Legislature(2001 - 2002)
01/17/2002 03:12 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
January 17, 2002
3:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Vic Kohring
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 252
"An Act relating to the construction of certain statutes
relating to children; relating to the scope of duty and standard
of care for persons who provide services to certain children and
families; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 252
SHORT TITLE: STANDARD OF CARE FOR CINA SERVICES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/23/01 1136 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/23/01 1136 (H) HES
04/23/01 1136 (H) REFERRED TO HES
WITNESS REGISTER
THERESA TANOURY, Director
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 252 would put standards
of practice into regulation; in order for DFYS to comply with
these regulations, 51 new workers must be added to make
caseloads more manageable.
BETTY ROLLINS
P.O. Box 55163
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 252; DFYS should
be held to the same standards to which parents are held.
ART GRISWOLD
H.C. 60, Box 4493
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 252; legislation
should be written which more narrowly defines the role of DFYS.
JOHN STREET
P.O. Box 835
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 252; he supports
greater accountability within DFYS.
SALLYE WERNER
12731 Cardinal Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern that HB 252 would limit
DFYS's ability to intervene when necessary; she supports the
hiring of more social workers, which would enable them to have
more manageable caseloads.
TINA CAFFROY
(No address available)
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 252, related her
family's experience with DFYS; She would like to see DFYS held
more accountable and a third party identified as a resource for
parents.
ROSEMARY SMITH
(No address available)
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 252, testified
regarding her family's negative experience with DFYS.
VERN SMITH
(No address available)
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 252, testified
regarding his negative experience with DFYS; he would like
someone held accountable.
CHUCK ROLLINS
P.O. Box 55163
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 252, stated he
thought that agencies should be held more accountable.
DIXIE DIXON
2600 Cordova Street, Number 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned whether HB 252 was necessary;
expressed concern that the bill's language was confusing and
possibly created more problems than it solved.
JODI OLMSTEAD
P.O. Box 56853
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 252, recounted her
personal experience that identified the need for great
accountability
LIZ GREIG
186 Madcap Lane, Number 15
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 252, advocated for
greater accountability for DFYS caseworkers.
TONY LOMBARDO, Director of Advocacy
Covenant House
609 F Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against language in HB 252 that
would allow abusers or derelict parents to participate in the
determination of a child's welfare.
SCOTT CALDER
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 252.
ED MYERS
841 Ninth Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 252.
LAURIE CHURCHILL
P.O. Box 8693
Nikiski, Alaska 99635
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 252, testified against
a court's ignoring the child-in-need-of-aid definitions in a
domestic violence case.
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-1, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:12 p.m.
Representatives Dyson, Wilson, Coghill, and Stevens were present
at the call to order. Representatives Cissna and Joule arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 252-STANDARD OF CARE FOR CINA SERVICES
Number 032
CHAIR DYSON announced the first item of business, HOUSE BILL NO.
252, "An Act relating to the construction of certain statutes
relating to children; relating to the scope of duty and standard
of care for persons who provide services to certain children and
families; and providing for an effective date." He noted his
understanding that the bill's sponsor did not intend for HB 252
to pass out of committee today. He indicated that witnesses
would be given four minutes each to testify.
Number 056
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor of HB 252,
presented HB 252 to the committee. He said he would like to
make progress on the bill, and he thanked the committee for
hearing a bill without the intention of moving it out. He cited
AS 47.10.960:
Duty and standard of care not created.
Nothing in this title creates a duty or standard of
care for services to children and their families being
served under AS 47.10.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the state required "reams of
paperwork to hold parents accountable." He said, "And yet, we
ourselves can be held to the place where we're not accountable."
He expressed his opinion that this needed to be addressed. He
acknowledged that there would be cost involved, but he reminded
members of the cost to families when there was an overstepping
of authority [by DFYS].
Number 087
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he would not "call into
question the mission statement and the move of the Division of
[Family &] Youth Services (DFYS), generally." He referenced the
first paragraph of his sponsor statement and noted:
It's a balancing of protection, family preservation,
and government intervention. And there's always
discussion [of] balance between "How do we protect
children when they are in harm's way?" and "How do we
keep government from overstepping that bound?" And I
think there's always a tension involved in that.
Certainly, if you look in the fourth paragraph, we
have given some police and judicial powers that give a
lot of discretion to the DFYS as they intervene in
families' lives. ... That's the only way we could
get around immediate protection of children [versus]
due process of law - because there are children who
need immediate attention, and ... if you spend [the]
time to go to the court to get a search warrant, for
example, that harm could already be done. So we have
... moved our laws around to allow that kind of ...
standard, if you will, of government intervention.
