Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/16/1999 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 1999
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Co-Chair
Representative John Coghill, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Joe Green
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Allen Kemplen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to smoking education and cessation programs
administered by the Department of Health and Social Services."
- RESCINDED ACTION IN REPORTING CSHB 37(HES), VERSION 1-
LS0247\D, OUT OF COMMITTEE; MOVED CSHB 37(HES), VERSION 1-
LS0247\G, OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARING:
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
Nelson Page
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
LONG-TERM CARE TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
* HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to disclosure of information about certain
children; and amending Rule 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to state aid for education.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: SMOKING CESSATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 27 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 27 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 27 (H) HES
3/11/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/11/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 37(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/16/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 15
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER PARENT RIGHTS TO DISCLOSE INFO
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG, Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 21 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
3/16/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 37 and HB 15.
TRACEY ZAHRADKA, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 37.
NELSON PAGE, Appointee
to Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
810 North Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-6100
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees.
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 15.
RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 15.
SARAH SHORT, President
Families First Partnership
5535 North Star Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 357-3618
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
BETTY ROLLINS
P.O. Box 55163
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
SCOTT CALDER
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 474-0174
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
CHRIS HUTCHISON, President
Voice for the Children Foster Parent Support Group
P.O. Box 1323
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-2293
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
MARCI SCHMIDT
2040 Fishhook
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 357-3618
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 15.
KATHY TIBBLES, Program Administrator
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3023
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 15.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON 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 Dyson, Coghill,
Whitaker, Morgan and Kemplen. Representatives Brice and Green
arrived at 3:06 p.m. and 3:07 p.m., respectively
HB 37 - SMOKING CESSATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as House
Bill No. 37, "An Act relating to smoking education and cessation
programs administered by the Department of Health and Social
Services."
Number 0246
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said they need to rescind their action of passing
out CSHB 37(HES), bring it back to the table and make some changes.
He said the chair will entertain a motion to rescind their actions
in passing out of committee CSHB 37(HES), Version D on March 11,
1999. He asked if there was any objection. Hearing no objection,
he announced that the action was rescinded.
Number 0304
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 37, version 1-LS0247\G, as a work draft. There
being no objection, Version G was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
said the drafter felt he could add to the bill with more economic
language. He introduced his aide Tracey Zahradka who explained the
changes.
TRACEY ZAHRADKA, Legislative Administrative Assistant for
Representative Norman Rokeberg, said there were three substantive
changes to CSHB 37, version D. The first change is on page 2, line
10, where the words "after notice and an opportunity for hearing"
were added. The bill would raise constitutional due process
problems without this. The second change omits Amendment 4 which
was the amendment to Section AS 43.70.075 License endorsement. In
his memo the bill drafter says this provision already applies to
individuals who are not licensed, and he didn't feel it was
necessary or possible to amend the provision in that manner. The
third change is on page 3, line 1, where the word "nonprofit" was
deleted to simplify the wording in Amendment 5.
Number 0539
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Representative Rokeberg if the word
"nonprofit" is removed, is it the intention to have for-profit
organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that it allows the department to
make either contractual or grant arrangements with nonprofit and/or
for-profit for organizations. It gives the department flexibility.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered why a contract would be granted to a
profit making organization.
Number 0600
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that a health care provider would
be an example of that; the business organizations of some health
care providers or types of organizations might not necessarily be
nonprofit, for example Native corporations.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN has some concerns about this but won't hold up
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the omission of the specific category
broadens the category. The intent of the sentence is to "out
source" this funding rather than keep it within the governmental
hierarchy and expand bureaucracy.
Number 0738
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked for clarification on what "the grant
is payment for services provided."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it could be either grant or contract.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL asked if it limits only programs listed (A)
through (E).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that was correct. He gave an example
of awarding 500 nicotine patch kits to the Alaska Regional
Hospital, which is a for-profit organization, if they had the means
to distribute them.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON added the possibility of a for-profit public
relations firm or commercial television doing some anti-tobacco
marketing.
