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; amending court hearing procedures to allow public attendance at child-in-need-of-aid proceedings; establishing a right to a trial by jury in termination of parental rights proceedings; reestablishing and relating to state and local citizens' review panels for certain child custody matters; amending the duty to disclose information pertaining to a child in need of aid; establishing a distribution age for permanent fund dividends held in trust for a child committed to the custody of the Department of Health and Social Services; 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 3 and 18, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure; and providing for an effective date. Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, which would insert "court records" on Page 1, Line 3. (Copy on File). Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. RYNNIEVA MOSS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, noted that the amendment added language to the title. It was important that the title states concise. The court records were modified in Sections 18 & 19. 2:45:23 PM Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted. 2:45:44 PM Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Representative Croft explained the amendment would insert language on Page 5, "to the fullest extent consistent with the child's best interests". (Copy on File). Ms. Moss concurred, pointed out that also had been a concern for the Department of Law. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted. 2:47:05 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Moss explained that the amendment would add language on Page 7, Line 7, "or whose safety or welfare may be endangered by public release of such information". (Copy on File). Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted. 2:47:36 PM Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4, which would delete all material on Page 7, Lines 14-20. (Copy on File). Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. JULIE LUCKY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, explained the amendment, recommending a policy call by the Committee to determine whether child-in-need-of-aid hearings should be open to the public. She resisted sharing that information and recommended an opinion from Department of Law. 2:51:30 PM Representative Croft questioned whether public disclosure could be better. He asked if confidentiality protects children. Ms. Lucky shared her opinion regarding how it affects children at risk. 2:52:40 PM Representative Hawker noted that the crux of the amendment addresses the language of the bill, making the public hearing process open to the public and limiting confidentiality. The proposed language provides strong "affirmative" duty that the public may not disclose any information from a hearing by making it a misdemeanor crime to violate that. He thought that could be a bright line for an innocent child. 2:54:35 PM Ms. Moss noted that the Sponsor was in opposition to Amendment #4. 2:55:51 PM JAN RUTHERDALE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, related her experience in drafting the bill during the task force. A lot of time was spent on balancing the privacy rights of the child with the benefits of opening the hearings. It was determined that the provision of Subsection (F), Section 10 was important and the amendment proposes to modify that section. The protections of not disclosing the child's name, plus requiring the court to notify everyone. Subject to the court's sanctions, that would violate the order. Ms. Rutherdale addressed questions about the studies. She said the system is broken with so little funding going into that system and by opening the hearings, would be one way to obtain necessary changes. Several states have opened up hearings without problems. There are already restrictions in place. 3:00:03 PM JOSH FINK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PUBLIC ADVOCATE, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY (OPA), ANCHORAGE, concurred with comments made by Ms. Moss that they support the current language in the bill. He related history of public disclosure and the importance of that. He voiced concern with Amendment #4, indicating that public discussion is important with the need for "side boards". 3:02:02 PM Representative Croft referred to the last line of that section. He asked if a judge had experience in a case with a reporter who disclosed information they should not have, then shouldn't they retain the power to exclude that reporter from subsequent hearings. 3:03:00 PM Ms. Rutherdale agreed with Representative Croft's interpretation that the court has the power to close a hearing. Ms. Moss inquired if Representative Croft had recommended any language. Representative Croft recommended deleting "in the case". 3:04:12 PM Representative Hawker WITHDREW Amendment #4. 3:04:35 PM Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5, which would add a conceptual amendment on Page 11 to Section 16. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Moss indicated that the sponsor would have no problem with that language. 3:05:00 PM Ms. Lucky spoke to the duty of the Department to notify adult family members while termination is happening. There are many families where there is a cycle of abuse. The amendment would not preclude the Department from looking at a family member that might have had trouble in the past. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #5 was adopted. 3:06:11 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #6. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. 3:06:49 PM Ms. Rutherdale explained that she had proposed the language. The language clarifies that the parties including the parents have access to agency records. Currently, a person would have to obtain a court order. She spoke to that limitation. Representative Kelly asked if that had fallen out of favor. Ms. Rutherdale replied that the language has fallen out of favor, but the amendment has not. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #6 was adopted. 3:07:53 PM Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #7. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Rutherdale noted that she had recommended the amendment, which would delete language on Page 5, Line 24, "Guardian ad litem appointed by the Court" and insert "a guardian ad litem appointed by the court". Representative Croft pointed out the need for renumbering. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #7 was adopted. 3:09:41 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #8. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Rutherdale explained the amendment provides clarification that caregivers include a parent or guardian of the child. The language covers situations in which the caregiver should be warned regarding information. Often they have no connection with OCS. The proposed language covers licensing and day care agencies. Co-Chair Chenault asked about warning day care providers and if the language would apply to only licensed day care centers. Ms. Rutherdale replied it applies to licensing agencies and to any caregiver of a child. If the person has control, they need to be warned to protect that child. Co-Chair Chenault mentioned a felon doing day care in his area and inquired if the law would apply to that person. Ms. Rutherdale advised that OCS would need to know about it in order to provide the warning and would affect anything regarding the child's safety. Co-Chair Chenault explained that the man was accused of kidnapping 15-years ago and currently, he is providing day care out of his home. He cares for only four children, under the number to require a license. Ms. Rutherdale responded it would cover that situation. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #8 was adopted. 3:14:26 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #9. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Moss indicated that the amendment addresses a concern regarding multiple children with multiple fathers. She added that grammatically the sentence needs to delete the second comma. Representative Hawker MOVED a friendly amendment to delete the second comma. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #9 was amended. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #9 was adopted. 3:15:43 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #10. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Moss explained that the amendment addresses an oversight. Additionally, the word "member" was left out in the insert of Section ©. Representative Hawker MOVED to AMEND Amendment #10 with the addition of that language. There being NO OBJECTION, it was amended. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #10 was adopted. 3:16:56 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #11. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Rutherdale explained that the amendment would insert language on Page 20, Line 29, following "child", "under AS 47.10.088(i) or under (e) of this section". The language clarifies that the paragraph refers to both sections, identifying adoptive placement homes. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #11 was adopted. 3:18:06 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #12. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Moss advised that Amendment #12 would delete language on Page 21, Line 23: "and shall be closed to the public", because the purpose of the bill is to open proceedings to the public. Representative Croft asked if they were closed to the public before. Ms. Moss said no and that the language had been taken from other federal statutes. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #12 was adopted. 3:19:06 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #13. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Moss explained that the original language mandated audio and videotaping. That could create a burden for OCS and a fiscal note if for some reason the federal dollars disappear. The requested language would be more permissive. TAMMY SANDOVAL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICES OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES (OCS), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES, ANCHORAGE, stated that it was best practice to have children audio and video taped whenever possible, but she realized that they do not hold the purse strings to mandate that. 3:20:08 PM Representative Croft said that under current law, it is permissive. Amendment #13 establishes a tiered system for physical abuse. Ms. Moss stated that they did not add the "shall" on Line 8. Representative Croft asked why that was the best practice in certain cases not severe or sexual. He asked why, in the sexual abuse cases would they want to create a "shall" standard. Ms. Moss concurred and agreed that would create a check and balance. Representative Croft asked if an implication was created when using "may" for severe physical abuse and "shall" for sexual abuse. STACY KRALY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, agreed with the premise, however, understood that "shall" on Line 8, creates a large fiscal impact on OCS, because the mandatory nature creates an obligation. Ms. Sandoval added that adding "shall" on Line 8 relieved their office. She agreed, however, it was determined that having the burden of that language to transport a child or interviewer would create difficult costs. She mentioned the best practice issue could be dealt with internally. 3:25:17 PM Representative Croft pointed out that the mentioned situation could not be feasible and thought that it could result in trauma to the child. He maintained that it was "best practices" to audio and videotape victims, particularly sexually violated victims and that it should be required. He suggested that on Lines 5 & 6 of the amendment, deleting language "alleging severe physical abuse by a parent or caregiver". He preferred that all reports of harm be taped but was comfortable with it being those involved with sexual abuse. Ms. Kraly agreed with the "unless" phrase. She reiterated that best practice requires a fiscal note. She requested time to determine if the change would work with a 1985 Supreme Court case decision, regarding requirements that a police officer tape interviews with suspects. Representative Croft MOVED to AMEND Amendment #13, Lines 5 & 6, deleting language "alleging severe physical abuse by a parent or caregiver". Additionally, Lines 8 & 9, deleting the phrase, "except that an interview of a child may not be videotaped if" and insert "unless". There being NO OBJECTION to the amended language, it was incorporated. Ms. Moss indicated that the sponsor would support that change. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION, to the amendment. There being NO further OBJECTIONS, amended Amendment #13 was adopted. 3:30:08 PM th Representative Foster mentioned that 15 years ago, the 9 Circuit Court made a judgment, which was recently overturned because the right of the accused was unable to cross-examine the tape. He did not know the value of the amendment. Ms. Rutherdale explained that the purpose of the taping is to guarantee that there is accurate information coming from the child. Generally, it is not used in court. 3:32:00 PM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #14. Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED. Ms. Moss stated that Amendment #14 defines child advocacy centers and that the State directs OCS to utilize them when available. Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #14 was adopted. Representative Kelly pointed out an extra common on Line 8. He MOVED to AMEND Amendment #8 by deleting the comma after "neglect". There being NO OBJECTION, it was amended. There being NO further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #8 was adopted. 3:34:09 PM Co-Chair Meyer inquired the change to the fiscal note. 3:35:16 PM Ms. Moss responded that she could not provide an accurate number at this time, noting possible lost federal funds. OPA and the Public Defenders Office have reduced their notes by approximately 66%. Ms. Moss pointed out the substantial increase for budgeting of front line workers. 3:36:41 PM Representative Hawker voiced concern passing a bill out of the House Finance Committee that does not indicate true fiscal costs. 3:37:43 PM Representative Croft referenced Section 38, Page 21, the panel open to the public. He voiced concern with the confidentiality in Section 41 that the members and staff may not disclose. He thought that they ought to have similar obligations as those listed in Section 10. Ms. Moss understood that was already covered. Ms. Kraly pointed out that Section 41 contains a confidentiality provision that has a restriction regarding what can be divulged. Representative Croft read Section 41, "The members and staff of the State panel do not discuss". Ms. Kraly agreed with Representative Croft's interpretation that if the meetings were going to be open, there should be a similar limitation to the individuals that attend. 3:40:35 PM Ms. Moss said she was under the understood that confidentiality would be created for any child-in-need-of- aid proceedings. Representative Croft requested reconsideration on Page 7, regarding a person attending a hearing. Ms. Rutherdale advised that Page 7 does not apply to the Citizen's Review Panel. Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #15a on Page 22, Line 15, "a person attending a hearing of the State panel and" before "members". Ms. Moss indicated that would be okay. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #15a was adopted. 3:42:27 PM Ms. Sandoval reported on the reworking of the fiscal notes and removing the jury trial. The Division has reduced the notes to just over $200 thousand dollars. 3:43:28 PM Co-Chair Meyer stated that HB 53 would be HELD in Committee for further consideration of the fiscal notes. AT EASE: 3:44:10 PM RECONVENE: 3:52:31 PM