Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
02/11/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB351 | |
| HB250 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 303 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 2008
1:17 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Mike Doogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"An Act relating to submission of fingerprints by applicants for
a concealed handgun permit; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 351(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 250
"An Act relating to children engaging in inappropriate sexual
conduct."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 303
"An Act relating to marine products and motorized recreational
products; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 351
SHORT TITLE: CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT: FINGERPRINTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) JUD, FIN
02/11/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 250
SHORT TITLE: YOUTH INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONDUCT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DOOGAN
05/02/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/02/07 (H) JUD, FIN
05/10/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/10/07 (H) Heard & Held
05/10/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 351 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Coghill.
NORMAN D. MEANS, M.D.
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 351 and suggested a change to the bill.
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief
Criminal Records and Identification Bureau
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 351.
CORRINE BRYANT, Center Manager
Alaska C.A.R.E.S. (Child Abuse Response and Evaluation Services)
Providence Health & Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 250.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent of Schools
Anchorage School District (ASD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 250.
SHARON K. ARAJI, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 250, provided
information regarding preadolescent children with sexual
behavior problems.
MICHAEL LESMANN, Community Relations Manager, Legislative
Liaison
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 250.
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Director
Central Office
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 250.
CHRIS PROVOST, Supervising Attorney
Civil Section - Juvenile Delinquency
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
250.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:17:02 PM. Representatives Holmes, Doogan,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras were present at
the call to order. Representative Gruenberg was also in
attendance.
HB 351 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT: FINGERPRINTS
1:17:34 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 351, "An Act relating to submission of
fingerprints by applicants for a concealed handgun permit; and
providing for an effective date."
1:17:41 PM
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, sponsor, relayed on behalf of Representative
Coghill that HB 351 would alter Alaska's statute pertaining to
obtaining a permit to carry a concealed handgun such that only
one fingerprint card would be required rather than two. Changes
in technology have allowed the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
to only need one set of fingerprints, and this statutory change
will reflect what is currently actually happening.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor, remarked that
duplication is the bane of governments, and HB 351 merely
provides that since only one set of fingerprints is needed [for
processing an application for a concealed handgun permit], only
one set shall be required.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that similar [unnecessary] duplication of
fingerprint cards occurs with regard to certain licensees.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred, but pointed out that while
some of that fingerprint duplication can be addressed via
regulations, the fingerprint duplication for concealed handgun
permits has to be addressed via statute.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered her hope that someday the state
will have only one fingerprint database that can be accessed by
all agencies that need to, thereby eliminating the
aforementioned duplication.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that the DPS has suggested an
amendment that would allow the department flexibility with
regard to which format it would allow fingerprints to be
submitted on.
1:21:25 PM
NORMAN D. MEANS, M.D., after relaying that is the holder of
concealed handgun permit, said that although he is in agreement
with the bill, his concern is that holders of concealed handgun
permits are losing their National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) exemption because, since 6/1/06, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) quit conducting fingerprint checks
for the DPS. He suggested, therefore, that the bill be amended
to require the DPS to the perform fingerprint checks so that
permit holders can once again get a NICS exemption.
1:23:11 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety (DPS), in response to a question regarding Dr. Means's
comment on the NICS, clarified that the FBI actually is still
conducting fingerprint checks for the DPS, but is no longer
conducting a search of "the other files" that it maintains under
the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ("Brady Bill"). The
DPS itself, she remarked, doesn't have the resources to do that
work, and she isn't sure why the FBI is no longer doing so.
MS. MONFREDA, in response to further questions, explained that a
permit holder will have to have a NICS check done at the time of
any gun sale/purchases, and although there might be a delay of
up to three days, over 95 percent of such checks are performed
immediately.
1:24:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, noting
that existing AS 18.65.700(a)(8) stipulates that a person
applying for a permit can't suffer a physical infirmity that
prevents the safe handling of a handgun, asked whether the DPS
has a standard that defines "physical infirmity that prevents
the safe handling of a handgun", and how that would be
determined.
MS. MONFREDA said she is not sure of the answer but would
research the issue further, and indicated that she would provide
that information to the committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 351.
