03/15/2005 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB53 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2005
3:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative Lesil McGuire
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid proceedings; amending
the construction of statutes pertaining to children in need of
aid; relating to a duty and standard of care for services to
children and families, to the confidentiality of investigations,
court hearings, and public agency records and information in
child-in-need-of-aid matters and certain child protection
matters, to immunity regarding disclosure of information in
child-in- need-of-aid matters and certain child protection
matters, to the retention of certain privileges of a parent in a
relinquishment and termination of a parent and child
relationship proceeding, to eligibility for permanent fund
dividends for certain children in the custody of the state, and
to juvenile delinquency proceedings and placements; establishing
a right to a trial by jury in termination of parental rights
proceedings; reestablishing and relating to state citizens'
review panels for certain child protection and custody matters;
amending the duty to disclose information pertaining to a child
in need of aid; authorizing additional family members to consent
to disclosure of confidential or privileged information about
children and families involved with children's services within
the Department of Health and Social Services to officials for
review or use in official capacities; relating to reports of
harm and to adoptions and foster care; mandating reporting of
the medication of children in state custody; prescribing the
rights of grandparents related to child-in-need-of-aid cases and
establishing a grandparent priority for adoption in certain
child-in-need-of-aid cases; modifying adoption and placement
procedures in certain child-in-need-of-aid cases; amending
treatment service requirements for parents involved in child-in-
need-of-aid proceedings; amending Rules 9 and 13, Alaska
Adoption Rules; amending Rules 3, 18, and 22, Alaska Child in
Need of Aid Rules of Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to the licensing, regulation, enforcement, and
appeal rights of ambulatory surgical centers, assisted living
homes, child care facilities, child placement agencies, foster
homes, free-standing birth centers, home health agencies,
hospices or agencies providing hospice services, hospitals,
intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded,
maternity homes, nursing facilities, residential child care
facilities, residential psychiatric treatment centers, and rural
health clinics; relating to criminal history requirements, and a
registry, regarding certain licenses, certifications, approvals,
and authorizations by the Department of Health and Social
Services; making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act relating to reimbursement of municipal bonds for school
construction; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 53
SHORT TITLE: CHILDREN IN NEED OF AID/REVIEW PANELS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/05
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
03/02/05 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/02/05 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
03/15/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 193
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING MEDICAL OR CARE FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/02/05 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
03/15/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND REIMBURSEMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/25/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/25/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/01/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/05 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/22/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/03/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/03/05 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/04/05 (H) EDU RPT 5DP
03/04/05 (H) DP: GARA, GATTO, WILSON, THOMAS, NEUMAN
03/15/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 53.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 53.
TAMMY SANDOVOL, Deputy Commissioner
Office of Children's Services, OCS
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on behalf OCS, in
relation to HB 53.
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on behalf of OCS, in
relation to HB 53.
DIANNE OLSEN, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided legal information on behalf of the
Department of Law, in relation to HB 53.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided legal information on behalf of
the Department of Law, relating to HB 53.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:11:18 PM.