Number 0866
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to page 3, (E) enforcement components
and asked what kind of private entities will have enforcement
components.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the enforcement would mainly be done
between the department and law enforcement agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said it seems like any organization that
responds to the department's request for proposal (RFP) will have
to have five elements to that proposal, (A) through (E) because it
says "the program must include the following five components" and
wondered if that is the intention.
Number 0981
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that wasn't his intention. He thinks
the drafting is clear enough to say that the program belongs in the
department, and the elements that could be contracted or granted
out could include portions of the program.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if it would be Representative Rokeberg's
intention on page 3, line 1 should read "with organizations in the
state; the program 'could' include."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred back to page 2, lines 31 and 32,
"the department shall conduct the program" and said that is what is
being talked about.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL asked for clarification on the language "must
include."
Number 1107
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if the committee wishes to make an
amendment for clarification purposes, it would not be at that spot.
That part includes the description of what needs to be included in
the program. If there are any modifying words they would be on
line 31. It is important that the bill maintain the program
language to maintain a comprehensive program which will not allow
the department to piecemeal it.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed that they want the whole program to
have these elements, but they want to ensure that the department
has the flexibility to contract out each one of the elements.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said it would have been clearer to him if on page
3, line 1, it read: "...with organizations in the state. The
program must include:" With the semi-colon there it seems like the
contracting or granting out must include all five elements as
opposed to the program.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that they make a conceptual
amendment.
Number 1265
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion for a conceptual amendment to
make it clear that what the department may do is contract or grant
out the elements of the program to various organizations, so it is
very clear that one organization is not responsible for all five
components.
Number 1301
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was any objection. There
being none, the amendment was adopted.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move CSHB 37, version G, as
amended conceptually with individual recommendations with attached
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 37(HES) moved from the
House Health, Education and Social Services Committee.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Number 1377
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the committee would consider Nelson
Page for Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees.
They would not vote for the nominee but would pass him out of
committee for full consideration of the House and Senate. (His
resume was provided.)
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
Number 1398
NELSON PAGE, Appointee to the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
Board of Trustees, testified via teleconference. He said he has
been an attorney in Anchorage for twenty years and got involved in
mental health issues as a foster parent. He was appointed to the
mental health board in 1988 and served for several years. In 1995
he was appointed as the first chair of the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority, and he has served as chair since then and is
privileged to be re-nominated by the governor for reappointment.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that he has appreciated Mr. Page's work
on the board and asked what is going on for emergency services for
mental health statewide.
MR. PAGE said that the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, in
cooperation with a number of agencies and organizations, are
looking at ways to renovate and change the psychiatric
hospitalization process. Now they are trying to find ways to
replace the Alaska Psychiatric Institution (API). When patients
were deinstitutionalized from mental hospitals because of the
advent of medication, there were not programs for them once they
got out of the institution. The Trust Authority and others are
working to make sure there are programs outside the Anchorage area
that will serve the people's need once they leave institutional
settings to live in their communities.
MR. PAGE went on to say that as for emergency care, designated
evaluations and designated treatment beds are in the works. These
are beds in local or regional hospital facilities where patients
with psychiatric needs, but not at a critical or long-term level,
can be treated and released within a short period of time. They
are concerned to make sure that as API is downsized, there will be
resources in designated evaluation and treatment beds so the
regional hospitals can take up the slack.
Number 1574
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE expressed his concern for having the
appropriate response in this state. He said that often the
response to mental illness is the correctional system, and he
thinks they have that scenario in Alaska and would hope they have
a more humane response in the community to mental health episodes,
and he appreciates Mr. Page's work in addressing that.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced they will pass this along by individual
recommendations out of committee today.
Long-Term Care Task Force Subcommittee Report
Number 1643
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as the
Long-Term Care Task Force Subcommittee Report. He called on
Representative Green to present the legislation.
Number 1657
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to his memorandum of March 4, 1999 in
the packet that explains the changes. The subcommittee suggests
that the four recommendations out of the Long-Term Care Task Force
be enacted, and legislation to do that is attached to his
memorandum.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that Recommendation Number 3 allows
the disclosure of the reports with regard to inspection
investigations and authorizes the Department of Health, Education
and Social Services to license home health care agencies. The
legislation for that is Attachment 1.
Number 1720
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that Recommendation Number 7 relates
to vulnerable adults and will allow the Department of
Administration to continue with their investigation if they have
reasonable cause to believe that the vulnerable adult is in need of
protection. The legislation for that is Attachment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that Recommendation Number 13
relates to the establishment of a home and community-based services
program and will allow the Department of Administration to create
a new program which would allow adults with long-term care needs to
receive care in their home. The legislation for that is Attachment
3.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that Recommendation Number 21
relates to nursing home certificates of need and will establish a
new set of standards for the issuance of certificates for nursing
homes. The legislation for that is Attachment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said the committee or legislature may want
to consider the possibility of the legislators having access to the
files if they get a call from a constituent complaining about a
vulnerable adult.
Number 1913
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he intends that these bills become committee
bills; they will be scheduled for hearing, and amendments could be
offered at that time.
Number 2068
The committee took a brief at-ease from 4:43 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
HB 15 - FOSTER PARENT RIGHTS TO DISCLOSE INFO
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House
Bill No. 15, "An Act relating to disclosure of information about
certain children; and amending Rule 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid
Rules." He called on Representative Rokeberg's aide Janet Seitz to
present the bill.
Number 2095
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, said HB 15 would allow foster parents to discuss matters
with their legislator or other public officials about the foster
child. It is a breach of confidentiality to do this now and can
put their foster care license at risk. She cited a case where a
foster parent felt that the reunification plan proposed by the
Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) with the natural
parent would put the child in danger. She tried to work through
the division and the department but didn't get any satisfaction and
finally went outside the department to get help to stop this
reunification plan. In this instance the foster parent was right,
and the division only paid attention when the attorney for the
guardian ad litem called. This bill would allow the foster parents
to come to the public official, but then the public official is
bound by confidentiality rules. There is an amendment in the
packet to add "and their families" to the bill.
Number 2187
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if HB 15 follows the guidelines for
restrictions on confidentiality of the Title IV-E funds the state
receives from the federal government for children in its care.
MS. SEITZ answered that she didn't research the Title IV-E
guidelines, but this is only to a narrow group of public officials
who are defined in the bill.
Number 2227
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said it was not illegal, but it might
jeopardize those federal funds.
TAPE 99-20, SIDE B
Number 2268
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered whether modifications to not
jeopardize funds should be made now or wait for the judiciary
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that when they discussed this with the
foster parent about the needs and problems of this child and
family, the threat of potential retaliatory action by the
department was there. There is written evidence in their files
that there have been actions taken against this individual by the
department, and that has a chilling effect on the ability of a
foster parents to do their job. It is important for foster parents
to be able to reach out to their elected officials, when they have
difficulties with the department, to seek aid, advice and counsel
for a child in these types of circumstances.
Number 2138
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said present law allows a legislator to view the
files at DFYS on any child in state custody. He asked
Representative Rokeberg, in addition to that information, if he
wants legislators to be able to discuss the disposition of a child
with the foster parents themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that is correct.
RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), came forward to testify and stated the
department's opposition to the bill as it stands right now. They
recognize the importance of foster parents as part of the team that
works with the DHSS in serving children and families, and the need
for foster parents to have information about the children who come
into their care, but this bill presents several problems. It
doesn't just enable foster parents to discuss issues with a
legislator relating to their concerns about agency action; it
enables the foster parents to disclose confidential information
about the children in their care, past and present, and those
children's families. That violates the rights of the families and
children involved to allow someone else to make decisions about
disclosing private information. This bill would allow disclosing
all information contained in the department's files which could
include psychological or psychiatric evaluations. He said that a
few years ago, the legislature allowed parents to release
information about themselves or the child to legislators to discuss
matters. This bill goes way beyond that; it now allows a third
party to release information about that parent and that child to
other people.