1:26:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 25-LS1411\C.1, Luckhaupt, 2/11/08, which read:
Page 2, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "on a Federal Bureau of Investigation
approved fingerprint card [CARDS]"
Insert "in the format approved by the department [ON
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION APPROVED FINGERPRINT
CARDS]"
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any objections. There
being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed reluctance to address "the NICS
issue" via HB 351, but added that he is sympathetic to the
concern raised.
1:27:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 351, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
351(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 250 - YOUTH INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONDUCT
1:28:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 250, "An Act relating to children engaging in
inappropriate sexual conduct."
1:28:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 250, Version 25-LS0882\M, Mischel,
1/4/08, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version M
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN, speaking as the sponsor of HB 250,
relayed that Version M encompasses three changes from the
original bill: one, the behaviors covered under the bill are
now specifically outlined; two, there is now a requirement that
a caregiver be notified in cases where the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) finds "a problem"; and, three, there
is now a requirement that both the victim and perpetrator be
clinically assessed, with the cost of any subsequent treatment
[for the perpetrator being borne by the parent or guardian of
the perpetrator]. He mentioned that the House Finance Committee
would be reviewing the bill's fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN recalled that at the bill's first hearing
in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, some concern was
expressed that the bill would be applied inappropriately to
children simply "playing doctor"; that it might result in
[premature] notification; and with regard to how to deal with
the perpetrators. He offered his understanding that there is
still some concern regarding the latter point - concern over
whether suitable programs exist, whether trained personnel are
available in Alaska, and how children found to be perpetrators
will be dealt with by the State. He surmised that such
perpetrators are not the kind of children one would want housed
with other children. In conclusion, he offered that Version M
addresses all the concerns that could be addressed via this
particular piece of legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM relayed that according to conversations
she's had with the Office of Children's Services (OCS), if HB
250 were in place today, the OCS would be unable to follow
through with what's being required by the bill because of a lack
of staff. Regardless, she said, she and the sponsor still feel
that the issue of [children sexually molesting other children]
needs to be addressed, and offered her understanding that this
sort of behavior is a learned behavior in that the perpetrators
have themselves been molested. The bill is not a fix-all, she
acknowledged, but it is a good start in the direction of putting
systems in place that will help the children and their parents.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether the bill creates an unfunded
mandate.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM opined that it does not; rather, the
bill falls under one of the legislature's constitutionally
mandated duties, that being to ensure public safety.
1:36:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, said he
would like to know how many incidents of [children sexually
molesting other children] there are likely to be in a year and
what the cost will be to deal with such children, in order to
determine whether the bill should be given a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said that approximately 100 incidents per
year are expected, and this tentative guess is based both on
what the rest of the U.S. has experienced and on the population
of Alaska. He offered his belief that the current fiscal notes
reflect that estimate. In response to a question, he explained
that the bill isn't changing who has to report; rather,
Version M makes a change to the nature of the reports
themselves, aligning such reports to those that the OCS is used
to dealing with anyway, those being reports of harm as defined
by the department in order to get certain children into the
system.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that adult pedophiles
begin sexually molesting children when they themselves are
children, and expressed interest in learning more about the
brain chemistry of young perpetrators of such crimes.
1:42:56 PM
CORRINE BRYANT, Center Manager, Alaska C.A.R.E.S. (Child Abuse
Response and Evaluation Services), Providence Health & Services,
after relaying that Alaska C.A.R.E.S. is the Children's Advocacy
Center ("CAC") in Anchorage, said that there isn't currently a
system in place in Anchorage for the investigation of "child on
child" cases. Alaska C.A.R.E.S., however, has seen such cases
because they are informally referred by law enforcement, by
medical providers, by childcare licensing personnel, by
counselors in the community when the family of the victim wants
to have their child evaluated, and by the OCS when the parents
of [the perpetrator] want help for their child. Out of the 900
[sexually molested] children Alaska C.A.R.E.S. served last year,
56 had perpetrators who were under the age of 12.
