HB 343 - DISCLOSURE OF CHILDREN'S RECORDS 1:08:47 PM VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first 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).] VICE CHAIR THOMPSON indicated that the committee would be addressing proposed amendments a bit out of order. 1:09:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 27-LS1394\M.2, Mischel, 3/27/12, which read: Page 2, line 9, following "jurisdiction": Insert "that operates under child protection  standards similar to the standards for a law  enforcement agency in this state," Page 3, lines 1 - 2: Delete "or another jurisdiction" Page 3, line 2, following "minors": Insert "or another state or municipal agency of  another jurisdiction that is responsible for  delinquent minors and that operates under child  protection standards similar to the standards for this  state or a municipal agency in this state" Page 3, line 23, following "jurisdiction": Insert "that operates under child protection  standards similar to the standards for a law  enforcement agency in this state," Page 4, lines 17 - 18: Delete "or another jurisdiction" Page 4, line 18, following "services": Insert "or another state or municipal agency of  another jurisdiction that is responsible for child  protection services and that operates under child  protection standards similar to the standards for this  state or a municipal agency in this state" VICE CHAIR THOMPSON objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, relaying that he would be withdrawing Amendment 2, expressed concern that HB 343's use of the wording, "or another jurisdiction" in its Sections 1 and 2 could result in information about a child being disclosed to jurisdictions that don't have standards for protecting children similar to Alaska's standards. He acknowledged that the Department of Law (DOL) and the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) are opposed to Amendment 2, however, because it would require the administration to first undertake an investigation into whether another jurisdiction's standards for protecting children were sufficiently similar to Alaska's standards. In conclusion, he reiterated that he would be withdrawing Amendment 2. VICE CHAIR THOMPSON removed his objection to the motion to adopt Amendment 2, and noted that Amendment 2 was withdrawn. VICE CHAIR THOMPSON then mentioned that public testimony on HB 343 had previously been closed. 1:13:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27-LS1394\M.1, Mischel, 3/26/12, which read: Page 3, line 4, following "safety": Insert ", if notice and an opportunity to object  is provided in writing to the child and the child's  guardian ad litem not less than 10 business days  before disclosure" REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated that Amendment 1 would add a stipulation to Section 1's proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15) that the Office of Children's Services (OCS) shall disclose information about a case to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) if the OCS provides to the child [that is the subject of the case] and his/her guardian ad litem (GAL) written notice of, and an opportunity to object to, the disclosure. Amendment 1 is intended to address a concern expressed by the Public Defender Agency (PDA) during HB 343's last hearing that as currently written, Section 1 might have a chilling effect on how forthcoming a child is 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. In conclusion, she urged adoption of Amendment 1. 1:14:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 343, expressed concern with Amendment 1's proposed change to Section 1 of the bill. Under current law, the OCS and the DJJ, both agencies of the DHSS, can [and do] share information about mutual clients, but because of some misunderstanding, this point needs to be clarified in statute [as Sections 1 and 2 are in part proposing to do]. Amendment 1 could result in information [from the OCS] necessary to protect the public and to provide help to the child not being disclosed [to the DJJ] in a timely fashion, because Amendment 1 also stipulates that the notice and opportunity to object be provided not less than 10 business days prior to the disclosure occurring. 1:15:36 PM TONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), concurred with Representative Munoz's comments, additionally predicting that Amendment 1 would negatively impact the ability of the OCS and the DJJ to work together for the betterment of Alaska's children. 1:17:12 PM QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to a query, relayed that Amendment 1 does address his concern [with Section 1 as touched on earlier by Representative Holmes]. He indicated a belief that under Amendment 1, the court would become involved whenever the child and/or his/her GAL object to the OCS disclosing information to the DJJ. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to a query, reiterated her concern that the adoption of Amendment 1 would result in important information not being disclosed in a timely fashion, and that such delay in disclosure could result in the child not receiving appropriate care or necessary services as soon as he/she otherwise would. MR. NEWMAN - pointing out that the OCS and the DJJ, both agencies of the DHSS, work together to promote and enhance the health and wellbeing of Alaska's children, and offering examples of such collaboration - proffered that delaying the sharing of information by the OCS for at least 10 days as would be required under Amendment 1 could also delay the DJJ's efforts to provide the child with necessary and appropriate assistance. 1:25:15 PM CRISTY LAWTON, Director, Central Office, Office of Children's Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), explained that the type of information the OCS compiles about a mutual client that the DJJ wouldn't already have isn't information that would have an impact on a DJJ adjudication; instead, such information is helpful to the DJJ in determining what type and level of service and placement is necessary to assist the child. Adoption of Amendment 1 could therefore result in [at least a 10-day] delay in the DJJ being provided the information it needs to appropriately help the child. In response to comments and a question, she mentioned that under the Alaska Rules of Court, Rule 9 of the Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure addresses a GAL's ability to protect certain records in [child in need of aid (CINA) proceedings]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments and questions, observed that Section 1 of HB 343 is proposing to amend AS 47.10, the statute governing the OCS, and that Section 2 of the bill is proposing to amend AS 47.12, the statute governing the DJJ. 1:37:07 PM STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), concurred, adding that at one point the OCS and the DJJ were one agency with a disclosure provision that referenced department records, and when that agency was split into two separate agencies due to federal legislation and funding issues, the resultant two separate statutes mirrored each other, but inadvertently did not expressly stipulate that the OCS and the DJJ would continue sharing information. Sections 1 and 2 of the bill are intended to statutorily clarify