Legislature(2015 - 2016)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/25/2016 03:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB200 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 200-ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
3:41:34 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of HB 200. [CSHB
200(HSS)am is before the committee.]
She noted the committee heard the companion bill, SB 112.
3:42:39 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Central Office, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
said the differences between HB 200 and the Senate companion are
minor but significant. She reminded the committee that the bills
addressed a U.S. Supreme Court decision and an Alaska Supreme
Court ruling for cases covered under the Indian Child Welfare
Act (ICWA). It changed the way relatives or certain others
seeking adoption of a Native child had to be recognized by the
courts. Previously, a person could express interest in adopting
to the social worker and OCS would begin the procedure to
evaluate them for immediate placement. With the legal decisions,
the law first required a formal petition to adopt be filed, and
the placement preferences for adoption had to be mapped out
under ICWA and recognized and preserved for the record.
The Alaska Supreme Court, in its decision in the Tununak case,
suggested using a proxy in lieu of a formal petition. HB 200
provides that less formal process at the beginning of a case,
although all people identified as the adoptive parents would
eventually have to file a formal petition. The original version
said the proxy provision was only available to those who qualify
under ICWA. The current version of HB 200 expands the proxy to
all family members, Native and non-Native alike. They simply
have to let OCS know and that will begin a process for the
parties to be formally notified and assessed, and the court will
recognize them as relatives. This will bring more transparency
to the process and will make all legal parties immediately aware
of the relatives. This will be good for all Alaskans; it will
provide a smoother process, increased access, be less confusing
process for relatives, and help identify relatives that are
interested in immediate and permanent placement.
MS. LAWTON said both versions of the bill have the one judge,
one family model, which will reduce the need for multiple court
hearings for a child in state custody. This will create
efficiencies for the legal parties and will help ensure more
timely achievement of permanency for children in foster care.
She listed the entities that worked on the bill, all of which
have been very supportive.
3:49:02 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if she would speak to any of the concerns
expressed by Senate members and how OCS worked through the
process.
MS. LAWTON cited the concern that the proxy provision should be
available to all Alaskans and noted that HB 200 alleviates that
concern. Another concern related to ICWA and painful late stage
adoptions. She opined that the bill likely would reduce the
chance of late stage competing adoption petitions from being
battled out because relatives will be identified early on.
3:50:52 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked her to define child in need of aid.
MS. LAWTON explained that it is the legal proceeding when a
child is in state custody.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked the scope of the definition of
"relative."
MS. LAWTON replied it's generally out to the fifth degree,
although in ICWA cases the tribe can identify someone as a
relative and it may be somewhat different. OCS also recognizes
kin. Those are people who may not be biologically related but
they've been a part of the child's life and the family
recognizes them as such.
SENATOR COGHILL expressed support for the one judge, one family
provision and then asked about the exceptions in Section 9 under
AS 13.26.050 and AS 25.23.030.
CHAIR MCGUIRE suggested she provide an answer during the next
meeting.
MS. LAWTON deferred to Carla Erickson with the Department of
Law.
SENATOR COGHILL asked for the timeline when a proxy has to come
in front of a judge.
MS. LAWTON said there isn't a specific timeframe, but the sooner
the better for the child to get into a permanent secure home.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if there is a downside to filing a proxy.
"Does that put someone in an awkward spot with a family member?
Does it create a legal entanglement that is going to create
other problems?"
MS. LAWTON replied those dynamics already exist for family
members who are asked to work on behalf of OCS to care for the
child. They have to follow OCS's rules and visitation standards
with the parent.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if team decision-making fits into this
process.
MS. LAWTON advised that team decision-making is not statewide,
but it will be complementary in those locations.
3:59:50 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked how tribal courts view this bill.
MS. LAWTON said nothing in the bill is applicable when a case is
in tribal jurisdiction; ICWA doesn't apply to tribes, just state
courts.
SENATOR COGHILL asked for an explanation of the difference
between the extended family under state law and the Indian Child
Welfare Act. He opined that it would make a difference in the
proxy.
MS. LAWTON explained that placement preferences under ICWA first
look at relatives of the Native child, then other tribal
members, and finally other tribes.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if there is a different petition process
under ICWA than Alaska civil law.
MS. LAWTON replied they would be the same. She added
clarification that ICWA doesn't distinguish between Indian and
non-Indian relatives. A relative is given preference regardless
of whether or not they are Native or non-Native.
SENATOR COGHILL commented on blended families and asked the
criteria for a child to be covered under ICWA.
MS. LAWTON explained that a child is covered under ICWA if they
identify as Alaska Native or American Indian and the tribe has
to intervene in court to demonstrate the child's eligibility for
enrollment in the tribe.
4:04:11 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked her to comment on whether or not the bill
changes parental rights.
MS. LAWTON replied this bill doesn't change parental rights.
Federal law clearly outlines the efforts that must be applied to
give the parent every chance to be successfully reunited with
their child.
SENATOR MICCICHE opined there should be a fiscal note from
Department of Law because the bill should result in some
savings. He asked if the chair could request that.
MS. LAWTON said the agencies that worked on the bill believe it
will result in some savings but it was difficult to quantify.
For example, a judge will be able to make multiple decisions in
one hearing rather than over a number of hearings.
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested the Department of Law submit an
indeterminate fiscal note.
4:08:33 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she'd make that request because she sees
value and potential savings. She asked Ms. Lawton if the same
team that is evaluating the child-in-need-of-aid circumstances
will take on the vetting process and make a recommendation to
the judge.
4:10:59 PM
MS. LAWTON said she believes so. A number of different groups
will come together to contemplate the different decisions and it
will take some work to ensure that they all interface and blend.
CHAIR MCGUIRE thanked Ms. Lawton for her work and expressed hope
that some of the potential savings could be directed to OCS.
She asked Ms. Erickson to comment on HB 200 and respond to the
questions posed by Senator Coghill and Senator Micciche.
4:13:25 PM
CARLA ERICKSON, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Child Protection Section, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska,
said Ms. Lawton explained the bill very well. One clarification
is that it is not necessary for the tribe to intervene in order
for the case to be considered under the Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA) as long as the child is either a member of an Indian
tribe or is eligible for membership because they are the
biological child of a tribe member.
She agreed with Ms. Lawton that it is difficult to quantify the
bill's potential cost savings but there definitely will be time
savings due to the streamlined process. She offered to work with
Ms. Lawton and the other parties to reevaluate whether or not
additional savings could be articulated.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if she had anything to add.
MS. ERICKSON clarified that civil custody cases will also be
brought into the child-in-need-of-aid case and the intent is for
them to be heard by the same judge that is hearing the child-in-
need-of-aid case. "These are not new proceedings, but rather
just an expansion of the types of orders that the child-in-need-
of-aid judge would be able to issue." She voiced appreciation
for the work with Nancy Meade.
4:16:57 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how difficult it is for a parent to
reverse the adoption process and get their child back.
MS. ERICKSON explained that once a child is adopted the law
recognizes that relationship as if the child was born
biologically to that family. However, guardianships do have a
way for the parent to get back full and complete custody. It
doesn't happen often and there is a legal mechanism by which it
can happen.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what the process is when a tribal court
get involved.
4:19:16 PM
MS. ERICKSON said there is a mechanism under child-in-need-of-
aid Rule 23 by which a parent or a tribe can intervene and make
a motion to transfer jurisdiction of a case to a tribal court.
The parties are given an opportunity to express their views on
the motion. Should the case transfer to the tribal court, the
state would dismiss the case entirely. Motions to transfer to
tribal jurisdiction can be made at any time in the case.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that's why the proxy becomes important
so there is notice early on.
CHAIR MCGUIRE expressed hope for continued improvement in
Alaska's adoption process.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented on his personal interest in parental
rights and his experience of spending over a year and one-half
to adopt a 20 year old child.
SENATOR COGHILL withdrew his question about the exceptions in
Section 9. He acknowledged that they relate to Sections 2 and 4
that are new law.
MS. LAWTON clarified that the provision in Section 9 says that
if the parties agree, the venue for enacting the adoption could
move to a location that is more convenient for the adopting
family.
4:24:51 PM
MARY SATTLER, Lobbyist, Alaska Regional Coalition, Fairbanks,
Alaska, testified in support of HB 200. She related that the
coalition has five regional corporations representing 100
tribes. She continued to say that HB 200 has been a priority
piece of legislation for the coalition throughout the entire
session. It will have a very positive impact on a lot of
children and families. She expressed hope that the bill passes
during the special session.
4:26:00 PM
GRACE SINGH, Special Assistant to the President, Central Council
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, testified in support
of HB 200. She expressed support for changing the current system
and having child-in-need-of-aid and adoption proceedings held in
the same courtroom. HB 200 allows family members, extended
family members, and the child's tribe to initiate adoption
proceedings in a child-in-need-of-aid case. She discussed the
lack of resources in rural communities to initiate a formal
adoption proceeding and the tendency for close family members to
delay a request for adoption because they support the family's
reunification goals. The current procedure is punitive for
relatives and doesn't account for language, cultural, and
economic barriers. Allowing adoptions to be initiated in child-
in-need-of-aid proceedings via the proxy makes the process more
realistic and understandable. The hope is that HB 200 will
increase the number of Alaskan children who achieve permanency
with their family, culture, and traditions. She expressed
appreciation for the questions the committee asked, particularly
the request for definitions for family and tribal court
placements. She noted that Central Council recently signed an
historic IV-E placement agreement, working closely with both Ms.
Lawton and Ms. Erickson.
NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in support of HB 200. She reported that AFN has been actively
involved in the process since the Tununak litigation. She listed
the top three reasons that AFN supports HB 200. First, it
removes the barriers that prevent Alaska Native families from
adopting Native children in state custody by better defining a
proxy in lieu of a formal petition for adoption. Second, it
consolidates the adoptions, guardianships, and civil child
custody proceedings into a single court matter with a one judge,
one family model. Finally, it furthers compliance with the
Indian Child Welfare Act. She urged the committee to pass the
bill immediately.
SENATOR COSTELLO recognized Ms. Borromeo's commitment to the
bill and her passion for Alaska children.
4:32:54 PM
JAMES CEDENO, Alutiq Tribe of Old Harbor, testified in support
of HB 200. The bill is important to Native communities and
Native children and it streamlines the process of getting
relatives involved in assuming care for family members. The goal
is to get children into safe permanent homes and be successful
in the future. "It takes a village to raise a child and our
village is willing to help get that done," he said.
4:34:13 PM
ANNA FRANK, Board 2nd Chief and Elder, Denakkanaaga, Inc.,
Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in support of HB 200. She related
that Denakkanaaga is the regional nonprofit organization that
represents 42 Native villages in Interior Alaska. They serve as
the Elder voice of the people in the region. She requested the
committee do what is right and make it easier for family members
to adopt their relatives thereby avoiding the complicated
paperwork filing under the current system. She shared that she
is a foster parent and in the process of adopting a child.
4:36:10 PM
ELIZABETH MEDICINE CROW, President/CEO, First Alaskans
Institute, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of HB 200.
She stated that there is nothing more important to her people
than their children and HB 200 speaks directly to one of the
technical aspects that will help ensure that Native children can
stay at home. She opined that that is what all Alaskans want,
Native and non-Native alike. The connection to family is what
helps a child be successful later in life. She specifically
mentioned the importance of the one judge, one family model and
the proxy as critical provisions. She urged the committee to
pass the bill this session.
4:39:33 PM
MELANIE BAHNKE, President, Kawerak Inc., Nome, Alaska, testified
in support of HB 200. She thanked the committee in her language
and said she wanted to testify in her language. It would be
confusing for members but would demonstrate how Alaska Natives
feel when they're navigating the court system. She described HB
200 as a good step toward removing some of the barriers and
allowing Native people to accept the responsibility for their
own children. She mentioned her testimony on an earlier version
of the bill and opined that the current draft is even better
because it extends the proxy provision to all Alaska children,
not just Alaska Native children. In a perfect world there would
be no need for ICWA or laws like HB 200, but that's not the
case. This legislation is needed to ensure that people do the
right thing now and in the future and make it easier for
families to step up and take responsibility for their children.
4:42:37 PM
TRACI MCGARRY, Program Director, Children & Family Services
Child Advocacy Center, Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 200. She shared that Kawerak works with 18 tribes
on child-in-need-of-aid matters. She expressed agreement with
earlier testimony about the merit of combining adoption and
legal guardianship proceedings with child-in-need-of-aid under
the one judge, one family model. She urged the committee to pass
the bill.
4:43:55 PM
MARNA SANFORD, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), Fairbanks,
Alaska, testified in support of HB 200. She related that TCC is
a nonprofit tribal health and social service consortium that
represents 42 Interior Alaskan tribes. She echoed the positive
testimony on the bill saying it is integral in keeping Alaska
children with their families and in their home communities. She
shared that as a former public defender and public advocate, her
favorite provision is the one judge, one family concept. She
opined that both OCS and the Department of Law will see a
benefit in terms of the reduced workload on the people who deal
with these cases on a daily basis. It will also be much easier
on the families. She urged the committee to pass the bill.
4:45:27 PM
LAWRENCE ARMOUR, Tribal Administrator, Klawock Cooperative
Association, Klawock, Alaska, testified in support of HB 200. He
shared that he has seen too many tribal members adopted out of
their family and community when there was family willing to take
the child in. The proxy process and one judge, one family
provisions will help. He concluded saying "It's difficult to see
people in our small communities, people we love, struggling to
keep their families whole." He urged the committee to pass the
bill.
4:46:25 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Council, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
Alaska, offered to answer questions about HB 200. She advised
that she worked with both Department of Law and Ms. Lawton to
ensure that the court's concerns were addressed in the bill.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked what movement there has been to develop a
dedicated family law court within the Court System.
MS. MEADE replied that hasn't been a recent priority of the
Court System. In the smaller court locations it isn't feasible
because there aren't enough judges to do that, and in Anchorage
there is close to a family court specialization for the judges
that specialize in civil law. At least 50 percent of the
caseloads for judges in that arena are dedicated to domestic
relations cases that includes child custody. Another 20 percent
of the caseload is dedicated to child-in-need-of-aid cases. She
highlighted that judges in Anchorage and other locations get
regular training in the area of family law. They regularly go to
the National Judicial College or attend talks where outside
speakers are brought in to talk about domestic relations and
child-in-need-of-aid cases. This is a focus of the Alaska
Supreme Court in particular, but all judges receive the
training.
CHAIR MCGUIRE commented on the importance of specialization and
training and expressed hope that Alaska would follow the states
that have specific family courts.
4:50:15 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony on HB 200 and held the
bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|