MS. BRYANT, in response to a question, indicated that such cases
involve coercion, manipulation, and secrecy, and the victim
feels shame as well as all of the other emotional consequences
that are felt by adult victims [of rape]. Returning to her
testimony, she relayed that when the OCS refers a perpetrator to
the Alaska C.A.R.E.S., a forensic interview is conducted, a
determination is made, and referrals for services in the
community are provided. She noted that in Wasilla, these cases
are assigned to local law enforcement, as are all sexual abuse
cases; both the victim and the perpetrator are interviewed at
the CAC in Wasilla, and the information about the perpetrator is
forwarded to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and
although the DJJ may not be able to do anything except notify
the family and provide treatment referrals, at least a paper
trail for the perpetrator has been established.
MS. BRYANT said that she was on the task force that was meeting
to help with the gap in services for these children, and this
Anchorage-based task force did not get much input from rural
areas of the state. Although the goal of some participants in
that task force was to provide a solution to a few of the
problems that were being seen, input from other participants was
ignored and so they stopped coming and participating. As a
result, she relayed, she has some questions regarding HB 250 as
it's currently written. Referring to language in proposed AS
47.10.401(a), which stipulates that upon receiving a report of
harm the department shall conduct an investigation, she asked
whether the department would be receiving both a report on the
victim and a report on the perpetrator, whether the victim will
be involved in the initial investigation, and whether such
participation will be voluntary. And if there isn't any
investigation involving the victim, she remarked, then she is
uncertain how [the claims of sexual molestation] can be
substantiated by the OCS.
MS. BRYANT, referring to the language in proposed AS
47.10.401(b)(3), which stipulates that the department shall
provide a qualified clinical assessment of the [perpetrator],
asked who would pay for that assessment, particularly given that
even in Anchorage there are very few providers capable of
providing such an assessment on a child perpetrator. Even when
there is such a provider available, families are often told
after the clinical assessment that their child is not a threat
to other children, but then the child reoffends. And in [rural]
areas of the state, clinical assessments can't be performed at
all because there are no such providers. She questioned,
therefore, whether the OCS would be paying to fly a provider out
to those areas or whether the families would have to come into
an urban setting to have an assessment conducted.
MS. BRYANT, referring to proposed AS 47.10.401(b)(4), which
stipulates that the department shall provide clinical treatment
to the perpetrator, pointed out that existing treatment programs
in the state don't treat un-adjudicated sex offenders or child
perpetrators, and that there are no inpatient programs and very
few outpatient treatment providers. Also, if a parent refuses
to pay for such treatment, how will the issue get resolved?
Will the OCS then be mandated to provide that treatment? She
said that she has been working at the CAC for about seven years,
and the CAC has seen an increase in reports of [children
sexually molesting other children], and there clearly is a hole
in the system for such children. Although she has only seen
about a dozen children over the years that would qualify under
the bill but that don't have parents who would follow through
with getting them treatment, most parents don't want their
children to become adult sex offenders and so will get their
children treatment.
MS. BRYANT said she also has a concern that children will be
[mistakenly] labeled. For example, there are cases where a
small child discloses that he/she has been molested by an older
child but doesn't know more than the perpetrator's first name,
and so another child could be wrongly identified. She warned
that they must be careful with how to go forward with this
legislation; although something needs to be done to address the
problems with the current system, this is a very complicated
issue and she is not sure that the bill adequately addresses the
treatment component, and she is also confused about what
differences there might be between an "assessment" and an
"investigation" as stipulated in the bill.
1:53:06 PM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent of Schools, Anchorage School
District (ASD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), after relaying
that she has worked extensively with Ms. Bryant, the Alaska
C.A.R.E.S., and the "crimes against children" unit of the
Anchorage Police Department (APD), acknowledged that there was
one case that was publicized extensively in which the parents of
a three-year-old [perpetrator] refused to seek treatment for him
after his behavior came to the attention of the OCS, and by the
time he entered first grade in a new school [and molested a
child there], he'd already [been molesting other children] in
the neighborhood and in kindergarten [at a different school],
but that information was never provided to the authorities at
the new school. She said that the ASD really supports the
sponsor's intent in trying to address this issue, and
characterized Version M as being better than the original
version.