Number 110
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that much of the discussion he
receives from constituents is regarding the overstepping of
bounds. He continued:
Sometimes, it was legitimate. Nobody likes the
government coming in ... taking over. ... But if there
[are] ... legitimate reasons ..., let them complain,
let them go through that process. They have due
process. But many times they have felt the weight of
the government, because the government made a mistake.
... I think there has to be a realization that we hold
parents accountable to a standard of duty and a
standard of care for their children, and there are
severe consequences if they do not stand up to that
standard of duty or care. We don't always ask them,
"Can you afford that standard of care?" ... And fact
is, if they have children, they have to deal with it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the state also has limited
resources, including "people resources." And yet, he noted, the
state is excusing itself from the standard of duty. He
anticipated the reason he would hear is, "We can't afford to."
He said he thought the state wouldn't accept that [reason] from
parents. He queried, "How do we delineate a standard of duty
and a standard of care?" He acknowledged that DFYS has attained
a standard of duty through its policies and procedures. "It's
just that we have excused them from them in law, and I don't
think that's wise," he added. "I don't think we excuse parents,
and I don't think we ought to excuse government."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said one of the reasons he came to the
legislature was to ensure that government restraint was always
at the right place. He continued:
Certainly we have to have police powers, certainly we
have to have protection powers, but we also have to
restrain government from becoming ... tyrannical.
Those words are inflammatory, ... I understand. But
when you start dealing with individuals' lives, it
gets really emotional, both on the policy-giver and
... those who have to feel the weight of that
authority.
Number 149
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to HB 252 and noted that
paragraph (1) recognizes that parents do have an inherent right,
which has not been recognized statutorily. He stated that he
thought they should be given that right, since they have been
expected to act responsibly under that right. He stated that
once a child gets into a court proceeding, the statute should
demand parental participation. Many policies, procedures, and
court actions already demand this, but it's not clear "up
front."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to HB 252, noting that paragraph
(2) endeavors to make the statute consistent with "what is now a
professional ethics code of standards and practice under the
social workers code." He concluded by referring to the Supreme
Court opinion in Troxel v. Granville and saying:
In our view, a right of parents to direct the
upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable
rights" which the Declaration of Independence
proclaims that all men are endowed by their creator.
And in our view, that right is also among other rights
retained by the people which the Ninth Amendment says
the constitution of enumerated rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that he thought it was a matter
of asserting a "little brighter line" regarding parental
authority and the state's authority to "cross over that." He
continued, "I think it becomes very clear that we have to have
certain duties incumbent upon us to cross that line."
Representative Coghill commended HB 252 to the committee and
referred to the fiscal note attached to it. He said, "The
reason I said, 'Let's not pass this out,' [is] because I believe
in progress. Maybe we can't swallow the whole thing this year,
but I think we need to start in that direction."
Number 191
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA wondered if "this is the right place to
put it." She said the fact that parents are ultimately
responsible for their children seems to be "a given." She
stated that there are other places in the statute that address
parents' ultimate financial responsibility for their children.
She expressed her concern that when the state must assume
guardianship of a child, it is done as a last chance to assist a
child in his/her safety. She said that if parents are incapable
of caring for their children safely, then as a society we can't
allow [them to retain guardianship].
Number 216
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that this could be discussed
when determining any language changes to HB 252. In Alaska, he
noted, many social service agencies' policies mandate that "we
will care for children, ... families, and support services." He
said that family support has been "key to the government." When
intervention in a family is necessary, the state demands a
standard of [the family], and yet it relinquishes itself from a
higher standard, he stated. This bill puts a greater liability
on the state. When a standard is set in statute, he pointed
out, "you'll have to answer to it."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL paraphrased AS47.10.014 ,which reads:
Neglect.
For purposes of this chapter, the court may find
neglect of a child if the parent, guardian, or
custodian fails to provide the child with adequate
food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attention,
or other care and control necessary for the child's
physical and mental health and development, though
financially able to do so or offered financial or
other reasonable means to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that parents are being held
accountable regarding many subjective issues, while the state is
not subject to the same scrutiny.
Number 244
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed that families are held to one
standard, but that "in the end caseworkers do not expect
families to have their children in a middle-class ... home when
they can't provide it." She said, "But ... it seems as if we
do." She noted that many times when children are taken into
custody, they are not provided with the things they must have.
"We must do better," she emphasized. She added that the state
is unwilling to [fund the necessary changes].
Number 261
CHAIR DYSON acknowledged this was a discussion the committee
needed to have. He requested that committee dialogue on the
bill be postponed until after the public testimony.
