03/19/1998 03:05 PM House HES

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

txt

HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE March 19, 1998 3:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Con Bunde, Chairman Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman Representative Brian Porter Representative Fred Dyson Representative J. Allen Kemplen Representative Tom Brice MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Al Vezey COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HOUSE BILL NO. 307 "An Act relating to custody of and visitation rights concerning children; and relating to an obligor's liability to the state for public money paid to support the obligor's children." - HEARD AND HELD * HOUSE BILL NO. 429 "An Act relating to vocational education." - HEARD AND HELD * HOUSE BILL NO. 407 "An Act relating to repayment of teacher scholarship loans." - MOVED HB 407 OUT OF COMMITTEE * SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 366 "An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid proceedings." - MOVED SSHB 366 OUT OF COMMITTEE * HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 21 Establishing the Alaska Task Force on Parity for Mental Health. - MOVED CSHCR 21(HES), OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 307 SHORT TITLE: CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) GREEN, Dyson, Austerman Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/12/98 2025 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/98

01/12/98 2025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/12/98 2025 (H) HES, JUDICIARY

01/14/98 2048 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 03/06/98 2552 (H) COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN 03/10/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/10/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/19/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 429 SHORT TITLE: REQUIRING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) AUSTERMAN Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 02/18/98 2353 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/18/98 2353 (H) HES 03/19/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 407 SHORT TITLE: TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP LOANS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 02/16/98 2329 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/16/98 2329 (H) HES 03/19/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 366 SHORT TITLE: NO CINA BASED SOLELY ON POVERTY SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action

01/28/98 2154 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/28/98 2155 (H) HES 03/18/98 2647 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED- REFERRALS 03/18/98 2647 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/18/98 2647 (H) HES 03/19/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HCR 21 SHORT TITLE: PARITY FOR MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 04/30/97 1407 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/30/97 1408 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/19/98 Text (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 WITNESS REGISTER JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-6841 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for CSHB 307, Version E. DIANA BUFFINGTON, Chairman Alaska Task Force on Family Law Reform 317 Maple Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Telephone: (907) 486-2290 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 307 and in favor of HB 366. CAROL PALMER Parents United for Custodial Justice P.O. Box 2402 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907) 746-2863 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 307. KENNETH KIRK, Attorney Family Law Practice 733 West 4th Avenue, Number 304 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-1659 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions on HB 307. DAN RENSHAW 519 West 8th Avenue, Number 209 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 276-3474 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 307. BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director Public Defender Agency Department of Administration 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090 Telephone: (907) 264-4433 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 307. GARY MAXWELL 733 West 4th Avenue, Number 306 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 277-1273 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 307. CHARLES WOOD 931 West 77th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Telephone: (907) 344-6419 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 307. MICHAEL SHARP 2240 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Telephone: (907) 333-0574 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 307. RICHARD SHAFER P.O. Box 140654 Anchorage, Alaska 99514 Telephone: (907) 277-4799 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 307. JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 Telephone: (907) 465-4356 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 307. REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 434 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4230 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 429. BARRY ALTENHOF Box 1373 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Telephone: (907) 486-6238 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in favor of HB 429. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 513 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2693 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 407. GARY REED P.O. Box 2612 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-0925 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 407. MARCIA REED P.O. Box 2612 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-0925 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 407. MIKE MAHER, Director Student Financial Aid Postsecondary Education Commission Department of Education 3030 Vintage Boulevard Juneau, Alaska 99801-7109 Telephone: (907) 465-2962 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 407. SUSAN WIBKER, Assistant Attorney General Civil Division Department of Law 1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994 Telephone: (907) 269-5100 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 366. WALTER MAJOROS, Executive Director Alaska Mental Health Board Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110601 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601 Telephone: (907) 465-3072 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HCR 21. MARY ELIZABETH RIDER, Planner Alaska Mental Health Trust 3601 C Street, Suite 742 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: (907) 269-7960 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 21. JUDY EDWARDS 16231 Jackson Hole Eagle River, Alaska 99577 Telephone: (907) 696-7309 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 21. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-26, SIDE A Number 0016 CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Green, Porter, Dyson, Kemplen and Brice. Representative Vezey was absent. HB 307 - CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT Number 0108 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the first order of business would be HB 307, "An Act relating to custody of and visitation rights concerning children; and relating to an obligor's liability to the state for public money paid to support the obligor's children," sponsored by Representative Green. He said he would entertain a motion for the adoption of the proposed committee substitute (CS). Number 0143 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed CS, 0- LS1335\F, dated 3/18/98. There being no objection, CSHB 307, Version F was adopted. Number 0162 JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, read the following statement into the record: "The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up in homes without fathers. Young children in single mother families tend to have lower scores on verbal and math tests. Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality. "Thankfully, HB 307 does not purport to solve all of these problems. But HB 307 does recognize a growing awareness of the importance of fathers in children's lives and seeks to reduce some of the institutional barriers placed between fathers and their children. "You have adopted Version F which we presented to the committee. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to go through Version F with the committee beginning with Section 1. Number 0251 "Section 1 deals with custodial kidnaping. Technically there is no such thing as custodial or parental kidnaping under the criminal codes. However, some custodial parents, particularly after an aggressive divorce, simply takes the child and disappear. We believe that it is time for the legislature to establish a policy against that type of action. [AS] 11.41.320 deals with custodial interference in the first degree, which is a felony. Number 0292 "Section 2, [AS] 11.41.330, speaks to interference in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor. In working through this language, Mr. Chairman, we originally amended only 320(a), and then changed back to 330(a), which would have been simply the misdemeanor. But it was pointed out to us that there are cases where a custodial parent legally takes the child out of state, but then causes the child to be illegally kept out of state. In those cases, the state doesn't have the resources to go after the parent, but if the crime were a felony, it is thought by some that we have talked to that the FBI would go after the parent so we have increased the crime there to be a felony. Number 0353 "In Section 3 of the bill it deals with the custody of the child, and the standard used in the determination thereof. We believe that to get fathers into their children's lives shared custody should be the norm, not the exception as it is now. AS 25.20.090 provides a list of factors the court may consider in deciding whether or not to award joint custody, but states no preference for joint custody. We believe that parents have the right to develop a meaningful relationship with their child. Joint or shared custody puts both parents on equal footing to pursue that relationship. "Now, of course, there are exceptions. The first thing that comes to mind is what if the noncustodial parent, usually the father, is abusive? And we have dealt with that on line 10, of page 2, by stating that 'unless based on clear and convincing evidence' that is the custody will be shared physical custody unless based on clear and convincing evidence, that award would be detrimental to the best interests of the child. This is probably the section of the bill that you will hear the most about. That is the change of the test from the best interest of the child to detrimental to the child. "Currently in the area of family law is a range of models used to decide custody and visitation. They go from the traditional rule, which rests in a judge's complete discretion to determine who will be awarded custody, to more narrow standards that require the judge to make specific factual findings and conclusions. Keeping in mind the goal of the bill is to reunite parents with children, we believe that the parents have the right to the relationship. And the 'detrimental to' test is one that has proven to work. It has been used by the Alaska Supreme Court in cases where a non-parent has sought custody of a child. It is a standard used in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act and other places. We believe that it places the parents on more equal footing. Number 0526 "Section 4 deals with a problem if the custodial parent moves out of state. That constitutes a substantial change of circumstances for the purposes of modifying the visitation order, but not necessarily for modifying the custody order. And we believe that it should. "We have heard of cases where a father has fought hard to win visitation rights, and won, only to have the mother move out of state and essentially, effectively deny those rights. If the child is an infant, visitation is problematic. If the child is a little bit older, there could be summer visitations, spring break, those kinds of things. We believe that if the mother serves to defeat the visitation orders, simply by moving out of state, that the father should get another bite at the custody apple." Number 0599 MR. LOGAN continued with his testimony and referred to Section 5 which increases the penalty for willful and without just cause to permit a visitation. A custodial parent could refuse visitation for the whole summer and the fine is $200.00. In some cases the custodial parent is judgment proof and there is essentially no fine. Mr. Logan pointed out that the language has been modified so not only is the fine increased, but the definition of what a single period is, is shortened so that if this happens for more than a seven day period, that is considered another period and the fine begins to accrue. It will also empower the court to require a custodian who is ordered to pay the damages to post a bond. Number 0664 MR. LOGAN then referred to Section 6 of HB 307 which deals with the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSED) trying to locate the father. Mr. Logan said he and Representative Green have been notified of cases where CSED has not notified a male for several years that they have claimed to be the father of a child. In those cases, the father wants to deny the paternity so there is no basis for a relationship between the father and the child. Mr. Logan told the committee their attempt is to tell CSED to hurry up and identify the father so there isn't a big penalty later in the future putting the father in a position of, if they are able to pay, denying the child and not wanting the relationship with the child. MR. LOGAN pointed out there was tougher language in the original bill. In the opinion of some people, the language is too weak. They are trying to find the balance. He stated there are federal requirements for CSED to locate the father, but there is concern it is not being done. Number 0770 MR. LOGAN informed the committee Section 7 is an applicability section which indicates when certain sections kick in. Number 0793 MR. LOGAN then referred the committee to Section 8. He said this section was confusing to him but he would do his best to explain it to the committee. He said the drafters inserted this language, not at the sponsor's request. Mr. Logan told the committee last year Senate Bill 154 dealt with these issues. At the end of that process, a member of the Senate inserted a provision that was essentially a two-year repealer. Mr. Logan concluded, "We need Section 8 so that in the ensuing two years, which end July 1, 1999, our language in Section 6 is still in effect." Number 0834 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for clarification on page 3, Section 5, that the fine would accumulate at $500 every week for those who chose not to comply. MR. LOGAN answered in the affirmative, if the parent willfully denies visitation without just cause. CHAIRMAN BUNDE inquired if the sponsor had thought of other tools that would deal with people who did not conform. MR. LOGAN replied they considered a provision of the bill that was an offset for child support so that if a custodial parent denied the visitation right, the amount of the fine would be offset against the child support. Mr. Logan indicated he and Representative Green are continuing to work with the drafter over some problems that the drafter believes are constitutional problems and that language may be in a future version of the bill. Number 0908 CHAIRMAN BUNDE indicated one of the concerns addressed to him by noncustodial parents is, if they just got to see the kid, they would be more inclined to pay. He commented he suspects the children are the ones who pay the fine and not the parent. Number 0936 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if it's possible to garnishee permanent fund dividends for violation in this area. MR. LOGAN responded that wasn't something they have thought of yet, but he believes it is and will make a note and inquire about that. Number 0958 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER referred to page 2, Section 2, subsection (2), "the person is a lawful custodian of a child under 18 years of age and causes the child to be removed from the state for the purpose of preventing another person from exercising custodial or visitation rights with the child." He remarked he understood the sponsor's intent, but suggested rewording that section because that could be the specific reason they are doing it, and they may have a court order that says it's okay, but the way it is currently worded, he feels that the sponsor just made it a felony. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN interjected and stated, "Unless ordered to do so by a court or something." MR. LOGAN said he would bring that to the drafter's attention. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER then directed the committee's attention to page 2, line 20, "...a parent with primary physical custody of a child has moved with the child to reside outside of the state; notwithstanding...in a modification proceeding based on a change of circumstances under this paragraph,..." Representative Porter asked, "Am I correct that that proceeding would be after the fact of somebody removing a child and then having been somehow (indisc.) to the state for this hearing?" MR. LOGAN responded in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued, "If you have to have a modification proceeding to get a change in an existing court order that may otherwise well be justified, you certainly wouldn't want language that says that the court may not consider the desirability of maintaining continuity with the parent who moved away with the child, as a factor in determining that that movement might have been justified." Number 1105 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to page 2, Section 3, "The court shall award shared physical custody to both parents unless, based on clear and convincing evidence," which is the highest civil standard there is, and "shared physical custody is determined by the court to be detrimental to the best interests of the child". He asked what is the difference between that and the best interest of the child. MR. LOGAN replied there is a checklist the courts can go through to determine the different standards. He told the committee he can provide background information which clearly delineates factors the court considers in making that determination. CHAIRMAN BUNDE indicated the legislature recently passed legislation in the House relating to parental kidnaping and asked how this bill would dovetail with that. MR. LOGAN said he was not familiar with that legislation but would do a comparison. Number 1199 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE referred to Section 5 regarding the $500 fine and asked who would receive the money. MR. LOGAN replied he is not sure. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER interjected and said short of other directions, it would end up being fines and forfeitures in the general fund. Number 1241 CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted that Barbara Miklos, Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue, was in attendance via teleconference to answer any questions. Number 1256 DIANA BUFFINGTON, Chairman, Alaska Task Force on Family Law Reform, testified via teleconference from Kodiak. She referenced the joint custody issue stating that this bill is saying that the court shall award physical custody to both parents unless based on clear and convincing evidence. She noted that this is a nationwide movement and approximately 26 states have adopted presumptive share parenting. She told the committee that joint custody reduces child abuse and it clearly increases child collection on child support. Ms. Buffington pointed out that currently 63 percent of families are single-parent families and most of the abuse, nationwide, shows that 77 percent of child abuse is done by the mother. She also wanted to note that child access and visitation should be equally enforced as is child support. She stated that if a father is more involved with the raising of a child, there is a greater likelihood of receiving more child support and not having to go through the CSED in forms of interest and penalties to get the child support. Number 1344 MS. BUFFINGTON noted that Idaho is one of the first states that passed equal enforcement of child access as well as child support enforcement which is working very well. She urged the committee to make sure that the noncustodial parent can see the child and if the parent does not produce the child through reasonable means, then the noncustodial parent should have a right to seek some kind of damage in order to get the enforcement, rather than having to pay for an attorney. Number 1379 MS. BUFFINGTON concluded that far too many children in this country are taken out of state without the permission of the noncustodial parent and without the information provided to a court. She suggested increasing the parental kidnaping fee and felony as equally as CSED is trying to put criminal non-support on fathers who are behind in their child support. Number 1426 CAROL PALMER, Representative, Parents United for Custodial Justice, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. She informed the committee she is a noncustodial mother who has been kept from her son for approximately half of his childhood. Because of this, she has been denied to be a full parent on behalf of her son. MS. PALMER testified in favor of HB 307 on behalf of Parents United for Custodial Justice, and was especially in favor of Section 3 which deals with the courts automatically awarding shared physical custody for both parents, rather than having a fight situation for sole custody. She stated, "I've taken calls from all over the state of Alaska by the hundreds and even just recently where the problem that I'm seeing is 'based on clear and convincing evidence,' is that this is not necessarily so. We're having one parent accuse the other parent and it's basically falsified information in the court system, and I hear this continually as one of the biggest problems we have in the state." The court accepts and believes the false accusations without going into the clear and convincing evidence. She urged the committee to pass the bill and said from her standpoint, it looks pretty good. Number 1503 KENNETH KIRK, Attorney, Family Law Practice, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated HB 307 has been mostly addressed as a fatherhood bill. He feels that the problems are at least equally bad when the mother is absent from the child's life. He referenced the statistics presented earlier by Mr. Logan and noted that single parent families account for 70 percent of juveniles in reform institutions, 72 percent of adolescent murders, 80 percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals, and 75 percent of teen suicides. He advised the committee that females raised in that environment are 111 percent more likely to become teen mothers, 164 percent more likely to have out-of-wedlock births, and 92 percent more likely to divorce themselves. Number 1552 MR. KIRK referred to Sections 1 and 2 stating, "Right now, it is a legal violation to remove your child in violation of visitation for other than not primary custody orders." He said that it is only a violation with a small fine and he has never seen a case filed in court anywhere in Alaska by the district attorney because it's too small of a penalty to be worth the district attorney's time to file it. Effectively, there is no enforcement with that at all. Number 1582 MR. KIRK directed the committee's attention to lines 6-7, page 2, of Section 2, stating it is "for the purpose of preventing another person from exercising custodial or visitation rights with the child." He continued to say, "I think the key word here is 'rights.' If there was a big divorce and the judge felt this person shouldn't be around the child, shouldn't have visitation rights, that person doesn't have visitation rights with the child and if the other person moves away, they're not in violation of anything, at least not in terms of the language of this statute." Mr. Kirk said he does not think that would be a problem. Number 1614 MR. KIRK mentioned there was a question about the higher standard in Section 3. He explained that clear and convincing evidence is a standard that is partly between the reasonable doubt standard that is used in criminal law and the preponderance of the evidence standard that is used in ordinary custody cases. It is the standard that is used under Civil Rule 90.3 when you're trying to go with child support from the amount that would be done according to the exact rules and an amount that may be fair under the circumstances. If you want to do that, you have to show by clear and convincing evidence that that would be appropriate. He continued by stating the detrimental to the child standard is pretty much the same as used when a third party is petitioning for custody of a child. They would have to prove that it would be detrimental to the child or in the best interest of the child. It is a rebuttable presumption which doesn't require a judge to put a child into shared custody if it would be harmful to that child. Number 1684 MR. KIRK then referred to Section 4, subsection (c)(2), advising there is a second part to it which is the desirability of maintaining continuity. In AS 25.24.140(c) there is a list of factors the court has to look at in determining what's in the best interest of the child. One of those is the continuity of care as one parent has more or less continuous custody for a while and it is their desirability of maintaining that continuity. Mr. Kirk stated, "In some cases, when a parent moves out of state, some judges will still say they're still being cared for by the same parent and that's more important than where they are living. And so they still count that factor in favor of that primary custodian continuing to have custody. All this is saying is that should not be a factor if the parent moved out of state." He suggested taking that factor out. MR. KIRK referenced the custody preference to the noncustodial parent if the custodial parent was hiding the child and pointed out that some judges will not give the other parent custody where the custodial parent disappears with the child. He stated in most instances where there has been a big fight over custody and the custodial parent has won custody, but perhaps lost efforts to get the other parent completely pushed out of the child's life and so that parent retaliates by taking the child and disappearing. It is very difficult to get the child back if you can't get custody of the child after that parent has left. This would at least provide a preference for that. Number 1819 MR. KIRK concluded that he is concerned that the committee substitute has taken the teeth out of Section 6. "In many cases, the parent disappears for several years, comes back and is able to collect a lot of child support and all the other parent can do is get sanctions that they can't collect. At most, they're going to be able to get half of the other parent's permanent fund dividend if they're still living in state and if they're the first of the creditors to get to it." CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Mr. Kirk to clarify his last statement. MR. KIRK responded that if someone inquired about the parent who would receive the other parent's permanent fund dividend, and if that parent is still living in Alaska and eligible to receive a dividend, at most, that parent could receive only 50 percent of the other parent's permanent fund dividend. He went on to say that, of course, they're going to be on the