MS. COMEAU said that although the ASD is very concerned about
the potential for "over reporting" and [misidentifying] a
perpetrator, there has been a significant increase in the number
of sexually aggressive children in the schools. A solution must
be found, she opined, to help these truly sexually aggressive
children - those that intimidate, manipulate, coerce, and
threaten their victims. This is shocking and scary behavior,
mostly perpetrated by a growing number of boys, and it's changed
the nature of preschool, kindergarten, and first grade. The ASD
thinks that HB 250 is a good start, but the ASD doesn't want
young children to be labeled and reported to the OCS when they
aren't really sexually aggressive.
MS. COMEAU she went on to say:
I'll tell you the real problem for us has been, some
of the parents have refused to acknowledge that their
child has a problem. In some cases, the school has
suspected that the child is either being abused at
home or is watching [an] extensive amount of
pornography or X-rated movies and it's becoming
something that's not regulated, if you will, in the
family, and so the children are learning about this
kind of behavior through the Internet, through TV,
cable, and so forth. But we also think there may be
some abuse from older siblings, relatives, [and]
parents, where it's this secrecy hush-hush thing. So
there is an issue, we need to deal with it, but what
the right way to deal with it is the concern, and over
identification is really my staff's and our biggest,
biggest concern.
1:57:53 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that one child sexually
molesting other children can result in those children then
molesting still other children. However, he does not want to
create an unfunded mandate, particularly given that this problem
requires acute management.
MS. COMEAU said it has been found that when a situation devolves
to the point of needing to have the police or the Alaska
C.A.R.E.S. or the OCS intervene, the way a parent handles that
situation makes a significant difference. For example, when
parents are willing to seek help for their children and work in
partnership with agencies and the school district, usually those
children can be helped and turned around and the behavior never
occurs again. Sometimes, however, when parents overreact, the
children can develop more problems. She said she was very upset
with the initial lack of communication by the OCS in the
aforementioned case, but the OCS's communication has since
improved and it is now willing to share such information with
the ASD, thus giving the ASD an opportunity to put a safety plan
in place before something bad happens again. The OCS has
conducted joint training with ASD, for example, and everyone has
taken other steps to educate people that this is a real issue
for children, so some good has come from some very ugly
situations, she concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that nothing in either the
original bill or Version M addresses the issue of a parent who
[once notified that his/her child is sexually molesting other
children] fails to act. He asked whether there is anything that
requires a parent to act in such situations.
MS. COMEAU said she is not aware of anything. She expressed
favor, though, with the language in Version M that requires the
department to immediately notify all adults who have a
legitimate interest in the child.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he didn't know whether the
behavior of a child perpetrator could be considered delinquent
behavior and thus failure to take action could then be
considered contributing to the delinquency of that child. He
asked Ms. Comeau whether she is aware of other situations in
which a parent failed to act.
MS. COMEAU said there have been other situations involving non-
cooperative parents, but those situations didn't rise to the
same level as the one she'd described.
2:04:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM acknowledged that this type of behavior
has long-lasting consequences, and surmised that many parents
handle such behavior by ignoring it. She offered her belief
that the bill is intended to create a situation in which
children are being protected and there is a process in place for
everyone. She mentioned that she'd met with [one of the
victim's of the aforementioned perpetrator] and his mother, and
the mother's main concern was that a way should be found to
protect other children.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN, on the issue of "over reporting,"
explained that the OCS investigates complaints, and it's only
once those complaints are substantiated that the name [of the
perpetrator] is released. Also, once the complaint is
substantiated, the OCS is then responsible for a clinical
assessment. On the question pertaining to the difference
between an assessment and an investigation, he offered:
You have sort of two choices, here, as near as I can
tell. There's a clinical model, which this sort of
follows, and there's a criminal model ... in which you
would have something that plugged more directly into
the criminal justice system. So this is an attempt to
match a situation in which you do want to be sensitive
to the fact that not every claim is going to be
substantiated, and yet on the other hand have a
mechanism for treatment once a claim is substantiated.
... That's the reason ... [the] OCS takes two steps,
here. First they, ... basically, investigate the
charge, and if they find that it's ... substantiated
..., the next step is, they're required to make sure
that there's a clinical assessment of the perpetrator
and that treatment occurs based on that assessment.