Number 264
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA sought clarification on the bill by
asking, "Is your change ... saying it's okay for parents to
abuse their children?"
Number 272
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that this bill does not permit
any abuse of children. On the contrary, he noted, it is to keep
the state from abusing children. The state should be
"answerable to that standard," he added. He commented that this
was also a philosophical discussion - whether the state or
family comes first. He said, "The state has certain authorities
for protection, but maybe not for authority in upbringing. I
think the parents should trump the state in that regard." His
goal, he concluded, was not to diminish children's safety in any
way.
Number 283
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted she took exception, saying, "It
reads that way to me."
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL restated that he was open to discussion
about language in the bill.
Number 290
THERESA TANOURY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services,
Department of Health & Social Services, acknowledged that this
was a philosophical issue, and that DFYS was not "against
standards." She noted that DFYS has standards that exist in
federal law, state law, policies and procedures, and state and
national codes of ethics. Workers are held to standards by
DFYS. She pointed out that HB 252 takes these policies and
procedures and puts them into regulation. In doing that, she
said that higher accountability is created which mandates that
all of these standards must be met, including those for
reasonable caseloads. She added, "It's not that social workers
don't want to have standards, or don't want to practice and
follow the policies and procedures ...."
MS. TANOURY observed that child protection laws are some of the
most specific laws that exist. Both federal and state laws
dictate when case plans must be done, what each case plan must
address, and how often that case plan is reviewed. She
explained the reason that these standards are not in regulation
is because workers could never meet them due to "impossible"
caseloads. She said the standards set forth in policies and
procedures should not be lowered, however, because they are
standards "we want to aspire to." Minimum contact standards,
outlined in policy and procedures, require workers to see
children monthly. Ms. Tanoury pointed out that if those
standards are put into regulation, caseloads must be lowered so
workers "can actually do it." The fiscal note prepared by DFYS
reflects funding for 51 more workers to meet the proposed
standards.
Number 327
CHAIR DYSON introduced the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee aide, Jason Hooley. He announced he
would "rotate around" witnesses from the Legislative Information
Office (LIO) sites. He requested that witnesses speak to
specific problems that HB 252 will address. He encouraged
witnesses to "avoid personalities" and speak to the problems.
The committee, he added, is sympathetic to people who have been
wronged or who have seen children wronged.
Number 355
BETTY ROLLINS testified via teleconference and noted that there
are many excellent workers in DFYS. She expressed her opinion
that many have caseloads that are too large. She is, however,
very concerned about who has authority over DFYS. She asked,
"Where does the buck stop?" Ms. Rollins acknowledged that many
children are abused or neglected. She noted that with current
adoption incentive programs, younger and "more adoptable"
children are being taken [out of their homes], and those that
are "less adoptable" are "still languishing in care." She
speculated that this was because each child adopted is "worth
about six thousand dollars to [DFYS].
MS. ROLLINS recounted that she had heard one worker say, "It's
only a job." It's not only a job, she stated; workers are
dealing with children's lives. She concluded by saying, "We
must expect of the system what we, ... at the very least, ...
expect of the parent." She added that without some standard of
care, she doesn't believe this expectation exists.
Number 379
ART GRISWOLD testified via teleconference in favor of HB 252.
He is the father of eight children, and he believes parents'
rights should be protected. He noted that none of his eight
children are incarcerated, and that he probably raised them with
"a stricter hand than most people." He expressed his opinion
that regulations should be written with more "legislative
dictorialship" to give greater direction to the departments.
He said he'd noticed government to be "self-regulating, even
going to the point of ignoring some of the legislative intent."
This greater direction would give "no chance of escaping it or
[giving it broader] interpretation."
Number 402
JOHN STREET testified via teleconference. He acknowledge that
DFYS has "many good people." Nonetheless, he noted that there
is no recourse for "people who are questionable." He stated
that when a problem with an individual is reported [to DFYS],
there is no one who will respond to it. He commended Ms.
Tanoury for doing a fine job. He noted that even when "numerous
people as well as numerous organizations" have reported a
problem, nothing occurs to "right this wrong."
MR. STREET added that he thought that parents and foster parents
were "being held hostage" by DFYS when they didn't "toe the
mark." People who know and live with the child know what he/she
needs. He summarized by saying, "We need the accountability; we
need to be able to go to individuals - not DFYS in general - but
to the individual people who are not doing the job ... we want."
He emphasized that children are the reason DFYS exists. If the
state continues to lose foster parents, children will have no
place to go, he concluded.
Number 432
SALLYE WERNER testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
is a volunteer child advocate in Anchorage. She is a Court
Appointed [Special] Advocate (CASA). She told members she was
speaking on her own behalf. She has spoken with other CASA
[volunteers], however, and they are concerned that state
intervention [in a child welfare case] takes too long; by the
time children are taken into state custody they are "deeply
troubled and damaged." She continued, "Besides the [cost to
children's lives], we spend an awful lot of money and time
trying to offset and compensate for those ... who are able to
[intervene with] parents earlier, often before the children are
moved from the home. I think we could really avoid that and
help our children have a much better life." She said that she
was concerned that this language [in HB 252] might make
involvement by DFYS more difficult. She is strongly in favor of
"hiring enough social workers to do the job." She added that in
many cases when things are not being done, she thinks it is
because social workers are overloaded. Often when people want
to do something to benefit a child, they are told that
regulations or policies don't allow it, she stated.
MS. WERNER said she is hoping to gain some information and
insight [at the committee hearing]. She was concerned that
putting the language of HB 252 into effect would limit
[agencies'] ability to adapt by requiring legislative action to
implement change. Ms. Werner said she was "greatly impressed"
by the social workers and the attorneys she has had contact
with. She encouraged the committee to come up with ways to get
parents more involved with and concerned about their children.
She questioned the need for HB 252, saying, "Every case that I'm
involved in, the parents are notified and involved in any way
they can [be]." In fact, she stated, she has had difficulty
getting parents involved.
Number 465
CHAIR DYSON thanked Ms. Werner for her service to children
through the CASA program. He encouraged her to forward to the
committee any suggestions she may have for changes in regulation
or policy.
Number 478
TINA CAFFROY testified via teleconference. She stated that she
has been working with special needs children for 26 years and
has been a licensed foster parent for 6 years. She recounted
her experience as a foster parent in which she had been "treated
... rudely, deceitfully, ... and degradingly." She noted that
she and her husband had been "lied to repeatedly, ... verbally
threatened, ... sworn at, intimidated, ... slandered, ... and
blackmailed."
MS CAFFROY related to the committee her experience with a
special-needs boy placed in her family's home. She noted that
this 11-year-old boy is severely disabled and is developmentally
between the ages of 2 and 5. She said her family has fallen in
love with this boy, and they have been "trying desperately, for
the last two years, to make him a permanent member of our family
by taking guardianship." She stated that DFYS told her family
on January 31, 2001, that the permanency plan would be changed.
They are still waiting for "DFYS to follow through with their
paperwork" to make that happen. She noted that DFYS had told
her family that this paperwork was not a priority.
MS. CAFFROY said this boy had been removed from her family's
home on December 18, 2001. The night before his removal, the
boy threw "a violent temper tantrum." She said she attempted to
"passively restrain him and ... make eye contact." In doing so,
she noted, two small bruises, "the size of the head of a Q-tip"
were left on his ear. The next day his teacher "turned him in
for child abuse." She stated he was subsequently removed from
the school and relocated to another foster home. "Before any
investigation was done," she said, "I was labeled a child
abuser." She stated she was told by the social worker in the
Kenai office that "anytime a mark is left, ... it is immediately
considered child abuse, and the law dictates the child must be
removed from the home." She added that she has since been
assured by two "licensing officers" that this is untrue and
[this situation] was handled improperly.
MS. CAFFROY noted that a social worker had mistakenly thought
Ms. Caffroy was unable to hear her, and called Ms. Caffrey a
"child abuser" to others. Although an apology was promised, Ms.
Caffroy stated that she had never heard one. She summarized by
saying that she would like to see DFYS held accountable for its
work and actions. She noted her desire for a third party to
look into this matter. She has sought assistance from many
parties, she said, but has received no satisfactory relief that
holds DFYS accountable. She stated that she would also like the
"regulations be standardized throughout the state." She would
like this case looked into independently in order for her
family's foster son to be returned to their home, she said.
Number 527
CHAIR DYSON noted that Representative Chenault was present at
the hearing; he had related some cases of concern on the Kenai
[Peninsula] to Chair Dyson.
Number 535
ROSEMARY SMITH testified via teleconference. She is the mother
of six, and she is involved with the National Child Safety
Council. She remarked that "DFYS in Alaska is the most unusual
governmental agency [she had] ever run into." She stated that
her grandchild was taken without notifying "any of the family."
Number 549
CHAIR DYSON asked for clarification regarding the notification
of the child's parents.
