Legislature(2025 - 2026)DAVIS 106
03/13/2025 03:15 PM House 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 | |
| HB27 | |
| HB70 | |
| HB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 64-SURRENDER OF INFANTS; INF. SAFETY DEVICE
HB 64-SURRENDER OF INFANTS; INF. SAFETY DEVICE
4:31:54 PM
CHAIR MINA announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 64 "An Act relating to the surrender of infants;
and providing for an effective date."
4:32:10 PM
DAVID GOFF, Staff, Representative Tomaszewski, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tomaszewski, prime
sponsor, presented HB 64. He read the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In 2008 Alaska enacted its safe surrender law to
ensure that surrendered infants receive immediate care
for their safety and provide legal protection for the
relinquishing parent, thereby reduce potential infant
death due to illegal abandonment. Our current safe
surrender law requires a parent to directly relinquish
an infant to another individual.
Infant safety devices protect both relinquishing
parents and infants. Infant safety devices allow a
parent to surrender an infant anonymously through a
climate-controlled device at a designated facility.
Currently, twenty-two states authorize infant safety
devices. House Bill 64 would authorize the use of
infant safety devices as an additional method of
infant relinquishment under the safe surrender laws.
These devices would safely hold an infant with an
automatic lock and constant video surveillance while
immediately alerting appropriate personnel of the
surrender. Infant safety devices would be placed in
conspicuous areas with appropriate signage as
determined by the Department of Family and Community
Services (DFCS). An infant safety device may be
located at hospital, emergency department,
freestanding birth center, office of a private
physician, rural health clinic, municipal police
department, state trooper post, fire department, or
other facility designated by the DFCS commissioner.
The ability to relinquish an infant to a safe location
rather than an individual allows additional anonymity
for the relinquishing parent while still ensuring that
surrendered infants receive immediate medical care.
MR. GOFF, on behalf of Representative Tomaszewski, prime
sponsor, presented the sectional analysis for HB 64 [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1
Amends the child abandonment statute (AS 47.10.013(c))
to make a parent immune from prosecution if they
safely leave the infant in a safety device that is
fiscally affixed to allowable public agency facility.
Section 2
Amends the child abandonment statute (AS 47.10.013(d))
to conform to Section 1 abandonment for the person to
whom an infant is safely surrendered.
Section 3
Amends the child abandonment statute (AS47.10.013(e))
to include designated facility as a receiver of a
safely abandoned infant.
Section 4
Adds a new subsection to the child abandonment statute
to require receiving facilities to immediately notify
the nearest peace officer, community health aide,
physician, or hospital employee.
Adds a new subsection to specify what an infant safety
device must be equipped with and where
it must be located.
Section 5
Provides an effective date of July 1, 2026.
4:35:59 PM
CHAIR MINA announced invited testimony.
4:36:05 PM
DOUGLAS SCHRAGE, Fire Chief, Anchorage Fire Department,
testified in support of HB 64. He said that the face-to-face
requirement of the current Safe Haven statute is an impediment
to some individuals trying to safely surrender their infant
without risking their anonymity. He said that HB 64 would
provide a safe alternative to leaving infants unattended on the
side of the road. He emphasized that infant safety devices
would not be compulsory, and HB 64 would not require public
funds.
4:39:34 PM
CHAIR MINA asked how often the Anchorage Fire Department deals
with the surrendering of infants.
MR. SCHRAGE responded that these situations do not occur often.
He said he only knows of one live hand-off of a child but
explained that once every few years a child has been abandoned
and died due to being left alone in the elements.
4:40:59 PM
JULIE LYNETTE CONDELL, Lead 911 Dispatcher, Anchorage Fire
Department, emphasized the important difference between
confidentiality and anonymity for parents surrendering their
children. She said that these devices are located in 22 states
now and have saved several infants' lives. She explained that
these devices also contain materials for the mother using the
device that can connect her to resources she may need.
4:44:06 PM
CHAIR MINA asked Ms. Condell how often she receives calls
regarding the surrender of an infant.
