Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/26/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB343 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2012
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Mike Hawker (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 343
"An Act relating to disclosure of records of the Department of
Health and Social Services pertaining to children in certain
circumstances; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 343
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF CHILDREN'S RECORDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MUNOZ
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) HSS, JUD
03/15/12 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/15/12 (H) Moved CSHB 343(HSS) Out of Committee
03/15/12 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/16/12 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 3DP 3NR
03/16/12 (H) DP: SEATON, MILLER, KERTTULA
03/16/12 (H) NR: MILLETT, HERRON, KELLER
03/26/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, presented HB 343.
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 343.
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of
HB 343.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with Sections 1 and 2 of
HB 343.
NAOMI HARRIS, Community Relations Manager
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 343, and
answered questions.
BARBARA HENJUM, Director
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 343, and
answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:59 PM
VICE CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at [1:05] p.m. Representatives
Thompson, Pruitt, Gruenberg, Lynn, and Keller were present at
the call to order. Representative Gatto was excused.
HB 343 - DISCLOSURE OF CHILDREN'S RECORDS
1:06:28 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 343, "An Act relating to disclosure of
records of the Department of Health and Social Services
pertaining to children in certain circumstances; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 343(HSS).]
1:07:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 343 would address issues first brought to her
attention by the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and the
Office of Children's Services (OCS), both agencies of the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). The bill has
three primary purposes: first, to clarify that the DJJ and the
OCS can exchange information [about their mutual clients] -
although such exchange is allowed under current law,
misunderstanding on that point has occurred; second, to allow
individuals with a legitimate interest, such as former clients -
or their parents or legal guardians - to receive personal
information from the DJJ that could, for example, help them
apply for jobs, join the military, or obtain health care; and
third, to simplify and streamline current law regarding public
disclosure of information pertaining to juveniles. She noted
that members' packets contain two flowcharts: one that
illustrates the public disclosure process under current law -
which she characterized as cumbersome, hard to interpret and
implement, and in need of streamlining; [and one that
illustrates that process under the bill].
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that under the bill, when cases
involving certain crimes - enumerated in Section 4's proposed AS
47.12.315(a)(1)-(7) - are petitioned to the court and probable
cause is established, information about those cases can then be
disclosed to the public, though Section 4's proposed
AS 47.12.315(c) stipulates that the only information which may
then be disclosed are the name of the minor, the name of each
legal parent or guardian, the specific offense alleged to have
been committed, and the final outcome of the court proceedings
related to the offense. The crimes listed in Section 4's
proposed subsection (a)(1)-(7) are all serious crimes: a felony
offense against a person under AS 11.41; arson in the first or
second degree; burglary in the first degree; distribution of
child pornography; promoting prostitution in the first degree;
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the first,
second, or third degrees involving distribution or possession
with intent to deliver; and misconduct involving weapons in the
first through fourth degrees. She noted that proposed
paragraph (7) no longer contains a reference to the crime of
misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree due to an
amendment made in the bill's prior committee of referral.
1:11:44 PM
TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), remarked that improving the ability of agencies like the
OCS and the DJJ to work together - as Sections 1 and 2 of HB 343
would do for the OCS and the DJJ, respectively - is embraced by
advocacy organizations nationwide, including the Child Welfare
League of America (CWLA), the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), and the Center for Juvenile
Justice Reform (CJJR). The changes proposed by [Sections 1 and
2], if adopted, would demonstrate to everyone that [the DHSS] is
dedicated to improving services and outcomes for children and
families through collaboration. Section 3's proposed
AS 47.12.310(f) will enable the DJJ to be more responsive to
requests for information, particularly requests from former
clients seeking their own information; he mentioned that he,
himself, has received such requests, which, he added, have
become more commonplace for a variety of reasons, and Section 3
will make it easier for the DJJ to help its former clients as
they pursue various ways of improving their lives.
