection (q) would be another
burdening standard on top of these standards.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied there is no change in the standards. She
explained that there is already a court rule.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if this starts a new, more complex
process.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied that she doesn't think so.
2:19:58 PM
TRACY SPARTZCAMPBELL, Deputy Director, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
said that there has been excellent testimony. This will help
streamline some of the practices.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the department supports the bill.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL replied the department is neutral on the
bill.
SENATOR COGHILL asked on page 5 under compelling reasons for
APPLA, if it's a new approach to include the child's specific
request for emancipation.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL replied when looking at permanency for older
youth, OCS looks at the youth's interests and desires.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had heard of any opposition to the
bill.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL replied that she has not.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI mentioned the department's neutral position
on the bill and asked if she believes that this is a good thing
or a bad thing.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL replied OCS has been involved with the
sponsor and the bill is aligned with their work.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said every time the administration appears
before a committee the representative remains neutral on the
bill. He asked if this is a directive that departments are not
supposed to take a position on the bill.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL replied on this particular bill the
department is neutral.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the department can live with the bill.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL replied yes.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked what standard the department is following
to remain neutral.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL replied the department remains neutral but is
comfortable with the language.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked what standard needs to be met in order for
the department to support the bill.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL replied she could not answer that.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it is her job to determine whether the
department remains neutral on a bill.
MS. SPARTZCAMPBELL answered no.
CHAIR FRENCH said it is discouraging when the administration
takes no position. The Legislature is left wondering why.
2:24:59 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI added that the Legislature spends a lot of
time on these bills and in terms of efficiency, the
administration needs to state whether it supports a bill or not.
It's a working relationship.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the administration is pretty consistent
about supporting its own bills.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that DOL does not take a position on bills.
She said that every suggestion she made, and every change that
OCS made, was incorporated into the bill.
SENATOR PASKVAN said that he is taking this to mean that the
language in the bill is the best that can be achieved.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied that is correct. She said that as a
practicing lawyer she does not want a bill that will cause any
harm and she does not believe that this bill will do so.
2:28:13 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted there is support from many different
associations, such as the Alaska Association of Homes for
Children, the Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, the
National Association of Social Workers, the Alaska Behavioral
Health Association, Alaska Children's Services, and Denali
Family Services.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that he would hold SB 82 in committee in
order to see a document with the amendment included.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|