Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/23/1996 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 348 - VIDEO/AUDIOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
Number 0797
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 348.
CHAIR JAMES explained, Barbara Cotting, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Jeannette James, was here to read the sponsor
statement.
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant to Representative
Jeannette James, read the following statement into the record.
"The intent of the bill is to have a video camera or an audiotape
recorder turned on immediately at the start of the original,
initial official interview with an allegedly abused or neglected
child and top record the entire interview and all subsequent
interviews with the child.
"When dealing with emotion-lade situations, adults' perceptions
and memories are not necessarily reliable; and children can be
led to make imaginary happenings sound like fact and to finally
believe these fantasies themselves. The credibility of all
parties can become suspect and an accurate objective judgement is
then impossible. This bill would held dispel incorrect
perceptions and allow fairness to all parties involved.
"I met with strong resistance from DFYS and other state agencies
when I introduced a similar bill two years ago. This year the
agencies should be much more receptive due to a recent
Ombudsman's investigation, which found:
"Arguments in favor of videotaping or at least audiotaping are as
compelling as those against the practice....
"Administrative conveniences does not justify lack of agency
accountability in this sensitive area....
"Where video and audio recorders might have intimidated children
in the 1960's, the same likely cannot be said in the 1990's.
(Sponsor's insert: I also believe that taping makes the child
feel validated, not intimidated.) And finally....
"Social workers questioned by the ombudsman investigator either
said that audio taping would not be a problem and might be easier
than note taking, or said that a videotape would be the best way
to review a case.
"HB 348 will help implement sound public policy by requiring
accountability of agency action in the sensitive area of state
interference in private family life, and I strongly urge your
support for this important piece of legislation."
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions or comments and
called on Gene Ottenstroer via teleconference in Delta Junction.
MS. COTTING said, for the record, Steve Grunstein, P.O. Box
32604, Juneau, Alaska 99803, (907) 789-2155, called and stated an
important line needed to be drawn between abuse and discipline.
GENE OTTENSTROER said HB 348 helped but was not the answer. He
referred the committee members to line 13, "A school official
shall be present during an interview at the school unless the
child objects...." Mr. Ottenstroer asserted a parent needed to
be present also. He alleged a child would be nervous without a
parent present when faced with officials. He also referred the
committee members to page 2, line 2, "The interview shall be
videotaped or audiotaped as required by AS 47.17.035." He stated
the interview should be done by a non-biased party. The police
department, he said, had been known to tamper with tapes to their
advantage. He further referred the committee members to line 6,
"the department or agency shall make every reasonable effort to
notify the child's parent, guardian, or custodian that the
interview occurred unless it appears to the department or agency
that notifying the child's parent, guardian, or custodian would
endanger the child." Mr. Ottenstroer questioned, who, had the
authority to make that decision. He stated, a social worker
would cause problems. He also cited the case described in the
State of Alaska Ombudsman report dated June 21, 1995. He said it
had gotten to the point where parents could not touch their
children.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Nancy Buell, Director,
Education Program Support.
NANCY BUELL, Director, Education Program Support, Department of
Education, stated the protection of the child and the
availability of technology were the two issues the department was
concerned about. Ms. Buell alleged the factors that influenced
children were trust, stress, and technology. She further alleged
technology was not always reliable or available in rural areas
potentially keeping the child in a dangerous situation. She
stated the department did not oppose HB 348 but was concerned
administrative convenience would interfere with the intent of the
legislation.
Number 1430
CHAIR JAMES asked the committee members if they wanted to hold
questions until the end or after each testimony.
Number 1444
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied it was best to ask questions
after each testimony.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any further questions or
comments.
Number 1456
MS. BUELL further stated she was concerned about the cultural
protection of children. She cited for spiritual reasons some
cultures did not allow video/audiotaping.
CHAIR JAMES responded she was open to any suggestions.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he would like to absorb the information
presented further before asking any questions.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Jayne Andreen,
Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault.
Number 1503
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault, said she was concerned about the initial
interview of children who had alleged abuse or neglect. She
asserted it was important to look at the children's needs upon
disclosure. Ms. Andreen cited the environment must be safe and
supportive, and the children must be surrounded by someone they
trust. She stated the majority of child abuse complaints did not
go beyond the initial complaint and was concerned HB 348 would
subject Alaskan children to a formal process potentially causing
damage.