MR. NEWMAN explained that Section 4's proposed AS 47.12.315
would clarify when information about a [juvenile offender] is
subject to public disclosure and when it is not. It is time-
consuming and challenging to interpret current law on that
point, and the bill's proposed changes will ensure that the
public can continue to access information about [perpetrators of
offenses] that represent the most serious risk to public safety,
while also protecting the confidentiality of juvenile offenders
who pose little or no risk. He assured the committee that
HB 343 will not change the laws [requiring confidentiality in]
child abuse and neglect cases, or the laws regarding victim
notification - victims will continue to receive the information
they need regarding their [juvenile perpetrators] - and law
enforcement agencies, schools, foster parents, and others with
well-established rights to [juvenile-offender] information will
continue to receive the information they need to do their work
effectively.
MR. NEWMAN, in conclusion, proffered that HB 343 will improve
the DJJ's ability to manage, exchange, and disclose juvenile
offender information, while also respecting the state's desire
for its juvenile justice system to both serve public safety and
help children put their delinquent behavior behind them.
1:15:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that HB 343 - [via its
Section 1's proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15), and its Section 2's
proposed AS 47.12.310(b)(2)(M)] - will add stipulations that
appropriate information regarding a case shall be disclosed to a
state or municipal agency of Alaska or another jurisdiction
[responsible for delinquent minors, or responsible for child
protection services, respectively]. He characterized [such
provision] as very, very broad, and expressed interest in
amending the bill such that it would additionally stipulate that
any such other jurisdictions be ones that have what he termed,
"similar rules" for protecting children. To clarify, he
referred to several amendments included in members' packets that
all contained the heading, "CONCEPTIONAL [sic] AMENDMENT", and
ventured that their proposed changes will ensure that the best
interests of the children are being considered; those
amendments, additionally labeled 27-LS1394\M.1, 27-LS1394\M.1.a,
27-LS1394\M.1.b, [and 27-LS1394\M.2,] respectively, read
[original punctuation provided]:
[27-LS1394\M.1, addressing Section 1's existing
AS 47.10.093(b)(6)]
Page 2, Line 9
Insert:
(6) a law enforcement agency of this state or
another jurisdiction with similar rules for protection
as necessary for the protection of any child or for
actions by that agency to protect public safety;
[27-LS1394\M.1.a, addressing Section 1's proposed
AS 47.10.093(b)(15)]
Page 3, Line 2
(15) a state or municipal agency of this state or
another jurisdiction with similar rules and are
responsible for delinquent minors, as may be necessary
for the administration of services, protection,
rehabilitation, or supervision of a child or for
actions by the agency to protect the public safety.
[27-LS1394\M.1.b, addressing Section 2's proposed
AS 47.12.310(b)(2)(M)]
Page 4, Line 18
(M) a state or municipal agency of this state or
another jurisdiction with similar rules and
responsible for child protection services, as may be
necessaryfor [sic] the administration of services,
protection, rehabilitation, or supervision of a minor
or for actions by the agency to protect the public
safety; and
[27-LS1394\M.2, addressing Section 4's proposed
AS 47.12.315(b)(3)]
Page 4 [sic], Line 21
Delete all language and insert:
(3) the court has entered a notice of conviction
or received a guilty plea from the defendant through
legal counsel.
1:16:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ relayed that she has discussed the
amendments additionally labeled 27-LS1394\M.1, 27-LS1394\M.1.a,
and 27-LS1394\M.1.b with the Department of Law (DOL), and
indicated that the concern with the changes proposed by those
amendments is that any investigatory process that would have to
be undertaken in order to ensure that other jurisdictions have
similar rules will simply become another "bureaucratic hurdle"
to getting necessary information.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested as an alternative amending
Sections 1 and 2 such that disclosing the information to other
jurisdictions would be permitted but not mandatory. He then
referred to Section 4's proposed AS 47.12.315(b)(3), and
questioned the rationale for providing that information may be
disclosed to the public if, after a petition has been filed and
the minor has been arraigned, a finding of probable cause that
the minor committed the crime has been entered by the court.
Under Section 4 as currently written, a court could enter such a
finding, with the result being that information about the minor
is then disclosed to the public, even though ultimately the
minor is never convicted of the crime.
1:19:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that the amendment
additionally labeled 27-LS1394\M.2 - addressing Section 4's
proposed AS 47.12.315(b)(3) - contains an incorrect page
reference, and clarified that it should instead read:
Page 5, Line 21
Delete all language and insert:
(3) the court has entered a notice of conviction
or received a guilty plea from the defendant through
legal counsel.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed concern that disclosing
information to the public after only a mere finding of probable
cause could result in litigation. He said it seems as if the
criterion should instead be one of the minor having been
convicted of, or of having confessed to, the crime.