Representatives Seaton, Kohring, and Gardner were present at the
call to order. Representative Cissna arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 53-CHILDREN IN NEED OF AID/REVIEW PANELS
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 53 "An Act relating to
child-in-need-of-aid proceedings; amending the construction of
statutes pertaining to children in need of aid; relating to a
duty and standard of care for services to children and families,
to the confidentiality of investigations, court hearings, and
public agency records and information in child-in-need-of-aid
matters and certain child protection matters, to immunity
regarding disclosure of information in child-in- need-of-aid
matters and certain child protection matters, to the retention
of certain privileges of a parent in a relinquishment and
termination of a parent and child relationship proceeding, to
eligibility for permanent fund dividends for certain children in
the custody of the state, and to juvenile delinquency
proceedings and placements; establishing a right to a trial by
jury in termination of parental rights proceedings;
reestablishing and relating to state citizens' review panels for
certain child protection and custody matters; amending the duty
to disclose information pertaining to a child in need of aid;
authorizing additional family members to consent to disclosure
of confidential or privileged information about children and
families involved with children's services within the Department
of Health and Social Services to officials for review or use in
official capacities; relating to reports of harm and to
adoptions and foster care; mandating reporting of the medication
of children in state custody; prescribing the rights of
grandparents related to child-in-need-of-aid cases and
establishing a grandparent priority for adoption in certain
child-in-need-of-aid cases; modifying adoption and placement
procedures in certain child-in-need-of-aid cases; amending
treatment service requirements for parents involved in child-in-
need-of-aid proceedings; amending Rules 9 and 13, Alaska
Adoption Rules; amending Rules 3, 18, and 22, Alaska Child in
Need of Aid Rules of Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
3:13:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, sponsor to HB 53, said that HB 53 is
about taking care of children first and protecting families. He
explained that he has sponsored other legislation that promotes
children and family rights and that HB 53 is a continuation of
this. He related that this bill is recognition that we do have
children who are not being treated well and that the [Department
of Health and Social Services, "Department"] needs tools to be
able to put them into protective custody. He explained that
this bill is a combination of three different bills, HB 53, HB
114, HB 113, and HB 17; the reason these bills are combined is
because they all deal with the title of the children in need of
aid under "child title 47 and 12". He said, "I thought it was
best if we put them together and then really ask the question
... are we treating families and children and our society in the
cleanest possible way."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he has the greatest respect
for those who are working directly in the [human] service field
as they are witness to some of the toughest emotional and
physical abuse issues in life. He pointed out that service
workers have a dual role in that they are enforcement officers
for children involved in issues as well as being social service
workers or counselors.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL introduced the sectional analysis
attached to HB 53 and encouraged the committee to read through
it and investigate. He added that the attached "subject"
sectional addresses the varied topics within all of the bills
that comprise HB 53 including family preservation and civil
liability issues. He said:
if we can open up court proceedings that will still
retain the integrity of the system, and the benefit to
the child, make sure that we don't harm that child one
more time then I think it will be beneficial to all
involved, so that's why I went down through this topic
... the videotaping has a couple things, we already
have children's advocacy centers in Alaska that do
examinations in videotaping of children who have been
sexually assaulted ... it is probably the finest
service to children who have been damaged in Alaska
and it is proven to be a very good system ... it helps
protect those parents who fear the social service
worker but it also protects the social service worker
... the accountability measures that come at the last
of the bill and there are some applicability languages
I know that some of the topics are going to be ...
controversial, I have worked with the Department ...
Department of Law, ... [Office of Children's Services,
"OCS"], I've worked with the Commissioner [of the
Department], I've worked with the Governor's office,
in trying to meld the different bills together ...
it's a rather long bill ... I want to protect
children, but I also want to protect families. I
believe the government has a responsibility to insure
the safety of their children, but I feel very strongly
about family preservation ... it gives us the right to
get a child out of somebody's home under certain
conditions, and protect that child, and then, go
through the process.
3:25:30 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked Representative Coghill to go through HB 53
section by section, "so that ... we know what this means as far
as changes in the current way things are run and why it's going
to be better if we make the change."
3:28:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for SSHB 53, Version 24-LS0251\L, Mischel,
3/14/05, as a work draft. There being no objection, CSSSHB 53
was before the committee.
3:29:25 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, said:
Section 1 gives a preference to an adult family member
for placement that includes a grandparent and it gives
preference for adult members who have cared for their
grandchildren or a child for two years or more when it
comes to the termination of parental rights and the
child is let out for adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the reference in HB 53
concerning grandparents [providing care] for grandchildren for
two-year periods.
MS. MOSS said that the two-year period could be amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that one-year could be an adequate
timeframe.
MS. MOSS explained that Section 2 deals with the relinquishments
of parental rights and that this section is in the process of
revision. She said that Section 3 deals with permanent fund
dividends and their availability for children receiving mental
health treatment out of state. She related that Section 3 of HB
53 supplies an exemption so that children receiving [mental
health] treatment out-of-state will still receive their dividend
and if they are in state custody, the dividend is held in trust
until they are 18, or out of state custody.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to children receiving their
dividend if they are placed out of state, but are not receiving
treatment.