Number 551
MS. SMITH responded that she, the child's grandparent, had not
been notified. She pointed out that the child is in Arizona. A
caseworker informed her that the foster parents were going to
adopt the child. She stated that she was appalled by this and
that "the case worker in point had lied several times before,
but this [was] incredible." Ms. Smith stated that she "put in
for adoption" of her grandchild. Her name had never been
submitted for the adoption by the worker, she reported.
Number 563
MS. SMITH summarized by saying it took three months to get
information to her regarding her grandchild. She stated that
she doesn't understand how an agency "could have that much power
to take a child and ... destroy their lives." She shared her
belief that DFYS needs "someone to regulate them" and that
parents should have "some say in whether they want their child."
Number 571
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for clarification regarding whether
the child's parents were aware of what was going on.
Number 576
MS. SMITH responded that she believed that "eventually" the
parents had access to all necessary information regarding their
child.
Number 581
CHAIR DYSON asked whether the parents had an opportunity to
appear in court at the termination of parental rights hearings.
Number 582
MS. SMITH replied that parental rights had not yet been
terminated.
Number 583
VERN SMITH testified via teleconference. He is Ms. Smith's son
and father of the child in question. His child, he stated, was
taken away from her mother. He intimated that this had been a
difficult and frustrating experience, which included taking off
work for months at a time. He stated that he was denied
visitation with his daughter, and he could not "hold anybody
accountable for their actions." He acknowledged that there are
"children out there that ... need the ... department's help."
However, he stated that DFYS can take a child "without any real
information."
TAPE 02-1, SIDE B
Number 597
MR. SMITH continued by saying that some social workers will do
some "atrocious" things that abuse their power. He stated he
feels "railroaded" by DFYS and that this has been an awful
experience. He would like, he said, someone to be held
accountable.
Number 590
CHAIR DYSON asked whether Mr. Smith was living with the child's
mother or paying child support when the child was taken.
Number 588
MR. SMITH stated that no, he was not living with the child's
mother, but yes, he was paying a "monthly sum."
Number 582
CHUCK ROLLINS testified via teleconference and noted he thought
HB 252 would not "legitimize child abuse." He stated his belief
that the intent behind the Alaska constitution was that "all
power resides in the people, not with ... people in the
legislature, not with the government agencies, but with the
people." He said he thought that parents, until their rights
are terminated, ought to be given "some say-so in how their
children are raised."
MR. ROLLINS stated he thought that the state should not
encourage children to "feel like they are loners or outcasts."
He concluded by saying there should be more accountability. He
recounted a story he'd heard last week about a women's shelter
that had received $1.5 million from the state, but it had simply
closed its doors.
Number 562
DIXIE DIXON testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She is
a CASA [volunteer] and CASA board member in Anchorage. She
noted that a CASA should be contacted regarding the Kenai case
referred to earlier. She expressed her first concern, asking,
"Is this bill really necessary with this open-ended wording?"
She continued, "Can we fine-tune it to [more clearly define] the
expectations and roles of DFYS?" She stated that she wondered
if [the committee] was focused on "a very few limited, bizarre
cases" to the detriment of most cases served by DFYS. She
suggested that they might be. She mentioned that HB 252's
language was very confusing; the bill, she believes, doesn't
seem to solve problems, but instead, creates them.
Number 542
CHAIR DYSON inquired, "Who informed the CASA group last night
about this impending bill?"
Number 541
MS. DIXON said Ms. Werner had downloaded it from the Internet.
Number 537
MS. WERNER stated that she didn't recall who had told her, but
she had heard about HB 252 at a child advocacy team meeting.
She noted it was not someone from DFYS who had informed her
about the bill. She stated that she had asked at the guardian
ad litem's office for an explanation of HB 252. "No one had
even seen it," she said.
Number 527
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated he would enjoy further
correspondence with both Ms. Dixon and Ms. Werner regarding HB
252.
Number 524
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA thanked the witnesses and remarked that
the committee needed to hear from more, not fewer, people.
Number 514
JODI OLMSTEAD testified via teleconference. She noted that she
wished to address the "no duties and standards of care" and how
it applied to her life. She stated nothing had been corrected
in the ten years since there had been a "false allegation of
child abuse." She noted that there was no check and balance and
that her son's education was compromised. She said she was
accused of child abuse without merit, because her son was afraid
to come home "because he came face-to-face with a moose." She
added that she was denied three grievances and that no one had
ever been in her home or looked into [the situation]. She noted
that as a result of the second grievance, the ombudsman's office
sent regional directors a notice instructing them give her
relief, but this did not occur. She stated, "I think these
people need their feet held to the fire."