MR. NEWMAN explained that in the juvenile justice system, the
term, "conviction" isn't used, but acknowledged that it's
entirely possible that a minor could initially be arraigned -
and a finding of probable cause entered - but then not be
adjudicated delinquent. He offered his understanding, however,
that under the bill, current information would be disclosed, so
in a situation wherein the minor wasn't adjudicated delinquent,
that point would be disclosed as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reiterated his concern that under
Section 4 as currently written, inappropriate disclosure could
occur.
1:23:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he shared Representative
Keller's concerns with the bill.
MR. NEWMAN, in response to questions, mentioned that under
Section 3's proposed AS 47.12.310(f), the DHSS shall adopt
regulations that will govern the release of information [about a
minor under its jurisdiction to persons with a legitimate
interest, and shall adopt standards for identifying what would
constitute a legitimate interest]. He also mentioned that the
information referenced in Section 3 has no statute of limitation
with regard to when the information can be released, whereas the
information referenced in Section 4 has a five-year statute of
limitation [as stipulated in Section 4's proposed AS
47.12.315(f)]; furthermore, Section 4 only applies to
information related to certain types of offenses. He said that
with a great many of the DJJ's clients, their information
doesn't fit the criteria for public disclosure under Section 4,
but they, too, would like to be able to obtain their own
information, and so could do so under the changes proposed via
Section 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated favor with Section 3.
1:29:42 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), in response to comments,
stated that one of the primary purposes of HB 343 is to clarify
that the OCS and the DJJ are allowed to share information [about
mutual clients]; Sections 1 and 2 of the bill were precisely
drafted to address the fact that existing Title 47 doesn't
expressly authorize those two agencies to share client
information. Section 1 addresses statutes pertaining to the
OCS, with the language of its proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15)
referencing the DJJ - specifically via its wording, "agency of
this state ... responsible for delinquent minors"; and Section 2
addresses statutes pertaining to the DJJ, with the language of
its proposed AS 47.12.310(b)(2)(M) referencing the OCS -
specifically via its wording, "agency of this state ...
responsible for child protection services". She cautioned
against unwittingly gutting those sections by adopting [the
amendments additionally labeled 27-LS1394\M.1, 27-LS1394\M.1.a,
and 27-LS1394\M.1.b,] which would add to Sections 1 and 2
stipulations that any other jurisdictions that are being
provided information be ones with rules similar to Alaska's.
MS. KRALY, in response to a question, explained that the
wording, "or another jurisdiction" was intentionally included in
those provisions of Sections 1 and 2 in order to allow the
sharing of information with sister agencies in other states; for
example, if the OCS in Alaska needed to share information with
Idaho's division of juvenile justice, then under Sections 1 and
2 as currently written, that could occur, thereby avoiding
duplication of services or previously-failed treatment.
1:33:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER - referring to the wording in the
amendments additionally labeled 27-LS1394\M.1, 27-LS1394\M.1.a,
and 27-LS1394\M.1.b, "with similar rules" - questioned whether
adding that wording would enable the DHSS to ensure that other
jurisdictions being provided information have at least some
standards for protecting children similar to Alaska's standards.
MS. KRALY indicated that counter to what the bill is intended to
effectuate, adding that wording would create a bar to quick and
efficient disclosure of information, by essentially requiring
that a comparative analysis be conducted by an OCS social
worker, his/her managers, and the DOL in order to address the
legal question of whether a particular jurisdiction does indeed
have sufficiently similar standards. She also pointed out that
tied to federal funding, federal oversight of both types of
organizations already occurs, thereby providing overarching
consistency between the states with regard to such standards.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the wording, "or another
jurisdiction" could refer to a jurisdiction in a foreign country
- not all of which provide children with [adequate] protection -
and suggested that the bill be amended to give deference to what
he termed, "domestic" jurisdictions, particularly given that
disclosure of the information would be mandatory under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER characterized HB 343 as a very good bill,
and acknowledged that the existing law is very confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - to address his concern about foreign
jurisdictions, and referring to the language that the amendments
additionally labeled 27-LS1394\M.1, 27-LS1394\M.1.a, and 27-
LS1394\M.1.b were proposing to add to Sections 1 and 2 -
ventured that perhaps it would suffice to instead just add a
stipulation that information shall be disclosed to foreign
jurisdictions that have rules for protecting children; in this
way, the question of whether any such rules are sufficiently
similar to Alaska's need not be addressed.