MS. MOSS said that the aforementioned children would be in state
custody, and would still be Alaskan residents. She continued
with Section 4, which concerns the intent language of the bill
and addresses the duty and standard of care for children in
state custody. She said that Section 6 clarifies that OCS does
not have to have prior permission to start a [Child in Need of
Aid, "CINA"] investigation or follow a petition for custody.
Section 7 is part of Representative Rokeberg's bill which allows
for adult family members including grandparents to petition for
custody proceedings, she related. She explained that the
language is unclear and that the committee substitute will
probably provide that the adult family member would petition for
custody under [Alaskan Statute] "47.10.110" which is the
appointment of a guardian or custodian. Section 8 creates a
right to a jury trial for termination of parental rights, she
said.
3:35:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that when the government takes the
child away, the parental rights are terminated under a timeline
given by the federal government and this is incorporated into
Alaskan statute. He offered different ideas concerning how best
to deal with situations where the evidence clearly determines
that parental rights should be terminated. He added that there
are some things a court can do to extend the timeline.
3:39:21 PM
TAMMY SANDOVOL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health and Social Services, said OCS
places children in state custody under the most serious of
situations and as a last resort. She continued:
we believe that it's important for the committee to
consider the decisions that the Department makes to
petition for the termination of parental rights are
not made lightly. In almost all child protective
services cases, the Department's goal is to reunify
children with their families and that judges hear
termination cases and ... followed the case throughout
from beginning to end and so they are well aware of
what's happened throughout the life of the case and
... are intimately familiar with all the history
that's involved with the family. They've heard the
positions of the parties, the level of evidence that
must be presented and the state and federal
requirements that relate to terminations. Rulings are
not always in our favor ... the Department is
concerned that scheduling a jury trial will be
difficult for the court calendar ... assembling jury
trials will delay hearings even further, and cause
additional delays in the permanency for children.
Federal law requires that if the child has been in
custody of the Department for 15 of the last 22
months, the Department must proceed with permanency
for the child, unless there are compelling reasons to
extend the deadline ... reunification, adoption or
guardianship must be accomplished or in process by
that timeline. Additionally, federal review ... has
already identified that we haven't done such a great
job in meeting the deadlines for holding termination
hearings, delays in scheduling court hearings are
already delaying permanency for children, currently.
3:42:02 PM
CHAIR WILSON inquired as to OCS being able to delay the
"timeline."
MS. SONDOVAL explained that there is a concept called
"compelling reasons" where there would have to be a compelling
reason to offer the court to extend the deadline. This is based
on what the federal law has determined is compelling.
CHAIR WILSON asked for an example of a compelling reason.
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health and Social Services, stated that
parental rights would not be terminated if a parent was in a
successful treatment program and was making progress towards
recovery.
MS. SONDOVAL said:
we've looked at our termination trials and we believe
that there'd be a possibility of an additional 90-jury
trials per year ... and in consultation with the
Department of Law and other agencies, that was a
conservative estimate. ... we believe that it would
take an additional 3 days to the current process and
the additional days would be necessary for jury
selection, jury education, jury deliberation, and the
changes in practice and procedures that would occur
with a jury trial. The time that social workers spend
preparing for a termination ... is 5-7 days.
3:45:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the jury trial is an
attempt to safeguard the termination of parental rights when
there is not adequate cause. She advocated for the inspection
of CINA rules under which children come in state custody and are
kept in custody.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that Representative Gardner's
comments are correct. He explained that in Section 9 of the
[sectional analysis] the opening of court proceedings is
discussed, as well as the use of a citizen review panel. He
offered that if he were a struggling individual, dealing with
many problems, he would want extra care taken with the
assessment of his parental rights and the possibility of
termination of those rights.
CHAIR WILSON inquired as to the selections of families for jury
trials [regarding parental termination]. She asked who would
choose the families that get a trial.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he has not yet found [in
statute] other examples of who might make this decision.