same footing as all of the other creditors. Number 1856 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the percentage would be changed to 80 percent in other legislation. He asked Mr. Kirk if someone were fined would that money go to the custodial parent. MR. KIRK replied that technically it's not a fine, under the statute it's a sanction. The $200 under the current statute would be owed to the other parent and the sanction." Number 1882 CHAIRMAN BUNDE called on Dan Renshaw to present his testimony. DAN RENSHAW testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He indicated AS 11.41.320, which would be a method by the legislation, addresses felony custodial interference. He informed the committee that his grandson who was on visitation, was kidnaped in August and was not returned. He and his wife have been doing everything they can to locate their grandson who was last seen in California. They have some leads to his whereabouts but cannot get any assistance from the local police. They contacted the FBI, but are unable to do anything without a felony warrant issued from Alaska. Mr. Renshaw stated that the felony under AS 11.41.320 includes the misdemeanor of AS 11.41.330, plus the transportation across state line. He emphasized that he has no chance of seeing his grandson again without the changes that are in this legislation. Number 1957 MR. RENSHAW directed the committee's attention to page 1, line 10, subsection (2) of HB 307 which reads: "is a lawful custodian of a child who causes the child to be removed from the state for the purpose of preventing another person from exercising custodial or visitation rights with the child." Mr. Renshaw suggested adding after "removed from the state" on line 11 "or not returned to the state". MR. RENSHAW advised the committee that Cynthia Cooper of the attorney general's office has done an enormous amount of work to try to get a felony warrant based on various state laws dealing with judicial decisions, and is currently on appeal on a refusal for a felony warrant. He stated the appeal probably won't be heard until early April. Mr. Renshaw said, "If the appeal is sufficient, the future position is going to be the changes that you make. Since custodial interference is an ongoing criminal act, these things that you do on this particular bill will directly affect the grandson who is missing and his name is Benjamin." Mr. Renshaw urged the committee to strongly support this section of the bill. CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Mr. Renshaw for his testimony and called on Blair McCune to present his testimony. Number 2038 BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She advised the committee a fiscal note was submitted by his agency and that he was not going to address the purposes of the act. He stated through his experience, there is a correlation between abuse and neglect as a child and future criminal activity. MR. MCCUNE referred to Sections 1 and 2 of HB 307. He suggested these sections be carefully drafted. The problem with criminal laws, is they have to be carefully worded and thought out. He said his agency has done a lot of legal work on this statute. Mr. McCune stated the committee substitute looks duplicative of the original bill. He explained, "The first degree or the felony crime that's causing the child or incompetent person to be kept out of the state and then in Section 2 in the misdemeanor section, usually that has been traditionally for someone who does activity like this but keeps the child inside the state. But in Section 2, the proposed Section 2, is removed from the state." Mr. McCune said he didn't see where the drafter is going in making a difference between a felony and a misdemeanor as it is in the current law. Number 2120 MR. MCCUNE said he is concerned about the mental state. In criminal law to find someone guilty of a crime you have to have both an act or an admission that the person does, and also a state of mind of intentionally doing some act. The mental state is spelled out carefully in what now subsection (a) "wants". You have to know you don't have a legal right to do what you're doing and you have to intend to hold the child for a protracted period. Mr. McCune indicated he doesn't know what the mental state is in Section 2, whether the legislation is trying to carry that on in from Section 1 or not. He said his concern with the criminal law is even if you intend to do something, it doesn't have to be your only purpose. He can see a lot of problems in this statute. If a lawful custodian left the state partly because they don't want the other parent to have visitation, it would have to be the person's whole purpose or is a partial purpose or some intent sufficient to convict someone of a felony. Number 2194 MR. MCCUNE said the use of the word "fine" would denote a criminal case. He further explained the usage of the terms "damages" and "sanctions." Sanctions are usually imposed by the court for some kind of bad behavior which would go to the judge and general fund, and damages, which is what he sees in the language, are usually paid to the other party in a lawsuit. CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Mr. McCune for his testimony and called on the next witness to testify. Number 2218 GARY MAXWELL, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told the committee the best parent is both parents and this legislation is designed to encourage both parents to remain involved in their children's lives. Referring to Section 2 of the CS, he stated there should have always been a presumption for shared physical custody and referred to Diana Buffington's testimony noting 26 other states have that. Mr. Maxwell said he agrees with Section 3 of the CS as currently written, but is concerned the CS has taken the meat out of this legislation when it comes to the CSED notifying the noncustodial parent that they have child support obligations. MR. MAXWELL informed the committee he has friends who are case workers with the CSED who have told him they were advised, under management mandate, to take the AFDC cases and put them into the storage room for about two years because they've got six years to find the noncustodial parent and serve them. He asked, "How do you think they create these deadbeat parents?" That's one of the ways. MR. MAXWELL requested the committee to put back in Section 7 which bars them from any action (indisc.) by the obligor until the obligor is notified. He referred to a situation where a debt is ongoing and the obligor may or may not even know about it. Mr. Maxwell said the bottom line is the legislature needs to get the CSED fixed before any more laws are passed which gives them more power to abuse. He said he would like to see several changes with the CSED and would be willing to sit down with Ms. Miklos to discuss those. He urged the committee to pass HB 307, but suggested putting Section 7 back in which bars them from any recovery if they don't notify an obligor within 30 days. Number 2306 CHARLES WOOD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told the committee, "I am currently a resident of Alaska because (indisc.) time to a kidnaping and I had to come here to Alaska (indisc.) afford the attorney fees and this obligation to (indisc.) were much too high." He urged the committee to pass the legislation in its entirety and he thinks it would help the large majority of fathers and mothers as well. Number 2335 MICHAEL SHARP testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He informed the committee he is a single parent of two daughters and the mother has primary custody of his daughters. He said the bill would help him out but the bottom line is that it goes back to the judge and once the judge makes a decision, and CSED makes another decision, they file something to a magistrate for domestic violence ... TAPE 98-26, SIDE B Number 0036 MR. SHARP continued "...and the judge's decision, you get all these people to override other people." He pointed out he's spent approximately $50,000 dealing with conflicts between himself and the children's mother and the children are the ones suffering the most. Mr. Sharp stated some of these problems could be clarified with the passage of HB 307 which would also benefit the children. His way of loving his children is spending time with them and if he's fined or if the mother disappears with them, there's no way he would be able to do that. He requested the committee to be very specific in the wording of the bill and urged them to pass it. Number 0036 RICHARD SHAFER testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he would like to see this legislation go through "because it's time that we start spreading out the (indisc.) of responsibility on those who really need it." He said parenting is a two-person job, but when you have a legal system that advocates a single parenting system throughout, it creates an environment that almost extorts to the point of being a single parent. Mr. Shafer concluded, "It's time we look at joint custody relations, look at joint parenting, and the state needs to take a role in this if they're going to take a role in the custody of children in this state, which they haven't done in the past. They're doing everything but that." Number 0085 JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, testified in opposition to HB 307. She indicated one of