Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
04/08/2025 03:30 PM Senate HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| SB88 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 36-FOSTER CHILDREN PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT
3:31:45 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to the placement of foster children in
psychiatric hospitals; relating to the care of children in state
custody placed in residential facilities outside the state; and
amending Rule 12.1(b), Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of
Procedure."
3:32:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW GRAY, District 20, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 36. He stated that
the bill strengthens due process protections for foster children
placed in acute psychiatric facilities. HB 36 requires a
judicial hearing within seven days of admission, mandates court-
appointed legal representation for the child, allows virtual
participation, and requires case reviews every 30 days for any
long-term placement. HB 36 also adds reporting on the number of
foster children placed in out-of-state residential facilities to
an existing annual legislative report. He stated that the
legislation responds to past failures in oversight that resulted
in foster children being held far longer than medically
necessary without timely hearings. Citing court rulings and
documented cases, HB 36 ensures foster children receive timely
judicial review and advocacy, aligning rights more closely with
constitutional due process standards and preventing prolonged,
unnecessary institutionalization.
3:38:15 PM
KYLE JOHANNSON, Staff, Representative Gray, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the sectional analysis for
HB 36:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1
Non substantive statutory construction
Section 2
Defines "acute psychiatric hospital" as suggested in
Kwinhagak v State of Alaska Defines "contemporaneous
two-way video conference" to expedite due process
Section 3
New subsection
e) Allows the State to place child in an acute
hospital if it's the least restrictive option, the
child is gravely disabled/mentally ill and placement
would improve the condition of the child with
treatment or deteriorate the condition of the child
without treatment.
f) Requires all parties of the case to be notified
of placement within 24 hours
g) Requires a court review of placement within 7
days. Gives the court the option to extend the court
review up to 14 days if necessary to secure attendance
of case participants. Allows for contemporaneous two-
way video conferencing.
h) Requires case review each 30 days or by a
"good-cause" request by the child or interested party.
Section 4
Adds "The number of children placed in residential
facilities providing care for children outside the
state' to the required annual report to the
Legislature on employee recruitment and retention,
including a five year plan, for the division.
Section 5
Amends Court Rule 12.1 (b) Alaska Child in Need of Aid
Rules of Procedure to mandate the court appointment of
an attorney for a child who has been placed in an
acute psychiatric hospital.
3:41:35 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN said that in adult cases, a hearing is held
within 72 hours, often with less than 24 hours of notice. He
asked why HB 36 requires a hearing within seven days rather than
the same 72-hour standard.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY replied this is a compromise agreement. Not
its first iteration.
3:43:00 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Juneau,
Alaska, answered questions on HB 36. She responded that the
Supreme Court concluded that a 72-hour hearing is not workable
in these cases. Unlike adult mental commitments, a child cannot
simply be released if criteria are not met or reports are
incomplete, because the child may have no safe alternative
placement. She said the Court also recognized the complexity of
child-in-need-of-aid cases, which involve multiple attorneys,
Office of Children's Services (OCS) staff, and facility
representatives, making expedited scheduling difficult. While 30
days was deemed too long, the Court found three days
impractical, with courts generally aiming for hearings closer to
seven days.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether this was the Sitka case.
MS. MEADE replied that this case was called Native Village of
Kwinhagak versus State of Alaska, decided in February 2024. If
the child was in Sitka, this may be the case being referenced.
3:45:19 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR stated that Representative Gray noted that an
attorney is usually already appointed for the child. He asked
for clarification on HB 36, Section 5, specifically regarding
who typically serves in that role, whether an OPPA attorney, a
private attorney, or a Department of Law attorney, and who the
statute envisions appointing.
3:45:46 PM
MS. MEADE responded that the Office of Public Advocacy appoints
an attorney to represent children in these types of situations.
CHAIR DUNBAR noted that the fiscal note estimates 110 additional
one-hour court hearings, with attorney costs of $107 per hour,
totaling $18,700. He asked for clarification on whether these
costs assume OPPA attorneys, private attorneys, or Department of
Law attorneys, and whether the department plans to hire
additional counsel, contract externally, or absorb the work
within existing staff.
3:46:45 PM
KIM SWISHER, Deputy Director, Office of Children's Services,
Anchorage, Alaska, answered questions on HB 36. She responded
that the fiscal note reflects costs incurred by OCS for its own
representation and participation in additional court hearings.
These costs are billed hourly by the Attorney General's office.
3:47:12 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR noted that he didn't see a fiscal note from the
Office of Public Advocacy and asked for an explanation from Ms.
Meade on how that works.
3:47:22 PM
MS. MEADE stated that she could not speak for the Office of
Public Advocacy and noted that HB 36 does not materially change
the existing court rule. She said under current rules, courts
must appoint an attorney when a child age ten or older does not
consent to psychiatric placement, which occurs frequently, and
courts often appoint counsel even when the child does consent
due to the high stakes involved. As a result, HB 36 is not
expected to significantly increase the number of attorney
appointments.