MS. CONDELL responded said that she does not field many calls
regarding the surrender of an infant. She explained that these
situations most likely would not come through the 911 center
because of the lack of anonymity.
4:45:35 PM
LONNY MARNEY, Council Member, City of Fairbanks, said that
infant safety devices cost about $22,000 with a yearly $500
maintenance fee. He listed some of the organizations that may
fund this cost. He said that these devices would save lives.
4:49:36 PM
CHAIR MINA asked about locations where individuals can surrender
infants and if there are any disproportionate gaps in those
areas.
MR. GOFF responded that these situations present themselves more
in the downtown area of Anchorage.
MATTHEW THOMAS, Nurse Consultant II, Health Facilities Licensing
& Certification, Division of Healthcare Services, Department of
Health, responded that he is not able to speak to these gaps
under his capacity.
4:51:48 PM
CHAIR MINA asked about the education provided by the state on
the Safe Surrender Law.
4:52:25 PM
CARLA ERICKSON, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Child
Protection Services, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law, referred Chair Mina to the Office of Children's Services as
she said she does not know enough about the training.
4:52:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked how the department assesses which
moms are at risk of child neglect and what kind of pre-natal
services can be offered. He asked how the state identifies or
fails to identify people who lack the ability to care for a
young child.
MR. THOMAS responded that his unit oversees the compliance of
healthcare facilities and requires all patients receiving
services be reviewed for possible abuse or other home-life
issues. He said his division does not engage in community
outreach.
4:54:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE raised concern regarding the unintended
consequences of HB 64. He asked about ensuring that the person
surrendering an infant knows what they are doing. He asked how
HB 64 could prevent the ability for anybody to put the baby in
the box.
MR. GOFF responded that he did not investigate the question of
"coerced surrender" in his research.
4:58:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked about the maintenance and
monitoring required for infant safety devices.
MR. GOFF responded that the company selling these devices
performs the annual maintenance checks on them.
5:02:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE asked if HB 64 would be solely a
liability opportunity.
MR. GOFF responded that currently it is required that an infant
is surrendered to a live person. He said that infant safety
devices would be another tool to provide a safe surrender.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE responded that HB 64 would provide a
legal structure for organizations to not be held liable if
something were to happen after purchasing an infant safety
device.
5:04:06 PM
CHAIR MINA asked about the unintended consequence of coercive
surrenders under HB 64. She referred to a similar law in New
Mexico which requires the state to attempt to find indigenous
relatives of any surrendered baby with indigenous heritage. She
asked how Alaska's implementation of the Indian Child Welfare
Act (ICWA) would pertain to HB 64.
5:05:43 PM
MS. ERICKSON responded that the state would indeed be required
to look for any potential relatives, although a diligent search
may look different for a child with no identifiers whatsoever.
5:07:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked if DNA testing would negate the
anonymity of the infant safety device.
MS. ERICKSON responded that she has not yet encountered a
situation where the department did not already have some
indication of the child that was surrendered.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for the history of the surrendering of
infants.
5:09:38 PM
MR. GOFF responded that HB 64 would act as another tool for the
surrendering of infants. He said that coercion could also occur
with a live hand-off of an infant, although that may be more
noticeable with an in-person situation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for statistics on how widely infant
safety devices are currently being deployed.
MR. GOFF responded that there are infant safety devices in 22
states, with Indiana having the largest number of them at 13
devices. He said there are 28 deployed in total throughout the
country and in Indiana there have been 5 children surrendered in
the last 2 years.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked how long infant safety devices have
been deployed.
MR. GOFF said that he does not have the date that the first one
was installed but said that Indiana was the first state to
utilize them.
5:12:17 PM
MS. CONDELL said that under current law, individuals are not
required to answer questions when surrendering an infant to a
live person. She explained the daily and weekly monitoring
process of an infant safety device. She said not just anybody
can purchase and install an infant safety device; there is a
process that would be followed under HB 64. She also said that
currently, when an infant is left alone in the elements there is
also no identification of the individual who left them there,
explaining that an infant safety device could provide a life-
saving alternative in those situations.