that point because currently some misunderstanding exists. Section 1, addressing the OCS, refers to the DJJ in its proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15) via the words, "agency ... responsible for delinquent minors"; and Section 2, addressing the DJJ, refers to the OCS in its proposed AS 47.12.310(b)(2)(M) via the words, "agency ... responsible for  child protection services". Furthermore, the wording in both of those provisions - "a state or municipal agency of this state or  another jurisdiction" - was specifically included in order to allow the sharing of information with sister OCS and DJJ agencies in other jurisdictions. She acknowledged, however, that perhaps the words, "who is" ought to be added to Section 1's proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15) and to Section 2's proposed AS 47.12.310(b)(2)(M) just before the words, "responsible for". REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, characterizing HB 343 as a good bill, said he opposes Amendment 1 because he didn't think the legislature wants there to be [at least] a 10-day delay in the DJJ's being provided information by the OCS. He added that he is still uncomfortable with [Section 1 and 2's] inclusion of the wording, "or another jurisdiction", however. MS. KRALY, in response to other questions, indicated that because some misunderstanding exists regarding the ability of the OCS and the DJJ to share information about mutual clients, the statutes themselves still need to be clarified, as Sections 1 and 2 of HB 343 are proposing to do, regardless that subsection (b)(3)(F) of the aforementioned Rule 9 of the Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure addresses a GAL's authority to [waive or claim] the psychotherapist-patient privilege in a CINA proceeding. 1:50:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she's very uncomfortable with Section 1 as currently written, but is unsure whether Amendment 1 would address her concern. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES therefore withdrew Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to a proposed amendment in members' packets labeled 27-LS1394\M.3, Mischel, 3/27/12, and indicated that he would not be offering that proposed amendment, which read: Page 5, lines 18 - 22: Delete all material. Insert "the minor has entered a guilty plea to a delinquent act contained in a petition seeking adjudication of the minor as a delinquent for the offense or has been adjudicated delinquent by a court for the offense." 1:53:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, labeled 27-LS1394\M.4, Mischel, 3/28/12, which read: Page 5, line 17, following "if": Insert "a court has adjudicated the minor as a delinquent for an offense contained in a petition seeking adjudication of the minor as a delinquent for the offense." Page 5, lines 18 - 22: Delete all material. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - expressing disfavor with the actual wording of Conceptual Amendment 3 - explained that it addresses Section 4's proposed AS 47.12.315(b)(3), which stipulates that for certain minors alleged to have committed certain offenses, certain information may be disclosed to the public only if, after a petition has been filed and the particular minor has been arraigned, a finding of probable cause that he/she committed the alleged offense has been entered by the court. The concern that's arisen with regard to that proposed subsection (b)(3) as currently written is that information about such a minor could be disclosed to the public even if he/she isn't subsequently adjudicated delinquent for the alleged offense. Any such disclosure should only occur if the minor is so adjudicated, he opined, but again expressed disfavor with the actual wording of Conceptual Amendment 3. 1:55:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ - mentioning that she supports Conceptual Amendment 3 - observed that another proposed amendment in members' packets also addresses that provision of Section 4, and ventured that perhaps that other proposed amendment might alleviate members' concerns with Section 4 as currently written in a much more straightforward fashion; that proposed amendment, labeled 27-LS1394\M.5, Mischel, 3/28/12, [and later referred to as Conceptual Amendment 4,] read: Page 5, line 17, following "if": Insert "a court has entered a judgment that the minor is delinquent." Page 5, lines 18 - 22: Delete all material. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether the wording, "entered a judgment" was the correct term of art to use with regard to a DJJ adjudication. MR. NEWMAN suggested that the language to be inserted by [Conceptual Amendment 4] should instead read, "a court has entered a finding that the minor is delinquent." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3. 1:57:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4 [text provided previously]. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to a query, suggested amending Conceptual Amendment 4 such that the language being inserted would instead read, "a court has entered a finding adjudicating the minor as a delinquent." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Conceptual Amendment 4 [as suggested by Representative Munoz]. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was so amended. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection to the motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4. VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that there were no further objections, announced that Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended, was adopted. 1:59:42 PM VICE CHAIR THOMPSON - referring to the earlier suggestion by Ms. Kraly regarding a possible change to Sections 1 and 2 - made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, to add the words, "who  is" after the word, "jurisdiction" on page 3, line 2, and on page 4, line 18. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion, and expressed favor with Conceptual Amendment 5. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the drafter would have leeway to use the most appropriate wording. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection to the motion. VICE CHAIR THOMPSON ascertained that there were no further objections, and announced that Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to comments regarding withdrawn Amendment 1, indicated that she would be objecting to moving HB 343 from committee because [the PDA's aforementioned] concern with Section 1's proposed AS 47.10.093(b)(15) has not yet been addressed to her satisfaction. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to a question, reiterated her disfavor with withdrawn Amendment 1, opining that it would place a tremendous burden on the DJJ and the OCS. VICE CHAIR THOMPSON noted that HB 343 had no further committee referrals. 2:10:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 343(HSS), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. The committee took a brief at-ease. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Keller, Pruitt, and Thompson voted in favor of reporting CSHB 343(HSS), as amended, out of committee. Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 343(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.