Number 498
LIZ GREIG testified via teleconference about a pregnant woman
living with an abusive partner. This woman sought services at a
battered women's shelter in preparation to leave the abusive
partner, Ms. Greig said, but she was "bullied" into seeing a
DFYS caseworker. Ms. Greig noted that the woman had requested
the DFYS caseworker to speak with the abusive partner; however,
the "caseworker refused to do so." After the birth of her
child, the woman returned home to find $200 in food stamps
missing; she presumed they had been used to buy drugs, Ms. Greig
stated. The woman sought relief from the DFYS worker, the
battered women's shelter counselor, and the troopers, to no
avail, according to Ms. Greig. Ms. Greig expressed her opinion
that the caseworker didn't do her job and was not held
accountable. She was concerned, she said, that battered women,
when seeking help, will become "re-victimized" by DFYS. She
said she thought caseworkers should be held more accountable.
Number 470
CHAIR DYSON queried whether the woman had left children
unattended when she went to the shelter.
Number 469
MS. GREIG responded that the woman was seeking assistance to
leave the abuser and that she wasn't living in the shelter.
Number 463
CHAIR DYSON questioned what the woman's abuse had to do with
DFYS.
Number 460
MS. GREIG said she believed the woman's abuser "instigated" the
contact with the DFYS caseworker.
Number 456
TONY LOMBARDO, Director of Advocacy, Covenant House, testified
via teleconference. He said:
Welcome back. ... My name is Tony Lombardo, and I'm
the Director of Advocacy for Covenant House, which is
a privately funded, nonprofit agency which cares for
homeless youth and at-risk youth in Anchorage. ...
We are opposed to both the wording and the apparent
intent of Section 1 of the bill. The problem with
Section 1 is that the youth most often brought into
state's custody and the care of the [Division] of
Family and Youth Services, or otherwise served by the
shelters in this state, are there precisely because
the families are unable or unwilling to provide for
the safety, care, or welfare of those youth,
especially the youth that end up in state custody.
The is the same ... for the youth who come to us ...
(indisc.) [who] are [covered by] the statute that
empowers us under 47.10.320. The intent of that
statute may, very likely, be affected by the ...
change [proposed in HB 252] as well. By and large,
... [47.10] is not about good families and good kids.
It's about children in need of aid and dysfunctional
or absent parents.
It would be unreasonable to tie the hands of the state
in its attempt to provide for the health, safety, and
welfare of such youth by requiring that a perpetrator
of harm be allowed to participate in that child's
upbringing. Similarly, it is unreasonable to mandate
... the state, or any other care provider, to
necessarily expend time and energy to coordinate care
with an abuser or a negligent or disinterested family
member whose dereliction of duty has necessitated
either the sheltering of that child in a private
charity or state custody.
Number 425
Please understand that Covenant House maintains family
reunification as its top priority in all our cases.
... However, in many cases that goal ... proves
undesirable or unattainable because the circumstances
present within a given family compromise the health or
safety or welfare of the children who [have] come to
us. I want to reemphasize that we're not talking
about healthy families. The change ... [proposed to]
47.10, the intent chapter, ... may affect all the
subsequent sections, including the one we operate
under - and that causes us concern.
For both the State of Alaska and the private community
of care, the reality of ... children in need of aid is
that often we don't have healthy ... parents involved.
... Therefore, we ask that you do not compromise the
discretion allowed by the current wording of the
statute.
Thank you very much.
Number 420
CHAIR DYSON noted his impression that the present code or the
addition of language in HB 252 would not necessitate "dealing
with the parents whose parental rights have been terminated."
He noted that before parental rights are terminated, the law
mandates that the state must work toward reunification [of the
family]. He asked whether Mr. Lombardo was suggesting that the
provision not be mandated by law.
Number 413
MR. LOMBARDO responded, "No, not at all." He expressed his
concern that the change in [language] might, even in the case of
a child in state custody, mandate his parents' continued
involvement.
Number 407
CHAIR DYSON noted that Representative Coghill was open to
suggestions. He affirmed that his own perception was that [the
state] wants parental and familial involvement, even when the
child is in state custody. He stated that the current
predisposition of the law is reunification of the family until
parental rights have been terminated.
Number 396
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "Certainly, at this point, it's
under court jurisdiction anyway. ... It's just showing that we
are interested in protecting the parents' part of that as well
as the child's."
Number 387
SCOTT CALDER testified via teleconference. He noted that he was
unable to drive himself to the LIO because his driver's license
had been suspended due to failure to pay child support "based on
the state having kidnapped and tortured my only child in April
of 1993." He stated that "DFYS is not predisposed to follow the
law" to preserve families. He mentioned that no one wants to
make it more difficult for DFYS to become involved. He did note
that he would like to see it become more difficult for "DFYS to
do harm."