the things happening in the domestic violence movement across the country is they are finally starting to focus in and understand the impacts that domestic violence between parents have on children. Children who live in domestic violence homes are at a greater risk to be injured. They are traumatized by the fear of seeing their parents, usually their mother, being abused by their father. They blame themselves for not being able to prevent the violence and they are quite often abused or neglected themselves. Number 0122 MS. ANDREEN explained that in Alaska, the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) has been investigating their cases and have found that two-thirds of their child abuse cases were situations where domestic violence was occurring. Nationally, 75 percent of battered women report that their children are also abused. Ms. Andreen said the division is interested in implementing and establishing a rebuttable presumption in child custody and visitation cases where domestic violence occurs. The rebuttable presumption would state that it is damaging for children to witness domestic violence and that it is up to the offender to prove to the court that it's in the best interest of the children to have visitation or custody with that child. Ms. Andreen told the committee that this bill turns that completely around the other way by saying that the court will give shared physical custody for children in all cases, unless there is clear and convincing evidence. The division is concerned that it raises the standard much too high for many children in Alaska. Number 0181 MS. ANDREEN expressed concerns with Section 4 of HB 307. She indicated that quite often the nonoffending parent, usually the mother, has to seek safety in a confidential location which Alaska's law has incorporated into its protective order indicating the court does not have to release the location and phone number of victims. She referred to Section 4, lines 23-24, stating, "If a parent has to leave to protect themselves and their children, doesn't dispose the location of where they are, the court may not have to consider the desirability of maintaining contact with that nonoffending parent. The division is concerned about the position that will place a lot of children and their parents in." MS. ANDREEN concluded her testimony stating, "All of us want to have healthy families and children in Alaska. Unfortunately, who we never hear from is the many parents who are able to put aside their personal differences and put the best interests of their children forward. Those are the ones that are able to agree before they even go into court on the custody arrangements, those are the people that can and should be looking at shared custody and equal access with visitation for their children. Unfortunately, the ones that end up in contested situations are the ones where, for whatever reasons, too often it's domestic violence, they're not able to put aside those differences, or it's not safe for the nonoffending parent in those children." Number 0257 CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented that some questions have been raised, noting the sponsor has been taking copious notes, and closed the public testimony on HB 307. Chairman Bunde indicated HB 307 would be held over and considered again at a later date. HB 429 - REQUIRING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Number 0263 CHARIMAN BUNDE announced the next order of business would be HB 429, "An Act relating to vocational education." REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, sponsor, stated this bill is fairly simple in text but it has some far-reaching ramifications. He noted the bill only has one section which adds language requiring two credits of vocational education for a student to graduate from high school. He indicated that vocational education in Alaska is important. Given the rural nature of lifestyle in the state of Alaska, it appears as if we've gotten away from vocational education in our high schools. Representative Austerman stated it has been a bug in his (indisc.) for some time and it's the main reason why he introduced this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted that an employee of British Petroleum, who has been working on pipelines and drill sites in Alaska, told him that he has been using the bill as a tool because when he went out and tried to get people lined up for work, there was a lack of basic welders in the state of Alaska, which floored him because of the nature of the work that they do and the amount of workers that they have. He stated he has talked to a few people who are involved in the seafood and processing industry and they are having the same problems, trying to find basic welder-type people, basic diesel mechanics, and those kinds of trades. Number 0381 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said it's time to take a hard look at the vocational education in the state of Alaska, and this legislation is one way of doing it. He said the legislature could request the Department of Education to add it into their regulations, but had they recognized it, maybe they'll take a stronger look at it. Representative Austerman indicated the only way he can guarantee that vocational education is going to start happening on a stronger scale in the state of Alaska is to put it in statute. Number 0408 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the bill indicates adding two hours and wanted to know if some schools use units instead of hours. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that the state regulations refer to it as units of credits. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested using units instead of hours as it is in the regulations. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied he thought the drafter had made a technical error and is not sure about the technicality of it. CHAIRMAN BUNDE remarked that this legislation is being heard for the first time which will give Representative Austerman a chance to research that question before this legislation is brought up at a later date. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this legislation is adopted, would it create a problem in more remote sites to require this curriculum be available. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated he didn't think so. He said he doesn't see any problems because the students have all these elective hours that these two hours would come out of. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he wasn't thinking of the time for the student, just the availability of the expertise to teach the course in the more remote areas. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated he has no idea. Number 504 REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN commented that vocational education has traditionally been met after high school at the community college level and asked why this legislation is aimed at the high school level. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN agreed with Representative Kemplen that the 13th and 14th year are very important. He said it has to start some place, and the fact that the emphasis on vocational education has been dropped in our high schools has created some of the problems we have. He said we need to get back into a system of educating our children. He plans on working on the 13th and 14th year and the vocational schooling systems around the state of Alaska and the community colleges and how they all should be tied together. Number 0663 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he has some reluctance to add additional mandates for instruction in the schools when we're getting all over their cases for not teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. He commented there's a lot of stuff he feels doesn't meet vocational training's level of necessity. Representative Porter asked if there was a definition for vocational training. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied he would get that information. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that computer skills could just as well be vocational training these days. Number 0710 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked why we should substitute our judgment for that of a local school board. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied he cannot answer that. He stated it's no different than the legislature telling the Alcohol Beverage Control Board how many different kinds of licences they ought to have in statute. There's a lot of different ideas on how law should be written. Everyone has their own preference. He said, "If this is the wrong preference, you guys will tell me and I won't go anywhere with it." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented he feels we have a constitutional responsibility and he is struggling with not leaving more responsibility up to the local schools boards. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN concluded by stating it depends on how you look at what you're mandating them to do. A lot of it goes back to the determination within each community. Number 0860 BARRY ALTENHOF, Teacher, Kodiak High School, testified via teleconference from Kodiak on behalf of himself. He told the committee he teaches the drafting and welding program and offers his complete support to HB 429. Mr. Altenhof said there are probably a lot of numbers that get tossed around regarding graduation rates and where kids go from high school. He stated that approximately 75 percent of high school graduates do not go to a four-year college which leaves a lot of students without a clear, well thought-out career path when they leave high school. He feels this bill might address these issues. Mr. Altenhof said he didn't think HB 429 would take any power away from local boards, but will make students, parents and teachers think about the kind of training structure which is offered in our schools. When students leave after four years of high school, they will at least have two credits of exposure to vocational-type skill classes. He feels this legislation will make everyone face the reality that there are a lot of students leaving high school who don't have a fundamental orientation to learning skills. Mr. Altenhof feels students need more vocational training and a more clearly-defined skill program in high school. Number 1021 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Altenhof if he sees, as a current teacher, that this legislation would cause any kind of a hardship for those five or ten percent of students who are obviously university-bound to say that, "Gee whiz, I would rather have taken an elective in French or advanced math course." He asked Mr. Altenhof if he sees this impacting their high school time at all. MR. ALTENHOF responded, "not really." He noted in the Kodiak School District, 7 of the 21 electives required to graduate can be electives and requiring one more credit of vocational education doesn't seem to be a substantial imposition on the other choices the students may make. It depends on how vocational education is defined. He commented that that is one of the issues that needs to be resolved. Number 1128 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN indicated technology is changing so fast and one particular vocational skill may not be useful for very long because of the pace of technological change. He said it seems you would want to produce a labor force that is composed of people who are flexible enough to learn new technologies as they change and not just turning out technicians who are trained for a particular skill that's of limited duration. MR. ALTENHOF commented Representative Kemplen made an excellent point. He said he has spoken with Representative Austerman on several occasions to reset the goal of adaptability. In order for these programs to have value, not only do they have to be adaptable, but students also have to be aware of what their choices are. He believes there are ways that can change the program offerings to meet that need. Number 1284 CHAIRMAN BUNDE told Representative Austerman he is looking forward to hearing HB 429 and supporting it. He further stated not only should we have vocational training for job opportunities, but we should have it for everyone so they have some respect for people who are the problem solvers who work with their hands, and so that they don't become captives of the independent service person. Number 1335 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN gave his closing comments stating he agrees with Mr. Altenhof but he also feels that the concepts of vocational education are powerful tools for enlightening minds of what you're capable of doing. Number 1370 CHAIRMAN BUNDE closed the public testimony on HB 429 and indicated the bill would be held for further consideration. HB 407 - TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP LOANS Number 1415 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next order of business would be HB 407, "An Act relating to repayment of teacher scholarship loans." REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, sponsor, came before the committee. He informed the committee HB 407 addresses a problem that was brought to his attention and the wording of the legislation speaks right to the problem. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained the Teacher Scholarship Loan Program provides incentive to Alaskans who want to teach in the rural areas of the state. It gives them a scholarship to attend college and when they graduate, when they teach in rural areas, there's a process of forgiving the loan. There are stipulations that require you to teach in rural areas to qualify for forgiveness. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS told the committee there was an instance when a medical problem arose with one of the students that graduated and due to medical procedures required that she be within the Anchorage area to receive treatment. He indicated the student is able to teach, she doesn't want to claim a full disability because she is not fully disabled. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said they attempted to write language that gave the department discretion in some of these situations, but he doesn't blame the department. He thinks it wasn't specifically said that they do not want the discretion, but they didn't pursue that and they wrote the legislation to address this specific problem. He further explained HB 407 addresses an additional condition that the loans can be forgiven. Number 1565 GARY REED, testified via teleconference from Kenai. He briefed the committee that he is the father of the person the bill was drafted for. He said the reason the bill was drafted was that his daughter graduated from high school in 1991, and had a 3.87 grade point average (GPA). After high school she attended college in Anchorage to pursue the career of becoming a teacher. Her goal was to become a teacher and teach in rural Alaska. He advised the committee in January, 1996, she was diagnosed with a degenerative disease which there is no cure for, but it can be greatly reduced in its progression by medical treatment. The treatment is continuous and has to be quite regular. The disease prevented his daughter from going to the Bush and has also affected her mentally. Mr. Reed said her rheumatologist wanted her to take disability, but she refused. She is capable of teaching at this time, but in five to ten years from now, that might change. He continued by stating his daughter is devastated because she is unable to teach in the Bush and has a loan she anticipated would be forgiven by fulfilling the obligations under the program. MR. REED informed the committee he wrote a letter to Commissioner Holloway of the Department of Education. Commissioner Holloway told him the current legislation allows only for people who are claiming total disability. There is no option for any partial disability. Mr. Reed said HB 407 would give the commissioner another option to consider and another tool to take into consideration special circumstances. Mr. Reed urged the committee members to take this situation into consideration and pass the legislation. Number 1738 MARCIA REED was next to come before the committee to testify. She stated she is the mother of the daughter who finished college and wanted to teach in the Bush, but now has been diagnosed with a medical condition that doesn't enable her to do that. Ms. Reed said her daughter is not totally disabled and wants to work. She encouraged the committee members to support and pass HB 407 so that her daughter's scholarship funds may be forgiven. Number 1788 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said this is the first time the committee has heard HB 407, and normally bills are not passed out of committee at the first hearing because it will give the members a chance to address concerns they might have. Chairman Bunde told Representative Davis he is looking for wording in the legislation which says "diagnosed" or "required by"; some certification by a medical professional that would require that they stay in an urban area. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS responded that they haven't gotten into that detail in the legislation. He said he would assume that statutes and regulations written on the legislation would protect the Department of Education to assure them that that is the condition. He pointed out they could rephrase the bill and put it in statute. CHAIRMAN BUNDE recommended Representative Davis check with the Department of Education and see if they can take care of that in regulation. Number 1867 MIKE MAHER, Director, Student Financial Aid, Postsecondary Education Commission, Department of Education, came before the committee to testify. He stated the department would promulgate regulations similar to the medical write-off that would require two doctors' opinions that this individual would have to stay in an urban area of the state to receive their medical treatment which would be sufficient for the department. Number 1900 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Maher if sees this type of a condition very often. MR. MAHER replied very seldom; two or three times. He indicated the regulations would fill in a loophole for individuals that have good intentions and go off to school and get a degree, come back and want to work in the rural areas, and through nothing they have done, they are prohibited to do that. As long as they teach in an urban area, they would receive the same yearly forgiveness benefits as an individual going to the Bush. Number 1969 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that this is a narrow exception and no