Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/29/2007 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB137 | |
| HB2 | |
| HB61 | |
| HB29 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 29
"An Act relating to infants who are safely surrendered
by a parent shortly after birth."
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, spoke in
support of the legislation and noted that it has the ability
to save lives of children up to 21 days old. Parents would
not be prosecuted for giving up a child up to 21 days old.
There is similar legislation in 47 other states.
Representative Thomas clarified that Village Public Safety
Officers would be considered as peace officers.
3:09:00 PM
In response to a question by Representative Hawker, Ms.
Marasigan explained that the legislation was expanded from
last year's version in order to increase the potential
receivers of a child to include community health aides and
peace officers. Clergy were also included by the last
committee.
Representative Crawford asked why 21 days were chosen. Ms.
Marasigan explained that the 21 day period was a compromise
amongst agencies consulted on the legislation. She noted
that there was a greater potential for child abuse beyond a
month.
3:12:09 PM
Representative Gara observed that previous legislation
passed by the House also used 21 days. Ms. Marasigan added
that the definition of neo-natal is "under 28 days of age".
Vice Chair Stoltze asked about the termination of child
support obligations. Ms. Marasigan replied that the
Department of Law could address that issue. Vice Chair
Stoltze asked about federal tribal rights as they relate to
abandonment. Ms. Marasigan pointed out that the Indian
Child Welfare Act emphasizes the safety of the child first.
3:15:55 PM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered what rights the father has if the
mother brings in the child. Ms. Marasigan deferred to the
Department of Law to answer.
Representative Gara spoke to criminal vs. civil liabilities
according to current law regarding loss of custody. Ms.
Marasigan thought that this would fall under the abandonment
statute. Representative Gara summarized the requirements of
the statute.
3:17:24 PM
CHIP WAGONER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA CONFERENCE OF
CATHOLIC BISHOPS, spoke in favor of HB 29. He spoke of the
larger societal issues. He addressed the fiscal note and
the necessity of publicizing the program.
Co-Chair Meyer asked about the father's rights in
abandonment cases.
HANNA SEBOLD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, replied
that this bill is a mechanism that kicks the Child in Need
of Aid statute into place. Finding a child in need of aid
does not terminate a parent's right. There is a process of
six months to determine termination of parents' rights.
3:22:33 PM
Representative Hawker asked about the receiver paragraph on
page 2, lines 5-11. He questioned the wording of lines 7
and 8 regarding "physician" and "hospital employee".
MIKE LESSMAN, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, thought the interpretation of
when a physician would receive an abandoned child is loose.
Ms. Sebold suggested a comma after physician on line 7, for
clarification. Representative Hawker concurred.
3:25:14 PM
Representative Gara asked about temporary foster care and
the following home visit. Ms. Sebold said it is not a
strict six-month period, but is intended to provide time for
a home study. Representative Gara asked if the child
immediately goes to the adoptive family if one is available.
Ms. Sebold clarified that the child will be placed for six
months and then a home study takes place.
Representative Hawker returned to the receivers list and
noted two categories added since previous legislation. A
"member of the clergy" and a "community health aide" are
new. The previous categories are clearly professional
people with training. He wondered of OCS is comfortable
with the new additions.
Mr. Lessman said he could not provide any guarantees. Where
there are no hospitals in rural Alaska, a community health
aide would substitute. Representative Hawker questioned the
validity of a clergy.
3:30:44 PM
Ms. Marasigan addressed Representative Hawker's concerns.
She defined clergy as someone who is working in a ministry.
She related the history of the church as a place to receive
abandoned children.
Co-Chair Meyer asked where clergy is defined. Ms. Marasigan
thought it was a Department of Law definition.
Representative Hawker maintained that a clergy may not be
medically trained to deal with abandoned babies. Ms.
Marasigan related that other committees had similar
concerns. She thought that abandonment was an emergency
situation. Representative Hawker agreed.
3:35:00 PM
Representative Gara suggested a general statement such as
the parent leaves the infant in the physical custody of a
person who the parent "reasonably believes would provide
safe care", rather than a list of people who the baby could
be left with.
Vice Chair Stoltze agreed with the intent of the bill. He
echoed Representative Hawker's concern about the definition
of clergy.
Co-Chair Meyer announced that the bill would be held over to
address the concerns.
HB 29 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|