3:48:35 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for an explanation of what happens when a
foster child is hospitalized. She asked whether foster parents
may visit or maintain contact, or whether OCS assumes the
parental role with limited involvement from foster parents.
3:49:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY answered that in most cases, once a child is
transferred to an acute psychiatric facility, they do not return
to the prior foster home, requiring OCS to find a new placement.
He said when no immediate placement is available, the
psychiatric facility effectively becomes the placement, leading
to prolonged stays at a cost of nearly $1,000 per night. These
situations often involve children with significant behavioral
distress, and it is uncommon for foster parents to remain
involved during this period.
3:51:00 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the cutoff between a foster child
and foster family during psychiatric hospitalization is required
by law, regulation, or standard practice. She asked whether this
approach serves the child's best interests. She suggested that
even in cases of mental health crises, maintaining contact with
a stabilizing foster family may be beneficial and propose that
an evaluation be considered to determine whether continued
engagement is appropriate.
3:52:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY replied that in most cases, foster parents
do not want the child returned to the foster family's home. This
is not about being denied access; rather, foster parents are
often overwhelmed and unsure how to manage the situation.
3:53:07 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN noted that HB 36 defines acute psychiatric
hospital and asked if that included the emergency room.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY answered that HB 36 does not include the
emergency room.
SENATOR CLAMAN referenced a family friend who had a foster child
that went to the ER and spent 7 to 10 days in a padded cell. He
asked how such situations are addressed, since the bill's
definition of an acute psychiatric hospital does not appear to
include emergency room placements.
3:53:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY responded that HB 36 doesn't cover that.
Research indicates that in Alaska over the past 20 years,
extended holds without due process have occurred in acute
psychiatric facilities, not emergency rooms. He said acute
psychiatric facilities function similarly to psychiatric
emergency rooms. In cases like Kwinhagak, children may be
temporarily held in a local ER until transfer to a facility. He
said the exact legal status and when the timeline for hearings
begins after an ER evaluation is unclear and would require legal
clarification.
3:55:35 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR suggested the committee finish the conversation
after invited testimony.
3:55:49 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced invited testimony on HB 36.
3:56:16 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, Co-Founder, Facing Foster Care in Alaska,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified by invitation on HB 36. She
referenced experiences in foster care and being a foster parent.
She noted that many youth in foster care are placed in acute
psychiatric hospitals unnecessarily or while awaiting other
care. HB 36 responds to foster youth requests by ensuring timely
judicial review to assess care needs, identify relatives or
placements, and convene legal parties. She said HB 36
strengthens existing efforts to protect the rights of foster
youth, aligns with recent court rulings that 30 days is too
long, and is feasible given current practices in child-need
cases. HB 36 complements prior legislation promoting ongoing
contact with previous foster families, siblings, and important
connections.
4:00:06 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked why the hearing timeline is set at seven
days instead of 72 hours, given that it was mentioned that
hearings can currently be scheduled within 72 hours.
4:00:24 PM
MS. METIVIER responded that the original request from youth was
for a 72-hour hearing, however the seven-day timeline reflects a
compromise, primarily due to concerns from state agencies about
coordinating all legal parties. Similar scheduling occurs in
other child-need-of-aid cases.
4:00:49 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for clarification that she said another
need of child of aid cases in Alaska.
MS. METIVIER replied yes, when children are removed from homes,
hearings occur within 72 hours. She said this brings together
all relevant legal parties, including parents and attorneys, the
child (if represented), a guardian ad litem, tribal
representatives if applicable, OCS, and OCS's attorney.
4:01:23 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if she means removal from home not
placement in a psychiatric ward.
MS. METIVIER replied yes, in OCS removal cases, hearings occur
within three days and include all relevant legal parties,
similar to acute psychiatric cases, though typically without the
hospital clinician or facility representative.
4:02:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY stated that the seven-day hearing timeline
was chosen after considering the Supreme Court's guidance that
72 hours is too short, and 30 days is too long. Input from an
OCS nurse indicated that seven days allows sufficient time to
assess children's behavioral and mental health needs. Unlike the
72-hour proposal, seven days faced little resistance and was
seen as a practical, logical compromise, though the sponsor
remains open to adjustment.
4:04:04 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR said HB 36 applies only to acute psychiatric
facilities, not traditional emergency rooms. He asked if there
was a practical reason why including, or not including,
emergency rooms might be necessary.
4:04:46 PM
MS. METIVIER answered that she did not consider emergency rooms
when drafting HB 36. Typically, a foster child is taken to an ER
for behavioral issues, where the hospital determines whether to
transfer the child to an acute psychiatric facility. She said in
urban areas, this transfer usually happens quickly, often the
same day. She said she is less familiar with rural Alaska's
timelines.