MR. WEBB said another problem is the fact that they would be out of
compliance with the federal requirements for the Title IV-E money.
It requires that they must maintain information about people in
confidence unless those folks have agreed to disclose that
information. He pointed out that in violating the requirements of
Title IV-E they would forfeit some $12.5 million. If foster
parents have complaints or issues about the division, they can
bring those matters forth; but being able to release information
about others is a separate matter.
MR. WEBB gave an extreme example of what could occur under HB 15.
The foster parent who was recently charged and convicted with
murdering a child in foster care would, if this bill were passed
now, be authorized to release information about the child and the
child's family to a legislator, without their permission. He
thinks this is not the intent of the sponsor, but it indicates some
severe problems which make it impossible for the DHSS to support HB
15 at this point.
Number 1909
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what does the foster parents know about the
birth parents or previous custodial parents except what the child
might tell them or what the DHSS might tell them.
MR. WEBB confirmed that is the information that they would know.
The bill would enable them to disclose not just that information,
but all information contained in department files.
Number 1875
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said foster parents don't have all the
information in department files, and the department doesn't tell
foster parents all the information on the birth parents so he
doesn't understand his comment.
MR. WEBB answered that under HB 15 they would be required to make
that information available if the foster parents wanted to
authorize it. If the legislator came to the department, they are
now mandated, whether the parent or child likes it or not, to
provide that information to the legislator.
Number 1839
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented there are limitations of what the
legislator can do with the information. The legislator cannot
disseminate that information back to the foster parents, and there
might need to be stiff penalties on a legislator if that
information was leaked. He isn't sure about Mr. Webb's concern how
this information gets disseminated. He said if a legislator was
asking for some information on a case, he wouldn't expect to ask
for the whole file. He asked Mr. Webb if it would help if that is
clarified.
Number 1769
MR. WEBB said they understand that legislators are bound by
maintaining the information in confidence, but the bill as written
says "inspect any and all information in the file." The other
issue is that a third party now can authorize disclosure of very
private information about another person without that person's
right to authorize it. Even with the limits on the disclosure as
Representative Brice mentioned, he thinks they would run afoul of
federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for more background on the restrictions
of Title IV-E and how it would be applicable to HB 15. He said his
understanding is that the state has custody of the child in foster
care, so in fact, the parents have given up much authority over
what happens with that child.
MR. WEBB said that certainly the parents' authority is limited by
the court which placed the child in the department's custody, but
the parents retain many inherent rights to protect their own
confidential information, and they also retain rights to the child
until those are terminated. While the child is in custody, the
parents lose the ability to determine where the child lives and
with whom and other kinds of things, but they do not lose their
parental rights until those are terminated by the court.
Number 1644
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the intent of the legislation is to
allow discourse between the constituent and the legislator or
elected official. His desire is not to reach out into files, but
to prevent getting stonewalled by the department when seeking
information. He said most information foster parents have, has
been acquired through the child or from visitations with the
natural parents. It is during visitations that the foster parents
see the activity or the condition of the natural parent and calls
into question the ability of that natural parent to undertake their
job of parenting.
Number 1558
MR. WEBB said Representative Rokeberg was right in that there are
instances where families fail to implement successfully a case
plan. For example, relapses do occur in substance abuse cases, and
children end up returning to foster care from home. The department
does not want to see children bounced from foster home to foster
home, however, neither is it the intent to see custody battles
between foster parents and natural parents about issues played out
in legislator offices on a regular basis. There are many checks
and balances when the department makes a judgement about returning
a child home. The guardian ad litem is the attorney for the child
and looks out for the child's interest, and the court is another
option. Certainly there is not perfection in the process, but he
believes there are other avenues for addressing those issues than
what is proposed in HB 15. For a variety of reasons, he is opposed
to the bill; however, he is not opposed to solving the problems.