3:48:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said:
in a perfect world, the report harm would come in, and
we would be contacting relatives ... and there would
be services available to help the people ... what does
appear to exist, is that kids come into the system,
they have a hard time ... it's hard to find extended
family members that might be the best people to take
those children ... the services often times are not
available or people have two jobs and they are trying
to juggle that while trying to meet the needs that the
Department has set to get their kids back or they have
perhaps a drug problem, and they're on a waiting list
for drug treatment ... there's a whole long list of
things that will force the system to have the child
for one or two years ... meanwhile, the child's
bonding capability, especially if they move from home
to home to home, is literally destroyed. The
psychological glue that keeps a child able to love,
able to feel empathy and caring and be a good social
member ... can be destroyed in that kind of process.
It's the highest level of abuse that you can put a
child through, and that's the system ... I think that
this is a horrible situation that has developed over
many, many years, but I am wondering why ... there
wouldn't be a looking at standards of care earlier ...
3:52:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related that he and Representative Cissna
agree on family preservation. He expressed his concern that at
the jury trial level, the patterns [of a particular family] have
been discovered, the life of the family has become very well
known and sometimes the termination of the parental right is
pushed because of time. He said that in these complex
situations, the timelines dictated by the system can be
limiting, and the unfortunate product can be the absolute
termination of parental rights. He commented, "I've seen places
where I was just devastated when the parents had their child
taken away, and even more devastated when they lost the right to
be that child's parent, and that is just like giving the death
penalty to somebody and I think we need a good due process to
make sure that we're not messing up here ... the vast majority
of those children taken into custody, there's good, compelling
reasons for doing that, so, I want to make sure that our system
has a place where somebody can look over their shoulder and say,
that was the right decision."
3:55:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that parents [who are on
trial] have an attorney to use as their advocate, and it's that
attorney's role to make sure that the parent's rights are met.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that there are many sections in
[HB 53] that the language will be improved upon.
3:56:37 PM
MS. MOSS said that Section 9 opens CINA hearings to the public,
and Section 10 addresses that there may be instances where the
hearing needs to be closed. She explained that Section 11
includes clean-up language that was implemented for jury trials,
and that Section 12 instructs OCS to make every attempt for
visitation by parents and families when children are in state
custody. She added that this is addressed in Representative
Rokeberg's HB 17, where if OCS denies visitations they must
notify the parents or the family members of the reasons for
denying visitation.
CHAIR WILSON clarified that when parents are notified [of the
reasons for denied visitation], OCS will inform the parents also
of their right to request a review hearing.
MS. MOSS stated that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to the issues of space for the
Department and the time and cost involved in finding rooms for
visitation.
MS. MOSS stated that part of OCS's request for increased funding
takes care of family preservation and, most likely, includes
visitation facilities.
MS. SONDOVAL clarified that family preservation is more about
keeping families intact rather than a visitation monitoring
service. She said that she will get more information from OCS
regarding the allocation of funds for visitation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered that the right to request a
review hearing might put tension on time and money.
4:00:32 PM
MS. MOSS said that in Section 12, there will be a language
change in using the term "interested party"; the clarification
will be that an interested person is not necessarily a party to
a case, so the language will read "interested person." Section
13, she related, adds three provisions to judgments and orders,
and states that the court may not terminate parental rights
solely on the basis that the parent did not get treatment,
especially if the treatment was not available and OCS did not
provide the treatment.
CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification, and said that the
availability of treatment [in Alaska] could be variable.
MS. MOSS pointed out that there need to be other reasons
[besides not receiving treatment] to constitute the termination
of parental rights. She added that foster parents are required
to provide regular visitation with the family and are required
to be mentors to reunify the family.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the foster parents in the system
are willing to serve and interact as mentors to other adults.
He commented that it might be beneficial to be able to say that
every foster parent can become a counselor or a mentor to other
families but it seems questionable to rely on them to take on
that responsibility.
MS. SONDOVAL said that OCS has started to think about foster
parents as being resource families because they are encouraged
in training to become a resource to the child and family,
whereby they can mentor the family. She added that OCS believes
this could reunify kids with their families.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that facilitating opportunities for
visitation is of structural importance and mentoring then, could
be the [future] direction to head in.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his concerns that the added
requirement of serving as not only a foster parent to a child,
but a mentor to parents might deter people from signing up as
foster parents.