MR. CALDER stated that people who didn't see the need for the
bill had not been harmed by DFYS. He commented that foster
parents have the same problems [with DFYS] as biological
parents. He continued, "It is not true that children of DFYS
have bad parents. This is an unproven proposition. This is a
political statement. This is imposed upon all parents and all
people in the state of Alaska improperly." He emphasized that
DFYS has been "unhealthy" for a number of years. He said, "It's
unhealthy for every child in the state of Alaska, as long as we
do not have the duty or standard of care." Mr. Calder noted
that AS 47.10.960 states that there is no duty or standard of
care for services to children and their families.
MR. CALDER emphasized, "We can't have a child protection system
if we don't care and if we don't have standards for that." He
stated that HB 252 "requires consistency and quality." Mr.
Calder offered that the claim of existing protection is a false
one. He followed by saying, "Anybody who says that the courts
or the ombudsman, or anybody whomsoever, is protecting anyone's
rights is not telling the truth." He suggested that the
committee should take action on HB 252. He concluded, "We
simply would like to see that the quality of [DFYS employees']
work exists, that there is some caring."
Number 339
ED MYERS testified via teleconference. He stated he deals with
parents who are unhappy with DFYS. These parents feel, he
offered, that there is no effective form of appeal. He
recounted the story of his neighbor, a grandparent of a child in
foster care, who has requested visitation rights and received no
response [from DFYS].
MR. MYERS explained the story of a woman who "opened the door
one day and there were two policemen and two social workers who
said they wanted to come in." The woman responded, "No. I want
to see your warrant." According to Mr. Myers, the woman was
told she would be in "for an awful lot of trouble" if she didn't
allow them in [her house]. She allowed them in and they took
her children, he explained; she has not had custody of them
since. Mr. Myers indicated that this woman has no recourse and
fears retaliation.
MR. MYERS furnished the story of a North Pole man who had social
workers come to his house to "check out" his home. The man
eventually acquiesced and let the workers into his house without
a warrant. After finding nothing, the workers interviewed the
children at school, said Mr. Myers, whereupon they took them
into custody. He explained that one child escaped, returned
home, and was videotaped. The child's videotaped story, he
offered, was "180 degrees different from that of the social
worker." Mr. Myers indicated this parent would have liked to
"have [had] some effective way to grieve that," but his children
were promptly returned to his custody without further
communication from DFYS.
Number 294
MR. MYERS volunteered the story of a woman whose children had
been in foster care "off and on for several years." He has
observed, he stated, that she has grounds for a grievance over
DFYS's handling of her case. She has received "no satisfaction
within the DFYS structure" regarding her complaints, he noted.
He suggested that she needs an "outside group" to handle her
complaints.
MR. MYERS noted that he has heard many complaints from parents
who are attempting to provide for their children, but are unable
to "hold down a job" because they are "jumping through so many
[DFYS] hoops." He stated that these parents have no one to whom
they can voice their complaints.
MR. MYERS concluded by saying that there is no duty and standard
of care for workers. He surmised that there must be some way to
set these duties and standards of care. He continued, "I don't
know of any organization that has more unrestricted power over
something that is so very fundamental." His final comment was
regarding a list of Supreme Court cases. He paraphrased the
intent of these cases, saying that "before you can terminate
[parental custody of] a child, it should be of the standard of
proof of beyond a reasonable doubt," not "clear and convincing
evidence." Parental rights are fundamental rights, he noted,
and they are being infringed upon by the assumption that
"parents are guilty until proven innocent." He recommended that
HB 252 be "implemented wisely."
Number 248
CHAIR DYSON thanked all witnesses for their testimony.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that the cost associated
with HB 252 is very high. He reiterated that he was open to
discussion on changes to language; perhaps "family" instead of
"parents" should be used. He confirmed that he would like to
proceed with HB 252; he believes the standards can be made
clear. The standards, he noted, must be in accordance with the
professional ethics codes. He added, "I would rather see [DFYS]
delineate those in their own regulation; I think that they have
done that. ... I ... am convinced that we should proceed down
the road of putting a responsible line there."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that "under child protection we
have pushed due process to the limit." He advocated that the
state needs to be certain that an agency which takes a child
into custody is held accountable. Both government and parents
need to be restrained from doing wrong [to children], he noted.
He stressed the need to look at the cost; if "it's that many
social workers, if we're that bound up," then perhaps members
should speak to the finance committee to investigate options for
"lateral shifting."