Number 1458
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Representative Rokeberg and Mr. Webb to
consider on page 1, line 12 if that could be modified where it
says, "The department shall disclose additional confidential or
privileged information about the child and make copies of all
documents in the file about the child available for inspection to
these state officials" and so on, would inserting the phrase
"subject to the limitations required in Title IV-E of federal
regulations" or if there are necessary modifiers there that could
make sure that confidential information about the birth or
custodial parents of the child is not improperly disclosed.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if that is the language which causes
the department problems.
Number 1378
MR. WEBB answered that is a good portion of it, but it is the
disclosure of confidential information without the person's
authorization.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if foster parents currently can talk to
a legislator about a child in their care.
MR. WEBB said they certainly can discuss their grievances about
departmental action and other things without releasing confidential
information.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE confirmed that confidential information is the
key point here. He asked if the child has come back to that foster
parent many times, can the foster parent tell the legislator that
there is a problem. He assumes that confidential information is
when either the permanency planning review is not taking place, or
the department is not taking appropriate steps to ensure the
stability of the child's life.
Number 1291
MR. WEBB said information about departmental action is not
confidential. Specific information about the child like the name,
the family's name, the case plan and those kind of things would
potentially be confidential. He added there are a variety of
checks and balances and forums in which those issues can be
appropriately raised and dealt with. One is the foster care review
process which is the court process where foster parents now have
the right to be present and heard by the court, made possible by HB
375, as well as going to the social worker and guardian ad litem to
raise the issue of appropriate actions in a case and whether the
department is acting properly.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to page 1, (d), line 6 where it
says: "may disclose confidential or privileged information about
the child", and asked if that would be adequate enough for sharing
of information between the department and a legislator.
MR. WEBB said he would like to spend some time analyzing that. It
appears that is the key phrase that allows a foster parent to
disclose confidential information about the child. That would be
disclosure by a foster parent rather than the department.
Number 1150
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there are two different thrusts of the
bill. One is to allow the foster parent to talk to the elected
official, the attorney general or the ombudsman, and the second is
the relation of information filed by the department. The
department raises a valid point on the second item regarding their
ability under federal law to be able to make their revelations,
however, he thinks they could overcome any problems so they
wouldn't be in the position to forfeit the federal money. It seems
to him that the attorney general, the legislators, ombudsman and
other members of the state are the last resort. Not withstanding
Mr. Webb's recitation of the appeal procedures available to a
foster parents, he thinks they are very inadequate. The facts and
complaints received from people throughout the state indicate that
to be the case. Representative Rokeberg said he thinks that
because of HB 375, where the state made a substantial policy change
giving more power to DFYS, this kind of legislation is all the more
important. He asked who will look after foster parents and the
children if there are difficulties dealing with the DHSS; he thinks
foster parents should be allowed to make disclosures.
Number 1004
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said HB 375 went into effect September 1998 and
does provide by law a place and voice in court for foster parents.
It provides them with previous information about the child's
behavior problems and criminal activity. It seems to him that the
foster parent review process is not doing as well as it could due
to lack of support and funds. It was a review and appeal board;
where it worked, it worked well. The process is working
imperfectly; DFYS has had problems, but there is the impression
that they are making strides to deal with the problems, and there
is some significant hope for progress.
Number 0897
SARAH SHORT, President, Families First Partnership, testified from
Anchorage via teleconference. She said that foster parents
definitely need to be able to seek help from legislators outside of
the agency. This is an external protection, and the families and
children need it. She referred to Mr. Webb's comments about
parents retaining most inherent rights to privacy and not losing
parental rights until terminated in court, and said she has found
that to be overwhelmingly untrue and has more than 700 people
willing to back this up. She finds HB 15 good in that it allows
foster parents to talk to state agencies, but she mentioned that
there are other independent agencies that might be good community
resources.