4:08:48 PM
MS. MOSS pointed out that there is language [in the sectional
analysis] that protects the foster family from any perceived
harm or risk with the institution of supervised visitation at
OCS.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that not all foster parents are
equipped to act as mentors to parents in addition to caring for
their foster children.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented on the different reasons that
people become foster parents. She explained a "foster parent
model" in British Columbia where in the child welfare system,
the caseworker was responsible for the recordkeeping, court
related work, and the foster parent was responsible for much of
what caseworkers normally do. She explained that the
[biological] parents were required to fulfill the regular
visitation schedule and the [standard] expectation was moving
the child towards reunification.
4:12:53 PM
MS. MOSS said that Section 13 opens adjudication hearings to the
public unless there is an exception that is spelled out in
Section 10, for instance, if it would hinder our criminal
investigation or would be emotionally damaging to the child.
Section 14, she related, provides that OCS cannot approve an
adoption by a non-related party if a relative requests approval
of adoption, unless that relative is disqualified for some
reason, set out in statute. She continued with Section 15 which
sets out three reasons the Department could deny an adoption of
a child by a blood relative: placement could result in physical
or mental injury, perpetrator in a substantiated report of abuse
under child protection laws, or a household member is under
arrest for/is charged with/has been convicted of/or has been
found guilty by reason of insanity, of a serious offense.
DIANNE OLSEN, Chief Assistant, Attorney General's Office,
Department of Law referred to CSSSHB 53, Version 24-LS0251\L,
Mischel, 3/14/05, and specifically addressed, Section 15,
[subsection (l)], and said:
this is currently a part of our licensing provisions
... I believe that this section was simply an attempt
to bring those licensing provisions into the adoption
agreement as well, there previously had been a
prohibition on making a preference for blood relatives
for adoption although there was a preference for
foster care alone, and what this section does is
provide for ... adoption as well.
4:15:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER attempted to clarify by explaining that
the requirement standards for foster families and for blood
relatives are different.
CHAIR WILSON referred to the sectional analysis and asked when
the Department would deny adoption in terms of the possibility
of physical or mental injury.
MS. OLSEN stated that the definitions of physical or mental
injury are not necessarily intended to apply to this "section."
She said she would inform the committee when she finds out.
MS. MOSS said that [Section 15] also requires a criminal
background check on household members of an adoptive parent and
if the relative is denied an adoption, they are eligible for a
public review hearing. Section 16, she related, requires the
Department to obtain permission from parents to administer
mental health medication to a child in state custody.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER mentioned Section 16 and the importance
of the maintenance of the parent-child bond as well as efforts
directed toward reunification. She said that often the parents
can't be found, or are surfacing periodically, and sometimes, it
is necessary for a child to receive treatment. She opined that
there should be some way for the Department to administer
treatment if the parents cannot be found.
MS. MOSS related that the Department could get a court order
administer medication if the parents refuse or are unavailable
and the Department feels it is in the best interest of the
child.
CHAIR WILSON inquired as to the Department and parents disputing
what is in the best interest of a child [in terms of
medication].
MS. MOSS restated that the Department would have to go to court
and obtain a court order.
4:19:35 PM
MS. OLSEN stated that if the parents are not present, a
representative from the Department would go to court and if the
parents refuse to provide what is major, medical treatment the
Department would also go to court and have the court resolve
that. She related that currently, when a child is in state
custody the parent still has a right to make decisions of major
medical significance.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered that the residual parental rights
are found in [Alaskan Statute] "47.10.084."
MS. OLSEN said:
Section 18 is part of one of the Governor's bills and
the intention behind this is that the current law does
not allow the Department to provide photographs or
identifying information to the public to identify a
child as being a child who is in state custody. This
provision would allow ... after parental rights have
been terminated, to be able to provide that
information specifically for purposes of adoption ...
MS. MOSS said that Section 19, currently, allows adult family
members to disclose or request confidential information be
provided to certain state officials such as the governor,
lieutenant governor, legislators, and the ombudsman office. The
Department sees some conflicts here where family members could
be usurping parental rights by disclosing confidential
information that only parents should be disclosing, and the
language may have to be changes in order to address that, she
said.
