HB 54-PLACEMENT OF A CHILD IN NEED OF AID  2:43:56 PM CHAIR KELLER 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." [Before the committee was CSSSHB 54(HSS).] 2:44:19 PM TOBY SMITH, Staff, Representative Les Gara, Alaska State Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Gara, a joint prime sponsor, paraphrased from the following sectional analysis provided in committee members' packets: Section 1. This section adds a new section to AS 47.10, requiring that a supervisor in the Office of Children's Services (OCS) certify in writing that a search for noncustodial parents, adult family members, and appropriate adult family friends of the child has been conducted. OCS must notify these adults of the child's removal within 30 days, unless there are extenuating circumstances. This section codifies existing OCS policy related to extended family searches, and adds the requirement of supervisor certification. Section 2. This section adds a reference to the new section of statute established in Section 1. It requires that due diligence be conducted to locate extended family members before the child is placed in a foster home. Section 3. This section allows the department to provide for emergency placement of a child while conducting due diligence. MR. SMITH summarized that the legislation has no fiscal impact and would ensure that front-line caseworkers perform all that is required and can be done for the best interest of foster youth. He clarified that the legislation doesn't change any standards but rather ensures that proper policies are being performed by requiring that a supervisor sign-off when a caseworker has performed a due diligence search in placement of foster youth. 2:46:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to the difference between SSHB 54 and CSSSHB 54(HSS). The committee took an at-ease from 2:50 p.m. to 2:51 p.m. 2:51:32 PM MR. SMITH reviewed the changes from SSHB 54 to CSSSHB 54(HSS), as follows: Page 1, line 2: Deletes "and family friends" This change was made at the request of the Office of Children's Services (OCS). The inclusion of family friends in AS 47.10.035 created a new requirement that family friends be notified when a child is removed from their home. Determining which family friends were required to be notified of the removal of the child would be difficult to determine, and would create an onerous requirement for OCS to comply with. Family friends will still be considered as potential foster parents. Page 1, lines 6: Deletes "or adult family friend" for the reasons stated above. Page 1, line 10: Deletes "and appropriate adult family friends" for the reasons state above. Page 1, line 14: Changes "certify" to "verify". This change was made at the request of OCS. OCS feels that a verification of a family member search can be done using current documentation methods, while a certification may have required additional documentation. Page 2, lines 1-3: Deletes "The information provided under this subsection shall be submitted to the court for consideration before the next scheduled hearing after the due diligence period specified in (a) of this section." This change was made at the request of OCS. Submitting this information to the court was a redundant requirement, as all the information is made available to all parties as part of the discovery process. Page 2, following line 19: Inserts a new section to read: "Sec. 3. AS 47.14.100 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (u) The department may provide for emergency placement of a child while conducting due diligence under AS 47.10.035 and (e) of this section." This change was made at the request of OCS and the Department of Law. There was some concern that Sec. 2 (e) of the bill could prohibit OCS from making an emergency placement for a child the day they are removed from their home. This change clarifies that a child may be placed in an emergency or temporary foster home until a family search has been conducted and a permanent placement has been approved. 2:54:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the term "certify" was changed to "verify". He also asked whether "verify" is being used in the technical sense of AS 09.63, which is a verification that has to be underwrote. The use of "verify" per AS 09.63 seems unnecessarily formalistic, he opined. 2:55:35 PM CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), clarified that there was no intent for the term "verify" to be defined [as under AS 09.63]. The change was simply a less formal description of a supervisor consulting with his/her staff and using that consultation to affirm compliance with policy. CHAIR KELLER announced that SSHB 54 would be held over so that the drafter could answer this question. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that another term besides "verify" be utilized otherwise there will be legal questions. 2:57:21 PM CHAIR KELLER requested confirmation that the term "noncustodial" on page 1, line 9, doesn't include those parents whose parental rights have been terminated. MS. LAWTON confirmed that would be the case. CHAIR KELLER inquired as to whether CSSSHB 54(HSS) restricts OCS's discretion in any way in terms of [notifying a noncustodial parent of information about the foster child]. MS. LAWTON replied no. 2:58:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to how OCS finds these adult family friends. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that CSSSHB 54(HSS) doesn't include the reference to "adult family friends". However, CSSSHB 54(HSS) does use the term "adult family members" although it isn't defined. 2:59:20 PM JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska State Legislature, noted that this question arose in the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee and it was discovered that these are close family friends that aren't blood relations. Ms. Pierson surmised that these are situations in which the family friends would likely come forward and express interest. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised, in terms of the due diligence aspect, that OCS doesn't have an obligation to search for the adult family friends of the child. If the family friends come forward, then they have standing in regard to placement of the child, she surmised. MS. PIERSON related that's her understanding as well. MS. LAWTON clarified that this proposed language wouldn't require OCS to provide formal notification to adult family friends, but OCS's policy for a due diligence search means that the agency identifies as it is able family friends for potential placement. This identification, she noted, is largely based upon information from the family and the children. The proposed new language in [CSSSHB 54(HSS)] doesn't require that OCS provide official/formal notification, in terms of a specific timeframe. 3:02:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if this is the latest version of what was originally referred to as the blood relative statute. MS. LAWTON said she is unfamiliar with that prior proposed legislation, and thus is unable to answer that question. 3:03:31 PM AMANDA METIVIER, Facing Foster Care in Alaska, related support for SSHB 54, which creates accountability on behalf of OCS staff to ensure compliance to perform relative searches early. The state spends millions to house children in foster care with strangers who are licensed caregivers. She opined that the best thing is to search for family members first, place them with family, and keep children out of the system and into timely permanence with their families. In response to Representative Gruenberg's question, Ms. Metivier said she didn't believe this legislation is a result of the blood relative law, but she wasn't sure. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed the committee that the blood relative statute was enacted in the 1970s as a result of requests from Bush legislators. At one time, children were taken from village homes rather than keeping them in the village while the litigation occurred. CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony on SSHB 54. 3:06:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, recalling a situation with which he was involved, questioned whether SSHB 54 should include language that prevents the noncustodial parent whose rights aren't terminated from having custody/contact in certain dangerous situations. 3:08:53 PM MS. LAWTON clarified that SSHB 54 addresses initial contact/notification within the first 30 days that the child or relative [of a noncustodial parents] has come into care and that they have a potential legal right to ask for placement. Regardless of the circumstances, in terms of past bad acts, OCS would still be required to notify the noncustodial parent if their rights had not been terminated before. However, OCS isn't required to make placements, which is something that if in dispute would be addressed in the court. The OCS is required to provide notification and [the noncustodial parent] is allowed to have rights in terms of hearing and potential representation from the public defender's office. Ms. Lawton specified that OCS has discretion with regard to appropriateness of placement. 3:10:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX emphasized her belief that [a noncustodial parent] who has committed horrendous bad acts should have his/her [parental] rights terminated. If [the noncustodial parent's] rights aren't terminated, then it's simply an allegation of bad acts. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained that the legislation should include language allowing OCS to seek permission from the court in an extraordinary circumstance not to notify the rapist. [CSSSHB 54(HSS) was held over.]