other facts are needed to make a decision. Therefore, Representative Porter made a motion to move HB 407 out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 407 moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. SSHB 366 - NO CINA BASED SOLELY ON POVERTY Number 2003 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announed the next item on the agenda was SSHB 366, "An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid proceedings," sponsored by Representative Dyson. Number 2020 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he believes the legislature will pass legislation which will equip the various agencies of the state to take protective custody of children when necessary. He indicated they will slightly alter their emphasis and make the protection of children the highest priority. Representative Dyson said he does not believe there are any present examples of a need for the bill he has brought before the committee. It makes it very clear that the status of not having a home or being the level of income that the government would call below the poverty level, or having an unusual lifestyle is not negligence and does not give the state a basis on which to assume custody. Representative Dyson reiterated he does not know of cases where that has been abused, but there may be some. He said he has been working with the Administration on this legislation and he believes they do not have a problem with what they have written. Number 2144 CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to line 6 of the bill stating he has a concern with the wording "generally accepted lifestyles standard." He stated the wording has too broad of a loophole, for example, if someone wants to live in the back of their car. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded that living in the back of a car (indisc.). It does not mean a child is being abused or neglected necessarily. Number 2211 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER shared the same concern about the wording on line 6, "lives a lifestyle that is different from the generally accepted lifestyle." He commented he thought living in the back of a car is covered by "lacks adequate housing" on line 5 of the bill. He stated he doesn't know what a generally accepted lifestyle is, but if you can live any lifestyle other than what is accepted, that may be precisely what it is that they should be taken away from their parents for. Representative Porter asked for an example of why we should have that language. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he knows of a case where a parent was turned in by her sister for child abuse because she was a vegetarian which triggered a DFYS investigation which terrified a young mother and husband. He said the parents had a meeting with DFYS and the investigators of the division thought the children were healthy and doing very well. "And just because they ... TAPE 98-27, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON continued "...child in need of aid if in fact they are not getting the food, shelter, protection and the freedom from physical, sexual, and mental injury. There is nothing in the bill that negates those things." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated if DFYS investigated a complaint solely on the basis of the person being a vegetarian, then that needs to be fixed. He assumes there were probably other allegations which caused DFYS to investigate which this legislation would not change. CHAIRMAN BUNDE remarked the committee would have a legal opinion shortly. Number 0091 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he hopes the person that made the complaint would have some charges brought against them. He then gave an example of an Alaskan lifestyle and asked what if a family who lives in an urban area runs out of food and decides to rough it out in the woods and not seek assistance in a nearby community, putting their child in jeopardy of malnutrition. Would this legislation cover those type of scenarios? Number 0173 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded that if the child is being malnourished or does not have adequate shelter, the state has the right to intervene. This legislation, in no way, does that. But, indeed, the family living on the Yukon River may not meet the federal poverty standards. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE remarked he wants it to be very clear on the record regarding that. CHAIRMAN BUNDE called on Susan Wibker to testify. Number 0244 SUSAN WIBKER, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Law, came before the committee to testify. She advised the committee she was also testifying on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Services. She said both departments support Representative Dyson's amendment. She stated as she read the bill, she thought of all the families on the Homer Spit in the summer with healthy, well cared for, happy, loved children in tents. And there is absolutely no reason for the state to interfere unless there is a reason to be concerned about the health and safety of the children. She pointed out that the department does receive telephone calls regarding situations Representative Dyson described, which are well-intentioned calls, and investigators find there is no reason to get involved other than somebody does not agree with somebody else's lifestyle. Ms. Wibker stated this legislation makes it very clear to the worker and the courts that it has to be the health and safety of the child that is at risk, or the state shouldn't be involved. She said if there is better language for tightening up whatever we're going to call community norm, fine, but it is a good thing to have. CHAIRMAN BUNDE called on the next witness to testify via teleconference. Number 0339 DIANA BUFFINGTON, Chairman, Alaska Task Force on Family Law Reform; and President and State Coordinator for the Children's Right Council of Alaska, testified in support of HB 366 via teleconference from Kodiak. She stated, "I support this bill simply because we should not face the poverty level, or lacks adequate housing, or lives a different lifestyle that is not acceptable to other people." She then referred to a report by the U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect stating child advocates insist there are 2.7 million youngsters a year that are suffering grievance abuse, but statistics reflect total reports of suspected mistreatment, not substantiated individual cases. Ms. Buffington stated she feels this bill, added to the statutes, would give DFYS some guidelines on what constitutes a child in need. She suggested investigating what a loving and nurturing environment is and said DFYS needs to look at the environment, not just the housing facilities and the availability of money. Number 0574 CHAIRMAN BUNDE informed the committee if HB 366 was being referred to the Judiciary Committee where the committee would be able to review it again, they would be able to discuss lifestyle at that meeting and move the bill today. However, since there are questions to be answered, he suggested holding the bill for further consideration. Number 0597 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there's a loophole that the defense attorney could find to mess up the bill. He pointed out that the sponsor substitute states a child in need cannot be based solely on a person's lifestyle. He referred to lines 6-7 of the sponsor substitute and said he would be more comfortable with the wording "lives an otherwise harmless lifestyle that is different from the generally accepted lifestyle standard of the community" or something like that. Number 0645 MS. WIBKER referred the committee to lines 7-9 of SSHB 366 and stated she feels the last sentence was designed to address that issue which reads, "However this subsection may not be construed to prevent a court from finding that a child is in need of aid if the child has been subjected to conduct or conditions described in (a) of this section." She said subsection (a) lists all the grounds for jurisdiction. Therefore, if a child comes within the jurisdiction of the court under some other ground, they are still a child in need of aid. Number 0704 CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated he has concerns with the wording "alternate lifestyle." He noted in other parts of the legislature, legislation is working its way through which would prevent a homosexual marriage which connotates adopting or caring for children. He asked if this legislation would be an affirmative offense that would allow a homosexual couple to adopt because you cannot say that a child is in need of aid because they are choosing an alternative lifestyle. MS. WIBKER said she didn't think this legislation would have anything to do with whether a homosexual couple could adopt; it is strictly jurisdiction to be found a child in need of aid. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if a single parent was openly homosexual, and if this bill passed, someone could not file a complaint with DFYS saying this is a child in need of aid because the parent is very overt in their homosexual behavior. MS. WIBKER stated the way the law is written, unless that child falls under the jurisdiction for abuse or neglect, the state cannot do anything. Number 0800 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said part of what he is doing here is defensive, in a sense. He feels this legislation is a small step to say no. He said there is a very narrow area that they want the state to take jurisdiction. He pointed out that the department has struggled to find, train, and keep good folks. Once in a while if they get someone who doesn't have good judgment or is new to the state and not familiar with urban Alaskan lifestyle, this bill adds some protection to draconian actions by new and inexperienced staff. Number 0877 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move SSHB 366 out of committee. There being no objection, SSHB 366 was moved out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. HCR 21 - PARITY FOR MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE Number 0900 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next order of business would be HCR 21, "Establishing the Alaska Task Force on Parity for Mental Health." He said he would entertain a motion for the adoption of the proposed committee substitute (CS). REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed CS, 0- LS0972\E, Ford, 3/19/98, as a work draft. There being no objection, that version was before the committee. Number 0935 WALTER MAJOROS, Executive Director, Alaska Mental Health Board, Department of Health and Social Services, presented the sponsor statement on behalf of the department. He said the main purpose of the CS is to establish a task force to study the issue of mental health parity and health insurance. It's basically the issue of differential treatment of mental illnesses versus physical illnesses in health insurance. The task force would report back to the legislature with recommendations on how Alaska should address this issue. He informed the committee the legislation is being brought forth by a consortium of 14 organizations that include consumer organizations, provider organizations, and state of Alaska organizations. MR. MAJOROS pointed out that nine out of ten insurance policies treat mental illnesses different from physical illnesses which means less coverage, less benefits, and often no coverage and no benefits for mental illnesses. In recognition of this problem, there has been a lot of action at both the federal and state levels. He told the committee at the federal level in 1996, the federal government passed a bill called the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 which is an excellent first step toward achieving parity. He advised the committee the federal bill did two things: 1) it equalized annual benefit limits for mental illness versus physical illness; and 2) it equalized lifetime benefits within health insurance policies for mental illness versus physical illness. Mr. Majoros said, "The legislation is a first step but there are many things that this legislation doesn't do. Insurance companies still do not have to cover mental illness. If they do have it, they can drop it as a result of this legislation if they find it too onerous. If they can demonstrate that their costs increased by more than 1 percent, they can receive an exemption and there's no provisions to equalize things like copayments, or deductibles, or visits, or anything relative to benefit design." MR. MAJOROS explained in recognition of this, several states have taken their own actions, some before the federal legislation and some afterwards. At this point, 15 states have passed parity legislation and 25 states are considering legislation at this time including the state of Alaska. He noted states have taken many different approaches in terms of how they have addressed parity, but most of them feel that it is an important issue to address. Number 1094 MR. MAJOROS then discussed the costs of mental health parity. In terms of the impact of the federal legislation, a study was recently conducted by Rand Corporation and they determined to equalize annual limits . One of the main provisions of the federal act will cost approximately $1 per person, per year. It's a real negligible cost. To provide more extensive coverage, more extensive parity, it would cost $7 per person, per year. To implement the federal law is a negligible cost. Mr. Majoros advised there has been minimal financial impact with the state's experiences that have implemented parity. MR. MAJOROS briefed the committee regarding the impacts on public sector costs. He said many people with mental illnesses are forced to rely on Medicaid and adult public assistance because of their lack of private insurance options for mental illnesses. He pointed out that other states' experiences have shown that by offering insurance options in the private sector, you can reduce the reliance on public assistance and Medicaid programs. There can be some savings in the public sector as a result of this. MR. MAJOROS then referred the committee's attention to the composition of the task force on pages 2-3 of the committee substitute which would be comprised of 11 members. He emphasized there are many ways to address parity and the task force would tailor an approach that is unique to the needs of Alaska, and make recommendations and bring them back to the legislature. He noted there are no state general funds attached to the resolution which is stated in the resolution and that there cannot be state general funds. He indicated the task force has been prefunded by the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. In conclusion, Mr. Majoros said there is a clear discrimination in health insurance toward mental illness. The task force believes it is unwarranted and there are many ways to successfully address parity which has been demonstrated by many states. Number 1256 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Majoros if young children with various afflictions, such as fetal alcohol syndrome, would be eligible for mental health treatment, and if the task force will review the impact on the overall cost. MR. MAJOROS replied the task force will review it in terms of whether it will be included or excluded. Firstly, the task force would define what they consider to be mental illness, serious mental illness and mental health consumer. Within that definition, that would either set the scope narrow or broad, but that would be totally within the purview of the task force. Number 1319 CHAIRMAN BUNDE called the next witness to testify before the committee. MARY ELIZABETH RIDER, Planner, Alaska Mental Health Trust, advised the committee the trust has an interest in the task force because the trustees are interested on the appropriate funding for a variety of services for trust beneficiaries and other people with special needs, in particular, the issue of private insurance limiting some care versus not limiting other care. The trust wants to understand the impact this kind of legislation could have if it is the right thing for Alaska to do or not. Ms. Rider indicated the trust is interested enough that the trustees prefunded this with $50,000 in trust funds. She expressed the trust has a desired outcome for this project. They are looking for increased clarity as policy and program development for mental health services to trust beneficiaries and to people who don't need to be on the state program. Number 1390 JUDY EDWARDS came before the committee to testify. She told the committee her son has a mental illness and has been hospitalized five times in the last year. She said she will not be able to get insurance for her son from now on unless his condition goes away. She explained that her insurance company, CHAMPUS Tricare Insurance for the Military, has been difficult in providing services for her son who is out of state. CHAMPUS recommended giving up custody of her son and she feels that is a discrimination because if her son had another type of disability such as blindness, they would not dare suggest something like this. She said her son might be able to get some services with state funding. She feels that her son should have access to any services that are out there, if there are any, regardless if she gives up custody. MS. EDWARDS informed the committee she has the safety of her other children to consider. She explained that DFYS got involved because her son threatened to kill his sister, and that DFYS interviewed her son alone and suggested to her that if she could not keep her other children safe, they could take her other children from her. Ms. Edwards said she has nothing to gain from this except that she wants her son back in Alaska. She said she understands this bill addresses parity but she wants the committee to understand the prejudice against mental illness. Number 1624 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Edwards if her son is currently out of state and if this legislation were enacted, how would it help her get him back. MS. EDWARDS replied it would help in the respect that when he comes back and is on Medicaid or with CHAMPUS, if the legislature reduces the prejudice in any way with mental illness, it will help her son in the long run and those kids like him. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move CSHCR 21, Version E, out of committee. There being no objection, CSHCR 21(HES) moved out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT Number 1723 CHAIRMAN BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting at 5:12 p.m.

Document Name	Date/Time	Subjects

Open document in new windowX