4:23:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA mentioned the issue of confidentiality
when information is sent or brought to legislators. She opined
that confidential documents should be destroyed in a
conscientious manner.
MS. MOSS said:
In Representative Coghill's office, if we get a call
from a relative who is not a parent ... we don't take
second hand information ... if they are requesting
assistance, they need to contact the parent and have
the parent sign a release disclosure form that we have
prepared. We've ... tried to coordinate with the
representative of that constituent, so we find out
what district they're in, and then, we talk to the
legislators from that district, the senator and the
representative, if they don't show an interest in
assisting that person, then we will even though they
are not a constituent, help them.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed his belief that the language in
[HB 53] is narrow enough to protect the constituents and is open
for suggestions to amend the legislation.
4:28:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he does not advocate preventing
anyone from disclosing information and thinks that people should
have the right to appeal to the government with their
information. He said that he wants to make sure there aren't
restrictions for people who are trying to contact legislators.
MS. MOSS addressed Representative Cissna's concern and said that
staff that has received confidential information uses a [paper]
shredder to destroy it when it is no longer useful. She
explained that when family members request information, OCS will
not accommodate them until a release form has been signed [by
the parent]. The section in discussion [Section 19] extends
that two family members can be given confidential information,
in addition to the parents.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL described the language in Section 19 and
opined that it needed to be more effective.
MS. MOSS clarified for Representative Cissna that OCS does not
provide copies of their files and if a constituent wants to see
the files, then a request to OCS is made, and confidential
information is purged. She explained that an individual can
make an appointment to read the file and notes can be taken but
the files cannot leave the premises.
4:33:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to Section 22 [of CSSSHB 53
Version 24-LS0251\L, Mischel, 3/14/05] being amended and
advocated for the retention of [subsection (b), paragraph (3),
line 30].
MS. MOSS said that Section 20 allows the disclosure requirement
to extend past the period by which the parent's rights have been
terminated. She related a story where a concerned grandmother
[who had been parenting her granddaughter] was not informed when
parental rights were terminated [for her son, the parent].
Section 20, she explained, addresses when parental rights are
terminated, as long as the child is still in state custody, the
disclosure of information is still available for relatives.
MS. MOSS pointed out that Section 21 focuses on disclosure of
information and it makes exceptions to supplying confidential
information to the perpetrators that have been charged with a
crime or when a report of harm has resulted in a death or
serious injury. She further clarified that this Section allows
OCS to provide confidential information if a parent has already
gone to the press and provided that information; it allows OCS
to give their side of the story and to go public with
information when there is a perpetrator charged with a crime and
when a report of harm has resulted in death or serious injury.
4:38:00 PM
MS. OLSEN explained that Section 26 provides information about
the kind of information that the Department would be able to
disclose pertaining to if there has been a felony offense, if
the child has been a subject of a fatality or near fatality or
if the parents have gone to the media already. She added that
there is further disclosure about the kind of information that
the Department can provide and it must be limited so that the
identity of the child would not be disclosed; it simply has to
do with what the Department is doing about the situation.
MS. MOSS said that in Section 22, the disclosure of confidential
information has been expanded to include a caregiver responsible
for insuring the safety of children and the citizens review
panel.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related a story where important facts were
not disclosed concerning a child's behavior to the acting foster
parents. He inquired as to this type of scenario being
addressed through this section.
MS. MOSS stated yes, that Section 22 would address [relaying
essential behavioral information to foster parents]. She
explained that in Section 23, there were subsections that were
repealed and the repealed language was revised and combined into
one paragraph. She said that Dianne Olsen discussed Section 24
and 26.
In response to Chair Wilson's request, Ms. Moss elaborated on
Section 26 and read from the sectional analysis, "Confidential
records can be disclosed to the public when parents have made
that information public already, and have discussed the
department's involvement with the family or when a perpetrator
has been charged with a crime or when the report of harm has
resulted in a death or a serious injury." She continued with
Section 27 and said that it provides disclosure or non-
disclosure of confidential information, in and by itself, does
not create a cause for civil liability.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that this same language was in
Senate Bill 84.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to [CSSSHB 53 Version 24-
LS0251\L, Mischel, 3/14/05], Section 26, [subsection (k),
paragraph (2)] and clarified that this allows the Department to
disclose confidential information when the alleged perpetrator,
namely in a report of harm, is charged with a crime. He
inquired as to the disclosure of confidential information in the
context of being charged with the crime.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered if somebody is a perpetrator of a
crime and is being charged in criminal proceedings, and it
somehow is named in a CINA case, they can't disclose that
information to a criminal court.
4:44:52 PM
DIANNE OLSEN, Chief Assistant Attorney, Human Services Division,
Department of Law, said that in many cases, the parent's conduct
rises to the level of felony and when charges are filed, the
Department is allowed to make a disclosure about the parent
being charged. She continued:
it's the kind of information that can be provided in a
criminal case, but they would need to take steps to
keep the identity of the child from the public ...
there is still the provision in subsection 2 that the
Commissioner or the Department should consult with the
prosecuting attorney's office to make sure that any
kind of disclosure they are making did not impede the
criminal investigation and the criminal case.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the definition of a crime
meaning a felony.
DIANNE OLSEN said the definition may not just be a felony, but a
criminal action.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that, "We're dealing in a
civil code ... this is allowing information to be given over to
a criminal charge in a criminal code ... 'title 47' is all civil
... we do have serious lockdowns on what information can be
shared ..."
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Division, Department of Law, clarified that this provision and
those three subsections are talking about instances when the
Department can share information with the public. Without this
law, she explained, press inquiries cannot be addressed, but
this [provision] allows, "us to say that we did receive a report
of harm, we did investigate, these are the actions, this was the
outcome ... it allows us to ... assure the public that we did
take steps or to say no, we never received a report of harm, we
never knew about this and so we couldn't do anything."
4:48:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the report of harm for neglect
doesn't have to be a high standard. He continued:
I want to flag this for further investigation ... I
can understand if we have a felony, I can understand
if we have certain other things ... I just want to
make sure that we don't make something permissive here
that is broader for release to newspapers and the
public ...
MS. RUTHERDALE agreed that a report of harm is very broad, and
is required when a crime has been suspected. She explained:
when someone's been charged with a crime ... this
probably will only involve felonies ... those you
would probably already have gone through a grand jury
inquiry or even in a misdemeanor, a police officer has
to make a sworn statement, they have to do an
investigation that has to go through the [District
Attorney's] office before it actually can be charged
as a crime ... secondly, this allows the Department,
it may disclose information ... it doesn't have to
disclose information ... it can decline to respond
especially if it compromised the criminal
investigation, but there may be other reasons where it
may not want to respond to the press ... maybe the
privacy interests of other family members ... or,
maybe there is something that is involved that it
wouldn't be appropriate to respond.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his concern that the [language is
not clear] and would prefer to see the word "felony" used so
that the Department or the state would be under some obligation
to the public to release information.
CHAIR WILSON clarified that Representative Seaton's concern is
regarding the placement of "abuse" and "neglect" in Section 26,
[subsection (k), paragraph (2)] in HB 53. She said that section
will be flagged [for future discussion].
4:53:19 PM
MS. MOSS said that Section 28 sets a grievance procedure into
statutory law and would require OCS to inform parents that there
is a grievance process. If the grievance process is
unsuccessful, she explained, then a grievance can be filed with
the review panel that's being created under this legislation so
that they can go outside of the agency to get a review of the
case. She pointed out that Section 29 was created in 1998 when
HB 375 passed and there was concern that with the adoption of
federal timelines, there would be an increase of lawsuits for
civil liability because the timelines weren't being met. The
language now states that if the timelines are not met, it is not
a reason to create a civil liability. She added that the
Department objects to taking language out that says that there
is no duty or standard of care, in providing services to
children in state custody and their parents.
MS. MOSS emphasized that to say that there is no duty or
standard of care when providing services to children in state
custody has been found to be alarming to parents, Representative
Coghill, and herself. She added that [she and Representative
Coghill] have asked the Department to go back and offer language
that will satisfy the aforementioned concerns and still
accomplish what is needed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that the language will be amended
so that the definition of the standard of care for children and
families is clear.