2:08:56 PM
SHARON K. ARAJI, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of
Alaska Anchorage (UAA), relayed that in addition to being with
the UAA, she is also with the University of Colorado, and along
with Cynthia Bradley of the APD was one of the primary
organizers of the Alaska Taskforce on Preadolescents with Sexual
Behavior Problems, which was brought together last year to
address the issue [of children sexually molesting other
children]. She mentioned that in 1997 she'd published a book -
Sexually Aggressive Children: Coming to Understand Them - and
she'd noted in her book back then that there was a task force in
Anchorage, and her concern is that even now, many years later,
still nothing has been done to address this issue, and now there
are many more perpetrators and victims. The new task force
sought input from all interested parties, and a legislative
solution was what some members focused on. There is a concern,
she relayed, that this legislation be moved forward, because
currently no one is mandated to deal with child perpetrators and
there isn't any funding with which to do anything with them.
DR. ARAJI surmised that this lack has resulted in situations
such as the one Ms. Comeau described. The concern is that this
really is an issue; best estimates are that about 6 percent of
children [are being sexually molested by other children]. The
perpetrators don't usually have only one victim, and new
research illustrates that the more this type of behavior becomes
a pattern - i.e., not checked - the harder it is to stop.
Therefore, she remarked, even though HB 250 as currently written
might not be the bill that ultimately gets enacted, "we" must
move forward on this in order to prevent further victimization.
She cautioned against simply creating an unfunded mandate -
there has to be money put into this effort. Although many
parents will pay for treatment for their child, some may not
have the resources to do so. Regardless, passage of the bill in
some form will ultimately save the state a lot of money because
otherwise these child perpetrators who don't get treatment and
subsequently develop a pattern will again be seen as adolescent
offenders and as adult offenders. If the state can fund a
preventative/intervention plan as proposed by the bill, it will
save a lot of "human costs" and dollar costs.
DR. ARAJI, in conclusion, urged the committee to continue its
work on this issue and recognize that this is an issue which
must be faced.
2:13:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered her belief that most parents
who refuse to seek treatment for their child refuse to do so
because they are in denial of the problem or because they are
embarrassed by it or because there is some sort of abuse going
on in the home that they don't wish to have revealed, not
because treatment poses a financial burden.
DR. ARAJI said she both agrees and disagrees. She elaborated:
I think some ... parents would not deny the issue,
particularly if the abuse is not originating in the
family; if it's originated outside the family, it's a
lot less embarrassing. However, if it's going to open
up a whole history - and what we find is [much] ... of
this ... is from one generation to another or across
generations that ... still exist - I think those
parents are going to be very reluctant to have the
history and what's going on in their families opened
to the public and perhaps even open them to charges.
And in the original document, you will notice an
appendix B, ... [which] talks about [the crime of]
endangering the welfare of a child in the first
degree, and we have some suggestions in there
[regarding] ... what we wanted to add ..., and that is
what would happen to the parent who knows ... [that]
his child or children are involved in this
perpetrating behavior, and how [the parents] ... could
be punished if they ignore it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the bill would conflict
with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
DR. ARAJI said that might be a possibility that should be
researched, and concurred with previous comments that the new
task force had not had time to obtain input from rural areas of
the state. "This" is going to be a big issue in rural areas of
the state, she remarked, and so of course will involve Alaska
Natives.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that how small communities
deal with this issue could be quite different from how larger
communities deal with it.
DR. ARAJI relayed that she's worked with many of the Alaska
Native faculty at UAA, and some have shared with her the
problems that exist in rural communities, and even approached
the subjects of incest. So treatment, assessment, and
identification would have to involve Native leaders, because
they are very much concerned about this issue, and [these
communities may have] a big percentage of the problem.
2:18:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the age of 12 was selected.
DR. ARAJI said that's the age at which adolescence usually
begins, and the age of 12 and under is what all the experts in
this field are focusing on as a way of differentiating between
preadolescent offenders and adolescent offenders. She pointed
out that this essentially takes more of a clinical approach as
opposed to a criminal approach.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized HB 250 as a good and
important bill, but questioned whether this creates a loophole
if the perpetrator is over the age of 12.
