Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/04/1998 04:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 375
"An Act relating to children in need of aid matters
and proceedings; relating to murder of children,
criminally negligent homicide, kidnapping, criminal
nonsupport, the crime of indecent exposure, and the
crime of endangering the welfare of a child; relating
to registration of certain sex offenders; relating to
sentencing for certain crimes involving child victims;
relating to the state medical examiner and reviews of
child fatalities; relating to teacher certification
and convictions of crimes involving child victims;
relating to access, confidentiality, and release of
certain information concerning the care of children,
child abuse and neglect, and child fatalities;
authorizing the Department of Health and Social
Services to enter into an interstate compact
concerning adoption and medical assistance for certain
children with special needs; authorizing the
establishment of a multidisciplinary child protection
team to review reports of child abuse or neglect;
relating to immunity from liability for certain state
actions concerning matters involving child protection
and fatality reviews and children in need of aid;
relating to persons required to report suspected child
abuse or neglect; relating to foster care placement
and to payment for children in foster and other care
and the waiver of certain foster care requirements;
relating to the access to certain criminal justice
information and licensure of certain child care
facilities; amending Rule 218, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure; amending Rules 1, 3, 15, 18, and
19, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules; and providing
for an effective date.
WALTER GAUTHIER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GUARD
FAMILY RIGHTS, HOMER, spoke in opposition to the proposed
legislation. He addressed the child abuse crisis in Alaska
and how the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS)
has exploited many situations. He warned that the
Department of Law had misrepresented the bill. He pointed
out that there are only a few items contained within the
bill which are required by the Safe Adoption Act and all of
which regard time-lines. He emphasized that no state to
date has been denied the right to access Title 4 funds.
Mr. Gauthier commented that there are no legal safe guards
contained in the proposed legislation. He voiced fears
that there would be profiteering by government agencies
from claiming child abuse issues throughout the years.
GLORIA STEWART, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FOSTER CARE
PARENT, HOMER, testified in support of the legislation.
She spoke to her history of foster parenting and the number
of placements most foster child can expect to see during
their time in care. She stressed that permanent placement
would be the most beneficial thing to happen for any child.
MARTHA HODSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GUARD FAMILY
RIGHTS, KENAI, spoke against the proposed legislation. She
reiterated the reoccurring problems happening within the
Division of Family and Youth Services. Ms. Hodson
emphasized that children in the system are at the
discretion of the officials and social workers within the
Department.
CAROL PALMER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENTS FOR
CUSTODIAL JUSTICE, MATSU, recommended passing the federal
portion of the proposed legislation.
SHIRLEY WARNER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHIEF,
SOLDOTNA POLICE DEPARTMENT, KENAI, spoke in support of the
proposed legislation. She provided graphic examples
indicating the need for such legislation in crimes against
children. Children are afforded few rights under the
constitution and laws of the State. In passage of the
child protection bill, children will be protected and
valued as members of the community.
Captain Warner recommended that domestic violence and
sexual assault should be addressed in a pro-active manner
and that emotional harm to children is being recognized and
addressed finally to the advantage of our children.
Captain Warner encouraged Committee members to pass the
proposed legislation.
SUZETTE GRAHAM, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FOSTER CARE
PARENT, KENAI, testified in support of the proposed
legislation and urged that it be fully funded. She
stressed that children are our most unprotected resource
and that they should be a priority. Additionally, she
recommended that funding for respite needs for foster
parents should also be considered. Ms. Graham spoke to the
"burn out" that occurs for foster parents of special needs
children.
SHELLE LEMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF, KENAI,
suggested that the bill was too broad. She spoke to
conditions which have existed for her daughter's child, who
has currently been inappropriately placed in foster care.
Ms. Leman closed noting that social workers have too much
power and are often times biased which creates large
problems for children and families.
JODY OLMSTED, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF, NORTH
POLE, pointed out that there is no check and balance
contained within the legislation for the DFYS social
workers. She believed that these agency workers are often
biased. Ms. Olmsted recommended that there be mandatory
video taping of all allegations of child abuse. (Testimony
temporarily was cut off).
MARCI SCHMIDT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), HEAR MY
VOICE, MATSU, urged that the Committee pass at least the
federal portion of the proposed legislation. The intent of
the Safe Families Act was to curtail power struggles that
social services has experienced in creating a time line to
complete reunification or termination so that a child can
have a safe and permanent home. The federal law defines a
reasonable effort and allows foster parents an appropriate
voice and area of raising a child. Ms. Schmidt stated that
without federal law, there would be a big price for the
State to pay.
Ms. Olmstead continued her testimony. She suggested that
the Division of Family and Youth Services should be
provided with a check and balance system and that the
prevention money could be used to rehabilitate adults who
need help. Ms. Olmsted pointed out that no family supports
abuse. The abuse exists within the system, where the
system is used like a tool to get back at people. She
asked what part of the law makes the State responsible for
wrong action and where can people go with those concerns.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 148, Side 2).
Ms. Olmstead reiterated that funding should be used for
rehabilitation. She emphasized that she did not support the
legislation and believed that it would divide the people of
Alaska. Ms. Olmstead questioned the monetary amount
offered to people as an incentive to adopt children.
RUSSELL WEBB, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, responded that there is an incentive of
approximately $4 thousand dollars per child without special
needs and $6 thousand dollars per child with special needs.
That money goes to the State which has a subsidized
adoption program in which the State makes subsidy payments
direct to the families. The incentives are to pay the
costs of home studies and adoptive placement.