CHAIR WILSON emphasized that this [the definition of standard of
care] is an important issue.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that in earlier sections of
this bill the standard of care was set. He referred to [Alaskan
Statute] 47.10.960 and said, "[it] seems to exempt them from
that, and it does on a civil liability part, and I would wait
until our judiciary chairman is here with us to help us hammer
out some of that language ... I will be back with some language
that will hopefully give us some comfort there."
4:57:27 PM
MS. MOSS said that sections 30 and 31 deal with definitions of
mental health professionals. Section 32, she explained, takes
mental health professionals in the juvenile justice section of
the law and extends that to persons licensed in another state.
She related that Dianne Olsen has volunteered to revise the
language in Section 33 so that a child cannot be placed in a
foster home if a family member or a friend has requested
placement of the child and it has not been found that it would
be in the best interest of the child. She said:
The problem that the Department has here is that it
could be that a family member would become a foster
home or already is a foster home ... In the original
sponsor substitute, "neighbor" was included ... we
took neighbor out because that was really a close
proximity, it's right next door, which could be a
problem when you have a parent who's abusive ... they
want proximity addressed in this section because they
also want to keep the child within a sensible distance
from the parent so that visitations can occur, so
[Dianne Olsen] will be working on that language.
MS. MOSS pointed out that Section 34 provides that if a child is
placed in a home other than a home of a relative, the Department
must fully disclose to the relative the nature of the placement;
there is additional language that provides for if the person has
difficulty understanding English, [the nature of the placement]
would have to be explained to them in their native language.
CHAIR WILSON inquired as to the reference of "the nature of the
placement."
MS. MOSS clarified that "the nature of the placement" refers to
the actual location of where the child is. Section 35, she
said, creates state's citizens review panel, and Section 36
creates the duties of the panel, which includes examining
policies, procedures, and practices of local agencies. She
added that it also includes OCS evaluating how [the panel is]
operating now, how they'll operate under HB 53, and making
recommendations to the governor in an annual report about
improvements. She explained that the review panel serves
parents so that they can have a grievance hearing, and can
review a case outside of the agency with people who are not
employees of the agency. She continued with Section 37 which
requires that certain departments cooperate with the panel and
provide information. Section 38 provides that the [review]
panel does not disclose any information, to anyone, whether it
be the Department, or whoever, confidential information is kept
within the panel, she related. The annual report would not
disclose names or pictures or anything that could disclose the
identity of the people involved, she related, and Section 39
directs the panel to conduct meetings and to organize a public
outreach program where they would travel around the state and
have public meetings and take public testimony on issues.
MS. MOSS said that Section 40 directs the Department to prepare
the annual report and provide it to the governor, and the
Department would provide a written response to the report within
six months. Section 41 imposes a civil penalty for exposing
confidential information up to $2500 dollars per violation, and
Section 42 creates immunity for state panel members and persons
providing support to the panel.
CHAIR WILSON inquired as to whether legislators are able to
[view] the annual report.
MS. MOSS said that sections 61 and 40 [of HB 53] will be
consolidated so that [the governor] will pass the annual report
on to the legislature [to view].
MS. MOSS continued with Section 43 and said that it
[establishes] definitions, and Section 44 relates to
Representative Rokeberg's bill where when a person notifies OCS
with a report of harm, OCS is required to return to them a
status report, [if requested], within 20 days, and OCS cannot
disclose confidential information but can say whether there is
or is not an investigation.
MS. MOSS said:
Section 45 requires that if school officials conduct
an interview of a student, they must be qualified to
conduct that interview ... Section 46 creates
standards for interviewing CINA cases, encouraging the
use of child advocacy centers, and encouraging
videotaping and audio taping.
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that the sectional analysis uses the
word "requiring," while HB 53 uses the word "suggesting."
5:05:33 PM
MS. MOSS stated that she would make the necessary change [and
insert the appropriate word]. She explained that Section 47 has
been determined to not be needed and Sections 48 through 58 deal
with court rules.
5:07:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated his appreciation of the time spent
on the Sectional Analysis in this meeting and will draft [HB 53]
as soon as possible.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:08:32 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|