Number 1675
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Andreen what type of interviews
were being conducted around the state. She stated at one point
interview rooms were at the prosecutor's office and then at some
point all parties involved were videotaped in an official
interview.
Number 1715
MS. ANDREEN responded the ideal situation was to use a one-way
mirror with a camera in another room. The interview was usually
conducted after a determination had been made that it was
warranted by trained officials such as a police officer. The
idea was to get it on tape for the court and to eliminate the
number of times the child had to repeat his testimony.
Number 1783
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested to the committee members more
information was needed statewide to ascertain exactly what was
being done to eliminate repeated testimony.
Number 1855
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Del Smith, Deputy
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, stated the department had some
practical concerns regarding HB 348. Mr. Smith expressed the
logistical concerns of furnishing interview rooms throughout the
state and was afraid someone would not be prosecuted because of
technical problems. He suggested officials use a tape recorder
in the field to eliminate repetition and interpretation mistakes.
Number 1968
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned if bringing all the parties
concerned together for an initial interview was the direction the
state should take.
Number 1993
MR. SMITH replied it was the best direction to take. Repeated
interviews were problematic and any way to capture the
information needed in the initial interview was less intrusive.
However, statutorily mandating this would cause problems, he
alleged.
Number 2044
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Smith if children were
reporting the incident to a teacher, for example, whereupon the
teacher would contact the appropriate authorities.
Number 2073
MR. SMITH responded he imagined a child would tell a teacher what
happened and because it was not recorded he was concerned the
information would be suppressed.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Yvonne Chase, Deputy
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Health
and Social Services.
Number 2121
YVONNE CHASE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services, said the department
conducted a study to look at videotaping. The report in summary
stated at this point no state had a mandatory videotaping policy.
However, 35 states actively use audio/videotaping. The
department did not oppose the use of videotaping, she asserted,
when useful, but there were problems inherent when mandating such
legislation. Ms. Chase further stated HB 348 clearly
demonstrated what happened during an interview affected the
outcome of a case. She informed the committee members staff at
the Department of Health and Social Services indicated they would
like to use audiotaping more widely for accountability and
training reasons. She lastly asked the committee to consider the
logistical and legal issues involved with this bill.
TAPE 96-3, SIDE A
Number 0000
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any further questions or
comments.
Number 0070
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was only familiar with Anchorage
cases and commented it was unlikely a DFYS professional, for
example, would be the initial contact person. He questioned if
there were in fact times when a DFYS professional was the initial
contact.
Number 0123
MS. CHASE responded teenagers self-referred themselves to DFYS.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any further questions or comments
and called on Betty Rollins via teleconference in Fairbanks.
Number 0140
BETTY ROLLINS said she could not imagine why a department such as
DFYS would object to videotaping an interview for the protection
of the child and the agency. Ms. Rollins asserted she supported
the mandate for fear of agencies using technical reasons as
excuses not to tape the interview. She further expressed parents
should be notified of the interview but not necessarily present
at the interview. Ms. Rollins also expressed her concerns of
agencies writing the bill for fear of changing the intent. She
suggested individuals carried the equipment with them as small
cameras were available. She said she preferred a videotape over
an audiotape for fear of tampering. In conclusion, she said, she
supported HB 348 because it protected the agency, the child, and
the parent.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Charles Rollins via
teleconference in Fairbanks.
Number 0330
CHARLES ROLLINS said he supported HB 348. Child abuse was a
serious crime and the children were worth the expense of such a
bill.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Lauree Hugonin,
Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault.
Number 0388
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, discussed the tenderness of child
abuse as a topic. It was a difficult dialogue and she
appreciated the legislature for addressing the issue. She stated
it was a surprise to learn in Alaska only certain professionals
were qualified to report child abuse. She asked the committee
members to think about the mitigation of false reporting and
suggested there needed to be an opportunity to check each report.
Ms. Hugonin said we needed to look at what was best for children.
She further suggested more training would be necessary to ensure
accurate interviews. She reiterated earlier testimony that the
fewer interviews the better for the children to lessen the
trauma. She suggested a solution was to provide a room with a
two-way mirror and video camera where the experienced personnel
were present behind the mirror asking the needed questions.
This, she hoped, would prevent repeated interviews. She also
suggested different requirements and expectations for different
ages. She said she was concerned about the storage of tapes in
the event of an unfounded case, for example. In conclusion, she
stated she was concerned about the good faith of people reporting
cases and was concerned about creating an environment which would
discourage reporting of abuse.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Jodi Delaneyvia
telephone in North Pole.
Number 0888
JODI DELANEY said she lost her family due to a child abuse
allegation. Ms. Delaney asserted videotaping was a check and
balance in the system. She inferred there was not a check and
balance on the social workers and cited a case where her nephew
was sexually abused in a specialized foster home. She further
stated Alaska led the nation in false allegations of child abuse
and no one was available to pick up the pieces. She cited 60
percent of allegations were false and 80 hours minimum were spent
on investigating each case. Ms. Delaney felt a videotape of an
interview would decrease false allegations, and all individuals
involved would be working from the same report. She further
stated all laws on child abuse were written as if the parent was
the perpetrator. She declared a video camera was a very
inexpensive tool to save the lives of families. She questioned
the domino effect on the family in the event of a false
allegation. Ms. Delaney declared she had designed a chart to
illustrate how the state of Alaska could save money to help our
social workers. She stated she requested for two years a
grievance procedure after she was falsely accused. She cited
there were hidden agendas in the system and they needed to be
cleaned-up. She further asserted if there had been a videotape
in her case she would not have been falsely accused. In
conclusion, she cited her son was highly traumatized by the
process.
CHAIR JAMES introduced the next testifier, Gene Altig via
teleconference in North Pole.
Number 1444
GENE ALTIG suggested the teacher should be the interviewer. He
referred the committee members to line 12, page 1 and line 6,
page 2, and agreed parents needed to be notified. Mr. Altig
responded to earlier testimony regarding the storage of tapes.
He stated, technology already existed to conveniently store them.
He expressed his desire for videotaping over audiotaping and
cited the Rodney King court case.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Harry Niehaus via
teleconference in North Pole.
Number 1515
HARRY NIEHAUS said HB 348 needed work for the simple reason an
audiotape could be turned off and manipulated. However, a
videotape displayed the time and date therefore protecting the
child. Mr. Niehaus also stated accountability and checks and
balances were needed in the system. He referred the committee
members to line 6, page 2 and suggested striking "make every
reasonable effort" and replace it with "the department shall."
He also referred the committee members to page 1, line 14, "A
school official shall be present during an interview at the
school unless the child objects." An official should be present
even if a child objected due to accountability, he asserted.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Scott Calder via
teleconference in Fairbanks.
Number 1625
SCOTT CALDER said HB 348 moved in the right direction. He
stated, however, the provision for audiotaping was not a good
idea. Strong, empirical evidence was needed to prove or disprove
the actions of the government to protect family integrity. The
lack of public trust was the real issue, he alleged. Mr. Calder
said he could not think of any reason to trust the individuals
involved in an investigation. He expressed accountability was
needed in the departments interfering with family life. He said
there was an assumption the parents needed to be investigated on
the part of the department. He said he knew of many parents who
felt the departments needed to be investigated. He disagreed
with earlier testimony regarding the age of children and the type
of interview used. He felt it was a side issue. He also
suggested the departments were accountable for the potential mis-
use of information. He alleged there was an epidemic of hysteria
regarding the reporting of child abuse. Lastly, he commented, a
public review process was needed to address the foster care
system as established within the Department of Administration.
He cited for five years now Fairbanks wanted a review. In
conclusion, he reiterated a strong, empirical document was needed
in every situation where action was needed.
Number 1861
CHAIR JAMES recognized the presence of Gail Phillips, Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
Number 1882
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON responded Ms. Hugonin did not have a
problem regarding the storage of videotapes. Representative
Robinson further stated the budget for the foster care review
panel had been cut, and commented that was the reason Fairbanks
was not involved.
Number 1944
CHAIR JAMES said there was a problem and she would like to work
with the Department of Health and Social Services, the Department
of Public Safety, the Department of Law, and anyone on the
committee who was interested to ensure HB 348 addressed the
issues discussed today on a statewide basis.
Number 1983
MS. DELANEY asked if the public would be allowed to participate.
She further asked for someone to address the incident in Delta
Junction mentioned in previous testimony.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|