DR. ARAJI suggested that the laws pertaining to adolescents
would then apply, but acknowledged that perhaps that issue
should be researched further.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, on the issue of the ICWA, said her
intent with the bill is to protect the children who cannot
protect themselves, not to single out the children and their
victims based on their race.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN mentioned that when the new task force
finished it's work, it had an extensive and well thought-out
proposal but with a $10 million fiscal note. He chose instead
to address this issue via a system that required reporting and
required the DHSS to deal with child perpetrators the best it
could, with the understanding that more information about this
issue and how to better address it would then be forthcoming.
2:23:16 PM
MICHAEL LESMANN, Community Relations Manager, Legislative
Liaison, Office of Children's Services (OCS), Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS), relayed that he's worked with
the sponsor and his staff, and appreciates their efforts to deal
with this very complex issue - that being children sexually
[molesting] other children. The view of the OCS, however, is
that the bill in its current form would require the OCS to
intervene in a family's life regardless of the parents'
decisions, actions, or their ability to safely parent their own
child. Under the bill, parents could be doing everything
conceivable to obtain treatment and therapy for their child, and
everything conceivable to take the appropriate steps to protect
other children from their offending child, and yet the parents
would still have to be managed and have to have case management
services provided to them by case workers from the OCS.
MR. LESMANN said that while the OCS certainly recognizes the
importance of treating children with sexual behavior problems
and protecting other children, state law, as currently written,
requires the OCS to intervene on the basis of the parents'
behavioral problems, not the children's behavioral problems.
The bill, in contrast, would establish the OCS as the first line
of defense against children sexually molesting other children,
but the OCS would prefer that the parents be the first line of
defense. He said that if parents are not responsive to such
situations, or if they are negligent, culpable, or refuse to get
the necessary treatment for their child, or if there is some
report that suggests the child himself/herself is a victim at
the hands of his/her parents, the law is written so that the OCS
can intervene, and the OCS does so.
MR. LESMANN asked the committee to also keep in mind that when
such an investigation takes place, the OCS needs to be able to
substantiate the allegations before going forward with a
petition for custody.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether there should instead be
another agency tasked solely with dealing with children's
[sexual] behavior problems.
MR. LESMANN said that such an agency, in a perfect world, is
"mom and dad"; if those children who are sexually molesting
other children fall outside of the criminal or delinquency
statutes, and there are no grounds for Child Protective Services
to be involved, the OCS hopes that mom and dad are the first
line of defense.
2:28:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the DHSS's fiscal note,
said it would seem to him that removing the child from the home
so that he/she won't reoffend would address the welfare of that
child. If such is the case, what would the DHSS's fiscal note
then be reduced to?
MR. LESMANN explained that that fiscal note is based on the
original version of the bill, because the department doesn't
prepare a fiscal note on a committee substitute until it is
[moved from committee]; so, should Version M move from
committee, the DHSS will then revise its fiscal note. He also
indicated that the fiscal note only applies for a child offender
who actually ends up becoming a child in need of aid (CINA).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that the bill doesn't
necessarily account for the child offender being a CINA.
Therefore, what would the fiscal note be when a child offender
isn't determined to be a CINA?
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that the answer to that question
would involve pure speculation.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked who deals with "these problems"
currently.
MR. LESMANN said the OCS hopes that members of the community and
the parents are addressing such problems. Under current law,
the OCS can only intervene if the parents fail and that
information is then reported to the OCS.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, then, that if parents are
"negligent to the fact" that they have a child who is being
abused by someone else, then that might be cause for a report of
harm to come to the OCS.
MR. LESMANN concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether a report of harm would
also come to the OCS if it became known that the parents were
aware that their child is a perpetrator and harming other
children.
MR. LESMANN said that a report could likely come into any one of
the OCS's offices, but there really is no filter regarding the
kinds of reports the OCS receives, so the determination of
whether the OCS screens that report in for assessment depends on
information pertaining to the parents' actions.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out, though, that what the
legislature is attempting to address via the bill is how to deal
with children who are sexually assaulting other children -
that's criminal behavior. Under the CINA laws, the OCS
currently has the ability to provide protection to a child
before harm occurs, whereas the goal [with the bill] is to get a
hold of perpetrators and get them counseling; doing so would be
a new role for the OCS, he acknowledged.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that the OCS is reluctant to take on such
a role.