Number 206
CHAIR DYSON advocated that these regulations be consistent with
the professional standards [of DFYS workers].
Number 198
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered to "bring in the full text and
... get an executive to [DFYS]."
Number 192
CHAIR DYSON suggested that an effective date be added to HB 252.
Number 188
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed that paragraph (1) of the bill
recognizes that parents have certain rights; however, she noted
that parents do lose rights when their children have lost a
certain measure of safety. Some parental rights are lost unless
parents change the conditions.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA suggested having "unless" [in Section 1,
paragraph (1)] and specifying what conditions revoke parental
rights. She continued:
Sometimes I think we ... are a little too rigid on
what we specify. ... Because of cultural issues,
sometimes, we define things differently culturally,
and so we'll take certain children out of one
culture's home more readily than we will another, just
because of the way we ... define what people say. ...
So, I agree with that, but I think that if we could
specify some kind of condition....
Number 162
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA identified proposed language changes to
paragraph (2) wherein parents' participation is included. She
suggested adding "and maximize the greatest amount of parental
participation", which would be determined by the court in each
situation. She concurred that maximum parental involvement is a
desired goal, but that some [parents'] involvement is not safe
for children.
Number 132
CHAIR DYSON recommended that Representative Cissna draft some
language to that effect.
Number 131
LAURIE CHURCHILL testified via teleconference. She referred to
a child custody case she has involvement in, saying, "The Kenai
court system has, basically, sidestepped the children-in-need-
of-aid rules." She stated that the court had never declared her
children in need of aid when, in fact, they were in need of aid.
Ms. Churchill expressed her concern over the lack of stringent
guidelines for removing children from homes. She noted her
children were taken through a protective order in a domestic
violence hearing. She was concerned that this could transpire
"without any accountability."
Number 110
CHAIR DYSON noted his understanding that the law mandates DFYS
to go before a judge or magistrate within 48 hours of taking
children. The parent may appear at this meeting to present
his/her case. This must occur again at 30 days, he stated.
Number 105
MS. CHURCHILL explained that her children were not taken by
DFYS, but the Kenai court gave her children to the petitioner of
the domestic violence case. She said the children were
subsequently removed from the petitioner's custody by the court;
the children, however, were never declared children in need of
aid. She said, "It was done through the guise of a protective
order." The children, she added, were then placed with the
petitioner's parents. She said, "This happened over a year ago,
and they still will not give me back my children. ... They took
them on the basis that I asked my children who they wanted to
live with."
Number 095
CHAIR DYSON asked whether the children were placed with their
biological father.
Number 093
MS. CHURCHILL responded, "No, he's not related to my two sons.
He was my ex-boyfriend."
Number 090
CHAIR DYSON asked who has custody of the children.
Number 085
MS. CHURCHILL replied that her ex-boyfriend's parents
temporarily have custody. They are only biologically related to
Ms. Churchill's daughter, she stated. She added that she wished
her children had been declared children in need of aid, but that
she felt this was "sidestepped" and her right to due process had
been violated. She said she thought the committee should
address protective orders "so that the court is not just allowed
to take someone's children."
Number 073
CHAIR DYSON asked if Ms. Churchill had a lawyer.
MS. CHURCHILL indicated that she did receive legal
representation, but not until 3-1/2 months after her children
were taken. She stated that she thought that the Indian Child
Welfare Act should apply to her case.
Number 063
CHAIR DYSON stated that his recollection of the latest change to
the law allowed for a parent without representation to request
the judge to delay a ruling until counsel is acquired.
Number 030
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that in some cases people may
feel they haven't received due process when, indeed, they have.
She stated that she would like to better understand how due
process works.
Number 018
CHAIR DYSON suggested DFYS personnel give Representative Wilson
a copy of the pamphlet given to parents when a child is taken
into custody.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if parents were given a copy of this
when children were removed.
CHAIR DYSON answered yes, DFYS personnel were supposed to.
TAPE 02-2, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR DYSON noted the importance of trying to give parents equal
footing when dealing with an intimidating, unfamiliar process by
ensuring the opportunity for delay of court action until parents
have legal representation. He pointed out that visitation of
children taken into custody is not being facilitated well. He
asked, "Nobody thinks that's working perfectly, do we?"
Number 015
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator, Division of Family &
Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services,
responded, "No." She indicated that DFYS has requested funding
to increase the number of visitation centers around the state.
She noted that [research indicates] that reunification takes
place more quickly when frequent visitation occurs.
Number 034
CHAIR DYSON concluded by saying, "Every step of the way we can
do better." [HB 252 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|