MS. SHORT said she thinks that it would be a good idea to include
representation by people that are affected by the system, not just
input from the state agencies. Parents must be allowed to defend
themselves against allegations that arise from the foster parents;
maybe a foster parent is bringing up allegations because they want
to adopt these children. All the factors must be looked at. She
encouraged the committee to re-evaluate this bill, go forward,
expand on it and get the input of those people affected, not just
the people at the state who are involved.
Number 0729
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Short if she was aware that if a
legislator makes an inquiry on her behalf that he/she cannot, by
law, give her any type of information that he/she might have found
out. He had assumed from her testimony that she wanted to get that
information.
MS. SHORT said she is aware of that breach of confidentiality
protection for the DFYS, but she is also aware that confidentiality
has been increasingly protective of the agency and not the child.
She is appalled that they would consider the fact that they would
lose millions of dollars and not consider the fact it is affecting
the child, families and communities.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the point is that HB 15 restricts the
legislator from disclosing any information that they receive.
MS. SHORT said she did understand that. She went on to ask why
CASAs [court-appointed special advocates] aren't included, because
they have just as much valuable information about the child
possibly as the foster parent.
Number 0498
BETTY ROLLINS testified from Fairbanks via teleconference. She
said that anyone with any information of interest on a child should
be able to talk to the legislators if he/she can't talk to DFYS.
She asked for clarification on the amendment. She is frustrated
that they are more concerned about losing federal funds than with
the children. There are about 2,000 children in foster care in
Alaska, and she thinks that is too many; they should start looking
at getting these kids back into their families. She said she
believes HB 15 would probably be a good law, and that she believes
legislators will maintain confidentiality.
Number 0335
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said certainly what they put in law last year
makes reuniting the birth families, or placing the children with
family members, the highest priority. That is the goal and how
well it works remains to be seen.
Number 0318
SCOTT CALDER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
disagreed with Co-Chairman Dyson's last statement but concurred
with and extended his gratitude to Sarah Short for her remarks. In
addition to the 700 people that she believes that she can find to
support her testimony, he thinks he could find another 300 in
Fairbanks who would agree with this legislation.
MR. CALDER stated, "When I initially saw the sponsor statement for
this, I was a little suspicious because the language of this talks
about situations where the evil parents are getting the upper hand
because of some mistake that the department's making and, you know,
foster parents to the rescue and all of that. Well, in fact,
biological human families have been terrorized in this state for
over a decade, as most of you who have been in the legislature know
for a while. For the record, my own son was kidnaped and tortured
by agents of the state on April 9, 1993 and is currently missing in
Fairbanks somewhere. I don't know where he is. Although he is an
adult now, his life has basically been ruined under the Knowles
Administration. He was subjected to drug experiments, isolation,
desensitization, indoctrination and false integrating beliefs about
himself, his family and his community. And I'm a witness to the
terrorism that has been exacted upon the families of Alaska at
least since the time of my direct experience with that. And I've
researched this problem in its historical context, and I find it's
reprehensible that the legislature did not add last year, as we
requested and as we have been requesting every year and so I agree
with HB 15, and I think it's just too bad that this is all you can
do after so many years. ... I agree with Ms. Rollins that
reasonable people can be discreet about their problems as long as
they're not exposed to prior restraint and the threat of physical
reprisal and damage to their children under a color of law. And
forget about the 12 million. You got 2,000, and they're each worth
12 million."
TAPE 99-21, SIDE A
Number 0022
CHRIS HUTCHISON, President, Voice for the Children Foster Parent
Support Group, testified from Kenai via teleconference. She agrees
with what Representative Rokeberg said that the bill would serve to
help the foster parents and avoid stonewalling and repercussion
from the department. There are no means for grievance for foster
parents. She is pleased and grateful to Representatives Rokeberg
and Dyson for bringing up this legislation because the foster
parents need an ombudsman or legislator that they can talk to.