MR. LESMANN concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether there are specific profiles of
child perpetrators.
MR. LESMANN said that the OCS doesn't have that information, but
acknowledged that 61 percent of the children who are in state
custody are Alaska Native.
2:40:13 PM
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Director, Central Office, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
in response to questions, said that she has not yet had
discussions with the commissioner [regarding the appropriate
staffing levels necessary to implement legislation such as HB
250], but has had conversations with the other divisions within
the department. She relayed that the OCS is having a hard time
meeting even its current statutory obligations, so although the
OCS is probably the best division to address this very real
issue of child perpetrators, and the OCS wants to do so, it
doesn't currently have the necessary resources to do so. She
added:
If we were to take this on, it would have to be a
specialty. This wouldn't be something that we
[already] do, [so] we would have to count on our child
advocacy centers to partner with us because they are
best equipped to do this. There ... [is] a request in
for additional funding for child advocacy centers. I
would say that this [bill], again, makes that need
necessary, because we would have to partner with them
if this were to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM surmised that the OCS, and the
department as a whole, knows that there is a problem, and that
in order to address it, the OCS would need more staff.
MS. SANDOVAL concurred.
2:43:05 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how many other states are dealing with child
perpetrators in a fashion similar to what HB 250 proposes.
MS. SANDOVAL said she doesn't know, but surmised that child
welfare agencies around the country are struggling with meeting
all the various special needs of children and their families.
Years ago, there was this concept of "child welfare" and [her
agency] tried to be all things to all people; now, however, the
OCS is focusing on child protection, which is sometimes viewed
as government intrusion into families' lives, and so if parents
are meeting the needs of their children, the OCS tries to leave
them alone. Child protection should step in when children are
unsafe in their own homes, she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said that he's not found any other state
addressing the issue of child perpetrators.
MS. SANDOVAL, in response to a comment and a question regarding
the term "harm" as defined in the bill, said that the OCS,
internally, is attempting to be clearer about allegations that
are substantiated claims as opposed to unsubstantiated claims;
furthermore, the OCS must also determine whether kids are "at
risk" even though that term is defined in several ways.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that it might be difficult for
the OCS to comply with what's currently required by the bill.
MR. LESMANN, in response to questions, offered his understanding
that under Version M, court oversight has been eliminated, and
the authority of the OCS and the DHSS with regard to children
who sexually molest other children is specified in the bill.
2:49:19 PM
CHRIS PROVOST, Supervising Attorney, Civil Section - Juvenile
Delinquency, Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), Department of
Administration (DOA), relayed that the OPA would echo the main
concerns expressed thus far and agrees with the OCS in most
respects with regard to HB 250. Although Version M is a big
improvement over the original version of HB 250, and defines
exactly what "inappropriate sexual conduct" consists of, there
is a concern that that definition too closely parallels the
definition of adult sexual misconduct. He then noted that what
he characterized as a constitutionally problematic provision
pertaining to the duty to report and the penalty for failure to
do so is not included in Version M.
MR. PROVOST said that when dealing with children who are age 12
and under, the OPA agrees that a clinical approach versus a
criminal approach is better for kids, families, and the
community. In many respects, it's a "much bigger hammer" to
have the OCS looming in the background, as opposed to a mere
misdemeanor charge, and there will be better outcomes in "these
unique cases" as a result of having the OCS - rather than a
magistrate or district court judge - working with the parents,
he added. He relayed that the OPA feels there is existing
jurisdictional grounds, under existing AS 47.10.011(4), for the
OCS to take action, though that statute could perhaps be altered
to more specifically address the issue of children sexually
molesting other children, particularly given that the bill's
definition of "harm" also includes the exhibition of a sexual
behavior problem by a child 12 years of age or younger; AS
47.10.011(4) says:
(4) the child is in need of medical treatment to cure,
alleviate, or prevent substantial physical harm or is
in need of treatment for mental injury and the child's
parent, guardian, or custodian has knowingly failed to
provide the treatment;
MR. PROVOST offered his understanding that testimony at the
bill's last hearing indicated that the real problem that needs
to be addressed is parental negligence. In terms of the
aforementioned child protection statute, that means parental
neglect - knowingly failing to provide the treatment. For
example, in the aforementioned situation that Ms. Comeau spoke
of, if it is factually true that the parents of the perpetrator
knew of his problem but failed to implement appropriate
intervention for him and he continued to [molest] other
children, that would clearly be grounds under existing statute
for the OCS to remove the child or require the parents to
implement a case plan in lieu of removal. He suggested also
that AS 47.10.011(7) - which pertains to victims of child sexual
abuse - could be altered to address the problem of children who
themselves have sexual behavior problems.