1:42:31 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), said his
concern with HB 343 is that in clarifying for everyone -
including the court, which is currently addressing the issue of
whether the OCS and the DJJ are statutorily allowed to share
information - that the OCS and the DJJ shall share information
about mutual clients, as Sections 1 and 2 as currently written
will do, it could result in the child not being forthcoming with
the OCS because he/she would know that the DJJ could obtain
information about him/her from the OCS and then possibly use it
against him/her during a DJJ adjudication; that knowledge that
such sharing shall occur could ultimately undermine the OCS's
efforts to help that child. In response to a question regarding
a possible solution to his concern about the potential chilling
effect such knowledge could have on how the child relates to the
OCS, he acknowledged that perhaps a provision could be added to
HB 353 to either require a court order prior to the sharing of
information, or to require that notice and an opportunity to
object be given prior to the sharing of information.
1:49:50 PM
NAOMI HARRIS, Community Relations Manager, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
said that the OCS is in support of HB 343 because it
standardizes the information the OCS is allowed to share with
the DJJ. Currently, some confusion exists, she acknowledged,
and the bill will address that by clarifying for everyone that
such sharing can occur. In response to questions, she said she
does not agree with the PDA that HB 343 will impact how
forthcoming a client is with the OCS. Instead, passage of the
bill will enable the OCS and the DJJ to work together to support
the best interests of the child and his/her rehabilitation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that perhaps the bill should
be amended to require the DJJ and the OCS to provide clients
with notice that the two agencies share information about mutual
clients with each other.
MR. NEWMAN, in response to questions and comments, remarked that
both the DJJ and the OCS are agencies of the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS), and both are dedicated to
promoting the health and wellbeing of the children they serve.
Both agencies already have access to each other's databases, and
although there might still be some misunderstanding with regard
to the nature of the OCS and DJJ's collaborative relationship,
passage of HB 343, specifically its Sections 1 and 2, will be
helpful in both clarifying that point for everyone and in
ensuring that the DJJ has the information it needs in order to
take the best approach with each of its clients, individually,
in terms of ensuring that his/her best interests are served. In
response to further questions, he first acknowledged that with
regard to the lawful disclosure of confidential information,
existing law is not yet clear on the issue of whether an agency
lawfully receiving such confidential information is then also
required to maintain the confidentiality of that information;
and then provided brief information regarding existing
provisions of AS 47.10.093(b) and AS 47.12.310((b)(2) that would
not be changed by HB 343.
2:05:32 PM
BARBARA HENJUM, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), stated that the
DJJ is very supportive of HB 343, believing that each of its
three main components are necessary to assist the DJJ in
furthering its goals of rehabilitating the children under its
care and doing so in such a way that is sensitive to each
child's particular situation and needs. To address the concern
that information obtained from the OCS could be misused by the
DJJ, she pointed out that that hasn't been a problem to date,
adding that both the OCS and the DJJ have the same goal -
protecting the children. In conclusion, she thanked the
committee for its support of HB 343.
MR. NEWMAN, in response to comments and a question, relayed that
he'd contacted former standing master William D. Hitchcock, who,
until his recent retirement, presided over Anchorage's Family
CARE (Community Assisted Recovery Effort) Court (FCC) - which
specifically addresses child in need of aid (CINA) cases - and
who said he didn't see anything problematic with HB 343 and
thought it to be a good idea, particularly the public-disclosure
streamlining the DHSS is trying to achieve with it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a desire for Legislative
Legal and Research Services to review the aforementioned
amendments additionally labeled 27-LS1394\M.1, 27-LS1394\M.1.a,
27-LS1394\M.1.b, and 27-LS1394\M.2.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony on HB 343, and
relayed that [CSHB 343(HSS)] would be held over.
2:10:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.