LAURIE HUGORIN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, JUNEAU, stated that the
Network was interested in two particular sections of the
bill. Section #72 defines what appropriate steps are which
the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) should
take when investigating child abuse and crimes of adult
domestic violence. Additionally, the Network supports
Section #22.
Ms. Hugorin explained that a presumption is an assumption
or supposition based on reasonable evidence. To rebut is
to try to show to be false by presenting opposing
arguments. A rebuttable presumption is a position from
which the court starts a case and can only be changed if
the respondent adequately shows the presumption to be
false.
Establishing a rebuttable presumption that it is
detrimental to the child and not in the best interest of
the child to be placed in sole custody, joint legal
custody, or joint physical custody with the perpetrator of
the domestic violence rightly shifts the burden of proof
onto the domestic violence perpetrator. The perpetrator
should be the one who has to justify his ability to parent
safely and responsibly as well as his ability to interact
safely with the adult victim.
Ms. Hugorin continued, men who batter their wives are
likely to assault their children. The battering of women
who are mothers usually predates the infliction of child
abuse. At least half of all battering husbands also batter
their children. The more severe the abuse of the mother,
the worse the child abuse. The risk of violence directed
both toward the child and the battered parent is frequently
greater after separation than during cohabitation; this
elevated risk often continues after legal interventions.
Ms. Hugorin explained that further, research confirms that
the post-separation adjustment of a child is assisted by an
award of sole custody to a non-abusive parent who offers
the child a warm relationship, provides a routine,
discipline, and who buffers the child against parental
conflict and abuse.
She urged the Committee to help protect children of
domestic violence by keeping the rebuttable presumptions in
HB 375.
Ms. Olmsted interjected that the legislation should contain
a clause stipulating that mandatory video recording of
allegations of child abuse.
SCOTT CALDER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS,
spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation resulting
from a long history of problems he has had with the
Division of Family and Youth Services. He emphasized that
the bill is unfair and would provide more power for the
agency. At this time, laws have not been parent oriented,
but instead, parents are discriminated against. Thus
concluded the teleconferenced testimony.
Representative Kelly MOVED to RESCIND action in adopting
Amendment #2. Representative J. Davies OBJECTED.
SUSAN G. WIBKER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, responded that Amendment #2 would be replaced with
Amendment #6. [Copy on File]. She explained that the
legislative drafters had recommended that change because
Amendment #2 contained a general section stating that the
new law would apply to licensing actions and disclosure of
information. Amendment #6 is the same as Amendment #2
except that it would be a more specific application to the
way in which it would apply to licensing cases. Amendment
require finger printing. Additionally, Amendment #6 would
require more specific disclosure of the agency records.
Representative J. Davies WITHDREW his OBJECTION to rescind
previous action taken on Amendment #2. There being NO
further OBJECTION, action on Amendment #2 was RESCINDED.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW Amendment #2. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was withdrawn.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #6. There
being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #6 was adopted.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #5.
Representative J. Davies OBJECTED.
Ms. Wibker explained that there were three sections
included in Amendment #5 in which the Department of Health
and Social Services would recommend minor changes to. Ms.
Wibker explained each line of Amendment #5.
(Tape Change HFC 98 - 149, Side 1).
Ms. Wibker continued explaining the substance of Amendment
(Tape Change HFC 98 - 149, Side 2).
Representative Kelly offered to create a new Amendment #5.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW Amendment #5. Representative
J. Davies recommended dividing the amendment in order that
the issues which relate to domestic violence are separated
from the other concerns.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #7. [Copy on
File]. Representative Mulder OBJECTED. Representative
Kelly WITHDREW Amendment #7.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #8. [Copy on
File]. Ms. Wibker explained that Amendment #8 would
parallel an amendment adopted in the Senate, by removing
criminal provisions covered in other bills. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #9. [Copy on
File]. Representative Mulder OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion. Ms. Wibker explained that Amendment #9 was
proposed by the Alaska Court System.
DOUG WOOLIVER, AMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
advised that immediate effective dates cause tremendous
problems for the Alaska Court System. Amendment #9 would
change the effective date to give the Court time to
implement the court rule changes.
Representative Mulder WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTIONS, Amendment #9 was adopted.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #10. [Copy
on File].
LISA TORKELSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, stated
that Amendment #10 had been approved by the Department and
would provide for foster parents access to the child's
records.
Mr. Webb noted that the Department would not have an
objection to the foster parents having access to the
records or information about children that are in placement
within their homes. He questioned if the amendment would
give the foster parents access to records to the parent's
private information. He feared that the amendment could
give foster parents access to the entire court record. Mr.
Webb advised all that information would be unnecessary for
foster parents to have access to.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON pointed out that it is necessary
for foster parents to have access to information which they
need to protect the child. Amendment #10 would legitimize
foster parents having the right to that information.
Mr. Webb suggested that Representative Dyson's concern
could be addressed with slight rewording of the amendment.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW Amendment #10 in order to
more clearly write it.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #7 which
would insert a new section when appropriate.
Representative Dyson pointed out that audit and practice in
the State has recognized the importance of training foster
parents. Ms. Torkelson added that the wording of the
amendment had been submitted by the Department and that
placement in the bill would continue to guarantee that the
training occur.
Mr. Webb added that foster parent training is required
under current regulations. Currently, the Department is
meeting these regulations; there would be no fiscal impact.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #7 was adopted.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that there could be a
need for a conceptual title change in passage of the
amendment. Representative Mulder noted that would be
addressed by Legal Services at the next scheduled meeting.
HB 375 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|