4:05:46 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR asked Senator Claman if he wanted to ask the
drafter the same question.
4:06:09 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that she heard earlier from the sponsor
that acute psychiatric placements often occur because foster
parents are overwhelmed and do not want the child returned. She
asked whether, in the rare cases where a caring foster family
wishes to remain involved until a permanent placement is found,
maintaining that connection might better serve the child rather
than an automatic cutoff.
4:07:18 PM
MS. METIVIER answered that HB 36 does not address contact
outside of hearings, attorney appointment, and notice. Decisions
about contact are made by the caseworker acting as the child's
guardian. She said OCS uses team decision-making meetings for
any placement change, which include legal parties and often
foster parents and other connections, providing existing
opportunities to maintain relationships.
4:08:39 PM
KXLO STONE, Board Member, Statewide Youth Leadership, Facing
Foster Care Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, testified by invitation
on HB 36. She referenced her background as a former foster
youth, a current guardian to siblings, and a member of a foster
youth leadership board. She described systemic failures in
Alaska's foster care system, including lack of communication,
inadequate advocacy, language barriers, and prolonged placements
of youth in acute psychiatric facilities without appropriate
therapeutic support. She argued that such placements should not
be treated as punishment or a one-size-fits-all solution. She
urged a shift toward timely evaluation, stronger due process,
family engagement, and community-based mental health services
that prioritize youth well-being and long-term recovery.
4:13:11 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN raised concerns about the 2024 Supreme Court
Kwinhagak case, "Sitka case," noting that the youth spent about
18 days in the Sitka Hospital before being transferred to North
Star. He asked when the hearing timeline would begin under HB 36
and whether excluding emergency rooms would leave children in
similar situations without protection during prolonged ER stays.
4:14:33 PM
MARGRET BERGERUD, Counsel, Legislative Legal Services, Juneau,
Alaska, answered questions on HB 36. She answered that the bill
would not apply in that situation. The definition was crafted to
include facilities like North Star. She said with it focused on
hospital units providing diagnosis and short-term mental health
treatment, at this time it does not encompass emergency room
admissions.
4:15:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether HB 36 could be easily amended
so that the seven-day hearing timeline begins when a child is
diagnosed in the emergency department as needing transfer,
rather than upon admission to an acute psychiatric facility.
4:15:58 PM
MS. BERGERUD replied that legal could draft an amendment for the
language to say when the child is admitted at the emergency
room.
SENATOR HUGHES suggested emergency room padded area instead of
emergency room.
4:16:47 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked how the phrase "acute psychiatric hospital"
is understood today; to which hospitals does it apply in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY replied that acute psychiatric hospitals in
Alaska are API and Northstar.
4:17:20 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the reporting requirement on page
4, regarding the number of children placed in out-of-state
residential facilities, applies only to children in OCS custody
or also to children in private placements.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY replied that it would apply only to state
custody children.
SENATOR HUGHES asked if there were any foster children being
placed in acute psychiatric hospitals outside of Alaska.
4:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY answered that they would need to have
transitioned from an acute psychiatric facility to a residential
psychiatric facility. He said he is unaware of any child in an
acute psychiatric facility outside of Alaska.
4:18:33 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if the child is outside of residential,
then does the review period apply.
4:18:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY replied that existing statutes already
govern placements in residential facilities and require regular
reviews, typically every 30 days, for children in OCS custody.
HB 36 addresses the statutory gap related to acute psychiatric
facilities, which previously lacked clear oversight.
4:19:20 PM
MS. SWISHER agreed that HB 36 fills a statutory gap regarding
acute psychiatric facilities. She noted that OCS does facilitate
contact with foster families when appropriate, though HB 36
primarily addresses youth who cannot safely return to a foster
home or treatment facility due to being a danger to themselves
or others. The seven-day hearing timeline allows sufficient time
for evaluation and for the acute hospital to make informed
recommendations on the appropriate level of care or potential
return to the foster home.
4:21:16 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked why a new definition of acute psychiatric
facility is needed if the current statutory definition of
psychiatric hospital already covers two facilities and requests
a follow-up explanation later.
4:22:01 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR held HB 36 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 36 Native Village of Hoooper Bay v. Christy Lawton 3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Fiscal Note DFCS Version N 3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Fiscal Note Judiciary Version N 3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Kwinkagak v. State 3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36-Document with links to relevant court cases 3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36-Court Case Excerpts-3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 N Version 3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Sponsor Statement Version N 3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Sectional Analysis Version N 3.28.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| SB 88 Summary of Changes Version A to Version G 4.7.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 SHSS CS Version G 4.5.25.pdf |
SHSS 4/8/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |