Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
03/08/2022 03:00 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 | |
| HB297 | |
| HB172 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 297-MILITARY MEMBER CHILD PROTECTION
3:14:02 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 297, "An Act relating to the duties of
the Department of Health and Social Services; relating to child
protection; and relating to children of active duty military
members."
[Before the committee was CSHB 297(MLV).]
3:14:33 PM
TANIA CLUCAS, Staff, Representative Grier Hopkins, Alaska State
Legislature, presented CSHB 297(MLV) on behalf of Representative
Hopkins, prime sponsor. She stated that the proposed
legislation is in response to the U.S. Department of the
Interior's ongoing Tiger Team collaboration with the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD). In regard to child abuse
identification and reporting, the proposed legislation responds
to this as one of the ten key issues identified when DoD
considers quality of life for military families. She stated
that DoD uses these issues to make decisions related to
[military] installations and extended missions. She added that
currently there is no requirement in Alaska for civilian
authorities to notify DoD when a military child is involved in a
case of abuse or neglect. The proposed legislation would put
this into statute. The legislation would also ensure that
military families have access to resources with a local partner.
She concluded that providing these services would allow military
families to stay in Alaska.
3:17:03 PM
MS. CLUCAS introduced the sponsor statement for CSHB 297(MLV)
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Alaska has approximately 14,000 children who are
classified as active-duty military dependents and over
5,000 children who are dependents of those who serve
in the National Guard and Reserves. Our state has the
3rd highest per capita population of military children
in the nation, coming in behind our sister state
Hawaii and the District of Columbia.
These young people are important to Alaska, and as
leaders of our state we have a responsibility for
their health and welfare. When unfortunate incidents
occur that affect the health and welfare of a child of
a military member requiring intervention by state
authorities, there is not currently a legal protection
to make sure that the appropriate officials within the
military chain of command are notified. House Bill 297
would place into statute the requirement that the
state agency who intercedes on behalf of a child's
welfare must notify the appropriate, identified,
authorities at the affiliated duty station. This would
allow for the creation of a coordinated and
collaborative approach to protective and
rehabilitative services can be offered to the child
and the child's family.
Getting families the help, guidance and support they
need to keep families together is the most important
thing we can do for the health of the child as they
grow up. Alaska is renowned for its support of our
military and for working with the Department of
Defense to ensure the health and safety of our
nation's military and Alaskan families are safe and
secure is essential.
Please join me in supporting HB 297 to help ensure
that military children and families are able to be
offered the most comprehensive support they need to
thrive.
MS. CLUCAS gave the sectional analysis on CSHB 297(MLV)
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Amended to reference new section added by
this legislation
Section 2: Adds language authorizing and requiring
communication of a report of harm to a military
dependant [sic] to the appropriate designated military
authority by civilian authorities.
3:19:20 PM
MS. CLUCAS directed the committee's attention to the PowerPoint
presentation [included in the committee packet]. She began with
[slide 2], stating that the legislation is being offered at the
request of the DoD State Liaison Office to address one of the
ten key issues listed. She provided that, of the listed issues,
the state has already addressed military spouse licensure and
the Purple Star Schools Program. The proposed legislation would
address child abuse identification and move this piece forward.
She said that Alaska's collaboration with DoD on these
priorities would ensure the state is a place DoD could continue
its mission. She stated that slide 3 exhibits the nationwide
progress on DoD's mission. She explained that the military has
changed over the last 40 years, and members are no longer
isolated on a base. She noted that over 70 percent of active-
duty military live within local communities, so the chain of
command may not be aware of any abuse issues; thus, a
collaboration of civilian and military authority is needed.
3:22:06 PM
MS. CLUCAS, moving to the next slide, pointed out the
significant number of military-affiliated children in Alaska and
the high rate of reported abuse cases involving these children.
She stated that, since [the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001], the military has had more active deployments, and, with
this increase, there have been more reported cases of abuse in
stressed military families. She offered her understanding that,
since the advent of the Family Advocacy Program (FAP) in 2019,
DoD has recognized its extended responsibility to look after
these children. She stated that civilian authorities working
with FAP would not only help the DoD follow its own requirement,
but it would also provide for the health and welfare of those
vulnerable Alaskans.
3:25:47 PM
MS. CLUCAS, in response to a question from Representative
McCarty, addressed DoD's considerations when deciding to open
military bases and the state's efforts to make locations
attractive. She stated that because of the realignment of DoD's
criteria for mission locations, the interior of the state has
made efforts, including the formation of the Tiger Team. In
response to a follow-up question, she indicated that the
decision on mission placement would be made at a high level in
the DoD.
3:30:06 PM
TAMMIE PERREAULT, Northwest Regional Liaison, State Liaison
Office, U.S. Department of Defense, shared that she works for
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. She
stated that DoD relies on collaboration with local and state
governments to fulfill the statutory obligation to address child
abuse and neglect. She said DoD is grateful for the opportunity
to support the policies in [CSHB 297(MLV)]. She expressed hope
that Alaska would join the 31 other states with similar
legislation on this issue. She explained that the military
services have an obligation to understand what is happening with
military members, and she said information sharing between DoD
and local authorities must be accomplished at the start of an
abuse or neglect investigation, not after the adjudication.
MS. PERREAULT offered that the proposed legislation would ensure
child abuse and neglect within a military family is reported to
the appropriate military installation and the Office of Public
Advocacy. The legislation would enable the determination of a
family's military status when medical and counseling services
are sought through the military installation. She informed that
there would be minimal requirements for information sharing,
noting that, currently in Alaska, the framework relies on
individualized, local memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to
guarantee communication between local authorities and the
military community. She cautioned that many MOUs are not
regularly updated, and military families could possibly live
outside the area MOU's cover. She said that specific, state-
level guidance, which directs information sharing with the
military, would provide consistency among all branches of the
services and state and local agencies. Further, when there is
an allegation of abuse or neglect involving the military family,
the proposed policy, which draws on the best practices
nationwide, would provide consistency to support the MOU
process. She clarified that this would not be a military law
enforcement matter; it would be a victim-advocacy measure to
protect vulnerable children. She expressed gratitude for the
support Alaska has shown for military families in the state, and
she urged the committee to pass [CSHB 297(MLV)].
3:33:27 PM
MS. PERREAULT, in response to a question from Co-Chair Zulkosky,
said the proposed legislation is similar to legislation in other
states. She said that the legislation would provide
foundational groundwork to ensure there is coordination, by
statute. She reinforced that legislation would maintain DoD's
obligation to support military children.
3:35:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA, in reference to reporting abuse of a child
by a member of the armed forces, questioned who is authorized by
law to have the reported information.
MS. PERREAULT deferred to Commander Jerry Combs.
3:36:32 PM
JEREMY COMBS, Commander, Family Advocacy Officer, U.S. Air
Force, Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson (JBER), explained that
when a report comes to the FAP office, the staff is required to
immediately notify the chain of command, which begins the safety
assessment process. He listed the entities that are notified:
the Office of Children's Services (OCS), the chain of command,
the local law enforcement, the Department of the Army, and the
U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
3:37:56 PM
TRAVIS ERICKSON, Division Operations Manager, Office of
Children's Services, Department of Health and Social Services,
said when OCS receives a report of child abuse or neglect, it
coordinates with a variety of other authorities. He said, "If
we know that there's a military duty member, we will alert the
Family Advocacy office, and if a crime has been committed, we
will also be coordinating with the Office of Special
Investigations and other local law enforcement, as indicated."
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked for further information regarding who
in the chain command would be authorized by law to share
information. He questioned whether this would involve federal
law.
MS. PERREAULT, to answer this question, offered to meet with
Representative Kurka after the hearing to provide details.
3:40:05 PM
MS. PERREAULT, in response to a question from Representative
Fields regarding the notification period, explained that the
previous committee of referral amended the legislation to
include a 15-day requirement, which was coordinated with OCS.
She offered her understanding that in other states a specific
timeline has not been mandated, but sometimes an issue that has
not come to the forefront becomes "stale." She added that,
conversely, some issues are emergent and come to FAP via a
police report or emergency room visit.
COMMANDER COMBS added that, in terms of domestic violence, time
is of the essence. He clarified that the staff at FAP are
"experts" and can act as consultants to the commanders. Only
those commanders, first sergeants, have the authority to issue
"no contact" or "protective" orders. He noted that as soon as
FAP receives a referral, one option would be to link the family
with a professional victim advocate within the office. He added
that office staff can also work with local authorities.
MR. ERICKSON remarked that the 15 days would be the outside
response time used to report to OCS. He offered his
understanding that the language in the proposed legislation is
"within 15 days". He said the typical OCS response time is from
immediate to a maximum of 7 days. He opined that the office
should be responding based on the urgency necessary to the
circumstance.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS suggested if 7 days would be outside of
the timeframe, the committee should consider an amendment to
change the 15 days [to fewer days].
3:45:14 PM
MS. CLUCAS, in response to Representative McCarty, noted the
last committee of referral had put forward the amendment to
change the requirement to 15 days. It concerned a committee
member that no outside limit for reporting had been made. The
intent would be to have an outside timeframe for reporting.
3:46:26 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that HB 297 was held over.