MR. PROVOST said that the OPA questions the necessity of new
legislation in response to a relatively small number of highly
publicized incidents of [children sexually molesting other
children]. Furthermore, discovering whether such behavior is
problematic requires a clinical assessment by a qualified
assessor, and thus one of the OPA's concerns with [Version M]
pertains to the fact that the OCS would be required to
substantiate the report of harm before providing for a qualified
clinical assessment and before instituting the necessary
intervention, and that substantiation might be made by a "line"
social worker who may not necessarily be qualified to make that
assessment.
MR. PROVOST relayed, therefore, that the OPA would like to see
the OCS open an investigation but not substantiate the report
until there has been a clinical assessment by a qualified
assessor and a case plan offered to the parents - of course, if
the parents themselves are unable to afford to implement that
case plan, then the State will have the burden of doing so.
Also, the OPA sees the bill's current language as a problem
because if a child has a sexual behavior problem, there are
probably other issues going on with the family, and more often
than not, these families are going to be either indigent or
close to indigent. And although parents might be given a case
plan, their inability to afford the therapy required by that
case plan could prevent them from being successful in their case
plan.
2:56:06 PM
MR. PROVOST explained that the OPA has submitted a zero fiscal
note because it anticipates that there will only be a few cases
that will result in the DOL seeking CINA jurisdiction, and in
every one of those cases a guardian ad litem (GAL) will be
assigned to represent the best interests of the child. He said
the OPA agrees that the OCS is the right agency to deal with
[children who sexually molest other children], but a huge amount
of resources will be needed by the OCS to do so. He said that
the OPA also agrees with the comments by Ms. Comeau and Ms.
Bryant regarding "over identification" and substantiating a
report of harm, particularly if the substantiated report of harm
is relayed to school officials and caregivers before a clinical
assessment confirming that a child has a sexual behavior problem
has been completed. That stigma will travel with the child, and
it will be very hard to [remove even an inaccurate]
substantiated report of harm from the Online Resources for the
Children of Alaska (ORCA) database.
MR. PROVOST, in conclusion, offered his belief that HB 250,
regardless of which version passes, won't conflict with the
ICWA.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM sought clarification regarding Mr.
Provost's comment about indigent families.
MR. PROVOST indicated that although the OPA is appointed as a
GAL in every case [involving a child], most of the cases the OPA
receives pertain to indigent [people].
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that in the situations she is
aware of, most of the parents have very good jobs and live in
nice neighborhoods and would be humiliated to have others learn
that their child has a problem and so would take steps to cover
it up.
3:01:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, with regard to the comment that a
stigma could be attached to a child, said that as a parent,
she'd rather ere on the side of protecting children from sexual
abuse even if it does result in an innocent child being
questioned or investigated, because the stigma and pain and
suffering associated with being a victim of sexual abuse is far
worse.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN noted that his intent is to prevent child
perpetrators from creating more victims - not merely to ensure
that perpetrators get treatment - and although there may not
yet be a perfect way to deal with this issue, he has been
seeking a better solution but has not yet received any
suggestions. Therefore, he relayed, he would like to pass the
bill from committee and just keep working on it as it moves
through the process.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that by the time
pedophiles are found out, they have already committed 100 acts
of pedophilia, that they often start out as juvenile sex
offenders, and that they never retire - they remain pedophiles
for the entirety of their lives.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he would leave public testimony open and hold
HB 250 over to be heard again at a later date. He opined that
the provisions of the bill should have a statewide application.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|