Someone besides the department needs to know what is going on with
these kids. She encouraged everyone to support this bill as far as
it meets the Title IV-E requirements. This bill will help them
help the children.
Number 0198
MARCI SCHMIDT testified from Anchorage via teleconference. She
said foster parents desperately need to be allowed to talk about
things that may potentially be harmful to children after they have
exhausted their resources with DFYS. The Adoption of Safe Families
Act 1997, which was the basis for some of HB 375, certainly wanted
to give foster parents a voice in the concerns of the children in
their custody when they are in danger. Unfortunately all too many
times the DFYS is not providing services to foster parents. During
the testimony for the Adoption for Safe Families Act, a foster
parent from Nebraska came and testified, but upon returning home,
his foster child was immediately seized and taken away simply
because he testified to a federal commission about what goes on as
a foster parent. Foster parents need to have some alternatives
when they are not getting help in state agencies.
MS. SCHMIDT wishes that when information is disclosed to
legislators that they would be allowed to get back to the person
who has requested it so they know that something is being done."
She said it is too bad there are not other resources to provide
something to foster families. This needs to happen.
Number 0371
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section,
Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, testified in opposition
to HB 15 and offered to answer any legal questions that may arise.
Her first concern is that HB 15 would jeopardize federal funding.
She said that is not the only thing to look at, but as a practical
matter, if the state doesn't receive the $12 million to pay for
foster care, then there won't be foster parents to take care of
children. She said the way the federal law is written protects the
families so they can take care of their problems and work toward
reunification with their children without public scrutiny. If
parents are ordered to go to alcohol or mental health counseling,
they know that this information is in the file. Their treatment
could be inhibited if they know someone besides the people who have
access to the file can look at it. They may not feel comfortable
saying certain things knowing it could get back to others.
Number 503
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said it would be helpful if she would reiterate
exactly what Title IV-E says about the kind of confidentiality that
is liable to cost the state $12 million.
Number 515
MS. RUTHERDALE said she didn't have it right in front of her, but
she was relying on the information from the person from Region X of
the federal government who advises the DFYS on Title IV-E who had
said it would jeopardize the money. She knows that Title IV-E
specifically says that they can only go public to release the
information if they have a court order or consent, and going to a
legislator is going public, however limited. There are other
exceptions, but that is basically the thrust of Title IV-E. She
added that foster parents can go to court and seek to get that
information released.
Number 0600
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the information that the DFYS gives to
foster parents doesn't jeopardize the Title IV-E funding.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered correct.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if that doesn't mean going public, does
giving that the same information to a legislator constitute going
public.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered right. Basically there is a limited group
of people ordered by the court who have access to this information
which includes the agency, their representative, The Department of
Law, the parents and their attorneys. The way to get around that
is to get the parent's consent. She believes the reason this
statute allows parents to go to legislators, and then the
legislators to go back to DFYS to get information, is because, in
effect, the parents have consented. But in HB 15 the parents are
not giving their consent to foster parents to ask for information.
MS. RUTHERDALE pointed out there are alternate remedies that foster
parents can pursue. She pointed out that HB 375 made changes
allowing foster parents to get much more information than they have
ever been able to get before. Now foster parents can get
information about the child, the child's history even before the
child goes into placement with foster parents, when they are
considering placement; once they become foster parents, they are
entitled to "notice of hearings," and to attend those hearings.
She said that is important that foster parents get notice and be
present at permanency hearings. Permanency hearings happen 12
months after a child enters foster care so it is a really important
time to say what is happening with this child who has been in
custody for 12 months. Another key provision in HB 375 is that the
foster parents have prior notice anytime there is going to be a
change of placement, unless it is an emergency situation. If there
is a decision to remove the child from that foster home, the foster
parents are entitled to have notice of that change. If they
dislike that action, there are many avenues they can go. They can
go to the social worker, the social worker's supervisor, on up the
chain all the way to the commissioner.
