HB 54-PLACEMENT OF A CHILD IN NEED OF AID  3:49:55 PM CHAIR HIGGINS announced that the final order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 54, "An Act relating to the identification, location, and notification of specified family members and family friends of a child who is in state custody." 3:50:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for sponsor substitute for HB 54, labeled 28- LS0202\R, Mischel, 2/7/13, as the working document. There being no objection, Version R was before the committee. 3:50:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as a joint prime sponsor, said that the proposed bill was intended to be very simple. He stated that the standard in foster care was to do what was in the best interest for the child, and that it was necessary to look for the best placement for a child, often with another family member. He reported that the OCS policy was broader than federal law, and required the search for placement, within 30 days, with family members or adult family friends of the family. He offered an anecdotal account that foster youth sometimes recounted regarding preferred family members who had not been contacted for placement. REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to page 1, line 12, of Version R, which took the existing OCS policy to search for family members and family friends, and required that a supervisor sign off that this had been done with due diligence. He said that this would ensure that the search for family members as foster parents had been conducted. He noted that, as childhood trauma could put a bad imprint on a child, it was often easier to repair this damage with a family member. He opined that OCS was open to this change, but he requested that this provision be placed in statute, so that it could not be culled by any future revisions in OCS. He declared that there was not any cost and he pointed out that this emphasized the importance of this contact. 3:55:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, Alaska State Legislature, declared that the proposed bill was important, as it ensured that the supervisor had talked with the placement personnel regarding the search for placement with a family member or a family member friend, in the best interest of the child. 3:56:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify the changes to the proposed CS. 3:57:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that the changes had been suggested by OCS. He explained the proposed two-step process by OCS: first, a notification letter would be sent to every adult family member, and then second, adult family friends would be considered as the next priority after adult family members. 3:58:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked about the removal of the court requirement. REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response, stated that this was also a suggestion from OCS. He explained that the discovery process ensured that information had to be shared between both sides, and that this eliminated the necessity for the court to provide the information. 3:58:55 PM CHAIR HIGGINS opened public testimony. 3:59:18 PM AMANDA METIVIER, Statewide Coordinator, Facing Foster Care in Alaska, stated that she supported the proposed bill. She shared that she had worked statewide with hundreds of young people in and from foster care, had been a foster parent and had been in foster care, and that the proposed bill ensured compliance in the early search for placement with family and adult family friends. 4:00:46 PM NANCY WEBB said that the search process for family members needed to be strengthened. She offered her belief that the discovery process depended on a lawyer asking for information, as it was not provided automatically and, therefore, it was important to retain the provision. She offered her observation that "judges are woefully uninformed about these cases." She suggested that it would be a great improvement if judges were better informed regarding the search for family members, and the reason why a family member was not selected. She offered a personal anecdote regarding her youngest grandson. She declared that any additional information for judges would allow for better decisions. She said that the confidentiality rules made it difficult for family members to gain information, and that it was necessary for explanations to family members when they were not accepted as foster parents. She declared that, as the children specialist position was initially paid at a very low level, this was a part of the problem. 4:05:02 PM CHAIR HIGGINS left public testimony open and stated that SSHB 54 would be held over. 4:05:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if OCS was in agreement with the proposed removal of notification to the court. MS. LAWTON said that Department of Health and Social Services was not taking a position on the proposed bill. She said that all discovery produced by OCS was provided to all the legal parties through the discovery process. She opined that judges were not reviewing the material but instead, relied on the parties to identify the issues. 4:07:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that an attorney did not have to solicit information, but that the parties were required to supply the information on a regular basis. He asked if the information was transferred in an expedited time frame. 4:08:24 PM MS. LAWTON said that the discovery material was provided weekly and monthly in the first six months of a case, and then subsequently, it was provided prior to each scheduled hearing. She said that relatives were given notification related to hearings, and in the initial 30 day search for relatives and other adult family members, notice was provided. She reported that any denial of placement and reason for denial was also provided. 4:09:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, referring to a comment by Ms. Webb, asked if the proposed CS was already standard practice. MS. LAWTON explained that the practice related to diligent search for relatives "was more clearly defined by the federal government several years ago." She stated that the new element in the proposed bill was the specific requirement for a supervisor to inquire and document the actions of the case worker during the first 30 days. 4:10:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if the requirement for review by a supervisor would eliminate any oversight, especially during a time of staff transition. 4:11:19 PM MS. LAWTON replied that, although it could emphasize that area, supervisors were required to monitor compliance for a lot of issues. 4:11:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if there would be any additional cost and duties for supervisors. MS. LAWTON replied that she did not anticipate any additional cost or work for the supervisors. 4:12:11 PM CHAIR HIGGINS reiterated that Department of Health and Social Services had not taken a position on the proposed bill. 4:12:26 PM CHAIR HIGGINS said that SSHB 54 would be held over.