Number 0851
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the guardian ad litem can get this
information without disqualifying the state from $12 million.
MS. RUTHERFORD said yes the guardians ad litem are parties to the
case, and they can get information from the file.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what qualifies a guardian ad litem to be in
the magic circle.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered that guardians ad litem are appointed by
the court to represent the best interests of the child.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if at the time of the first custody hearing
does the judge, as a matter of course, say here are the people who
can get the information.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered the list is already in statute so the judge
doesn't have to order it.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked who else is allowed automatically, and he
wonders if the legislators can be added to that list of people
authorized to have information by the judge.
MS. RUTHERDALE said at that point you've lost the intent of Title
IV-E. As frustrating as it may be not to have access to this
information, that is the way the federal law is written. She said
she thinks the intent of the law is to protect the privacy of the
parents to allow them to solve their problems without the whole
world watching.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the list of who is authorized to get
information is state law or federal law.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered it is both.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked how long ago was it discovered that there
was a problem with HB 15 that might disqualify the Title IV-E
funding.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered that she learned of that today.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he is unhappy and displeased that both the
Department of Health and Social Services and The Department of Law
weren't able to find out this information and give the sponsor a
chance to deal with this some weeks ago and not take up the
committee time as well. He said he understands how busy everyone
is, but there is a better way to do this.
MS. RUTHERDALE reiterated the process of remedies which already
exist for the foster parents. Besides going up the chain of
command through DHSS, they can go to the guardian ad litem or the
CASA, and there are court hearings every six months they could
attend to bring up problems. The only time she can envision the
foster parents being completely frustrated and the only recourse
would be their legislator, would be if the DFYS, the guardian ad
litem and any other party in the case didn't agree with the
position, but even then they could go directly to the court for
intervention. She understood that this foster parent hadn't gone
through all the channels; if all those avenues had been exhausted,
they wouldn't be here for this bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL said in order for them to make a decision they
will have to look at the federal Title IV-E.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER agreed with Co-Chairman Coghill. He asked
if foster parents may approach the guardian ad litem without
repercussion.
MS. RUTHERDALE said yes. She mentioned that foster parents can
also talk about the case with the attorney general because he
represents a party to the case and is part of the circle.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked who may foster parents contact
without repercussion.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered by saying what concerns her in this bill is
the clause that once they go to the legislator, that automatically
mandates the department to open their files to that legislator. By
law, a foster parent is bound not to disclose information to
outside parties except on a need-to-know basis. For example, they
can go to health professionals and school teachers and tell them
what is going on in this child's life.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said the circle she described is closed,
and that is the perceived problem to those outside the circle. The
intent of the legislation is to open that circle to a party that is
professionally non-aligned.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested that HB 15 might expand that circle,
but that circle is still closed.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON closed the hearing and will continue it Thursday.
He asked the committee to look at the specific sections in Title
IV-E that delineates what the confidentiality restrictions are, and
he asked Ms. Rutherdale to show the code where the judge
automatically authorizes who is to be in the circle of information
in the custody hearings. He asked the attorney general's office
and the DFYS for some creative ways to solve this problem. It is
an imperfect process, and here is an attempt to get final help when
the other things didn't work. He asked if they could make it so
that a legislator by definition can be a CASA or a party to the
case or whatever it takes to be included. He hopes this doesn't
happen again.
KATHY TIBBLES, Program Administrator, Division of Family and Youth
Services came forward and acknowledged that it is her
responsibility that this piece of information regarding Title IV-E
funding was missed. She is the federal funding expert for the
division, and she frankly didn't see it. In fact, Mr. Webb or Ms.
Rutherdale brought it to her attention, and she is terribly sorry.
It won't happen again.
CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON thanked her for taking responsibility. [HB 15
was held over]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|