Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
03/31/2025 01:30 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 | |
| SB9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 9-SURRENDER OF INFANTS; INF. SAFETY DEVICE
[CSSB 9(HSS) was before the committee.]
1:31:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to the surrender of infants; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN said this is the first hearing of SB 9 in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He invited the bill sponsor and his
staff to present the bill.
1:31:58 PM
SENATOR MYERS, speaking as sponsor, introduced SB 9, stating:
Alaska was among the last in the country to pass a
safe surrender law in 2008. The law allows a parent to
surrender a newborn up to 21 days old to a doctor,
nurse, peace officer, firefighter, or any other person
who can reasonably be expected to care for the child.
Since that bill was passed, nine infants have been
safely surrendered, but we have also had infants
recently found abandoned in the state, sometimes with
the infant found after passing away, two in Anchorage
and one in Fairbanks that we're aware of. While we
don't know every individual's motivation, we do hear
anecdotally that shame and fear of recognition can be
barriers to people surrendering their infants safely
to a person rather than abandoning them.
SB 9 provides a solution to those problems. Following
22 other states, it creates the legal framework for
infant safety devices to be installed at hospitals,
fire stations, police stations, health facilities
owned or managed by a tribal health organization, or
other appropriate facilities. SB 9 defines what an
infant safety device is and where it may be installed;
they must be:
• Climate controlled.
• Have an automatic lock.
• Be installed in a conspicuous place with appropriate
signage.
• Have 24-hour video surveillance.
• Immediately trigger a call to the 911 system to
dispatch emergency services in the event that an
infant is surrendered.
Mr. Chair, I do also want to quickly note what this
bill will not do. It does not mandate installation of
these devices. The facilities in question still would
have to consent to installing one. The bill does not
pay for these devices. We have already been assured
that there is private funding available to install
them. And, in fact, one reason that we have put
forward this bill is because a group in Fairbanks went
to the hospital and offered to pay for one of these
devices to be installed. They were told no, because
the hospital was concerned that the law, as currently
written, only allows for safe surrender directly to a
personSB 9 remedies that problem. I also want to
note, Mr. Chair, that while my office has been reached
out to by different groups in inspiration for the
bill, we did not work with any corporation on this
draft. My office compared policies from across the
nation and chose to have the language in SB 9 mirror
language that unanimously passed the Maryland
legislature in 2024. Mr. Chair, this is a tool in the
toolbox to save lives. With the problem of infants
still being abandoned on the side of the road still
happening, we hope that adding this tool can help
address the problem. Again, thank you for hearing the
bill.
1:34:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced Senator Stevens joined the meeting.
1:35:05 PM
THERESA WOLDSTAD, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, paraphrased the sectional analysis
for SB 9, version G:
SB 9 Sectional Analysis
"An Act relating to the surrender of infants; and
providing for an effective date."
Section 1: AS 47.10.013 (c) Page 1, Lines 3-15 Page 2,
Lines 1-18.
Authorizes an infant safety device as a location
a parent may safely surrender an infant. Establishes
appropriate locations for devices. Authorizes the
Commissioner of Family and Community Services to
designate other appropriate facilities and locations.
Section 2: AS 47.10.013(d) Page 2, Line 19-31, Page 3,
Lines 1-2.
Amends AS 47.10.013(d) with conforming statutory
references as made in section one.
Section 3: AS 47.10.013(e) Page 3, Line 3-6.
Amends AS 47.10.013(e) with conforming language
which adds "designated" to authorized facilities.
1:35:53 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD continued presenting the sectional analysis:
Section 4: AS 47.10.013 Page 3, Lines 7-31, Page 4,
Lines 1 - 17.
Requires a designated facility to notify the
nearest office of the Department of Family and
Community Services that an infant has been
surrendered. Establishes that the Department shall
consider the appropriate size, safety, and ways to
minimize unauthorized uses in determining whether to
approve a proposed infant safety device. The
Department may provide training to employees of a
designated facility regarding implementation and
compliance with Alaska safe surrender laws. If the
Department determines that the surrendered infant is
an Indian child, the department shall contact the
Indian child's tribe immediately.
Establishes requirements for infant safety
devices, including a conspicuous location, climate-
control, appropriate signage, an automatic 911
emergency dispatch request system, 24- hour video
surveillance system, and automatic security lock.
Appropriate signage must include a phone number for a
support service for parents in crisis, list of
alternatives to using the device, and statement
clarifying that device use may lead to involuntary
termination of the parent's rights and release of the
child for adoption or other permanent placement.
Section 5: Page 4, Line 18.
Establishes an effective date for the bill of
July 1, 2026.
1:38:04 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said a similar bill came before the legislature
many years ago. He recalled that the earlier bill purposely
removed video surveillance to preserve the level of privacy a
parent might want and to avoid situations in which a parent
would be unwilling to drop off a child if they were identifiable
in the video. He asked the bill sponsor to address this concern.
1:38:31 PM
SENATOR MYERS replied that video surveillance refers to the
interior of the device for the purpose of monitoring the child.
He explained that SB 9 does not propose instituting video
surveillance of the parent dropping off the child.
1:38:56 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked how, if someone uses a safe-surrender device
for an infant, the state can be assured that the person
surrendering the child has the legal right to do so and has the
informed consent of the other biological parent.
SENATOR MYERS replied that if the person dropping off is not the
custodial parent, that is kidnapping. He figured that, if a
kidnapping occurred, the party responsible for the child would
have already made a missing child report. He explained that a
kidnapping report would top law enforcement priority list.
1:40:10 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked how the assumption is verified that every
child surrendered at a safe-surrender device is being
relinquished with proper consent. She asked how the individuals
retrieving the infant from the device would know that the person
surrendering the child had the legal right to do so. She noted
the assertion that an improper surrender could constitute
kidnapping, but questioned how law enforcement would know to
investigate if no report had been filed. She said that based on
prior testimony, there are no cameras outside the device and no
ability to capture identifying information. She said this
creates an assumption, or presumption, that the infant was
safely surrendered with the consent of both biological parents,
and she asked how that consent can be confirmed.
1:40:58 PM
SENATOR MYERS deferred to the Office of Children's Services
(OCS) to respond.
1:41:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Ms. Guay of OCS.
1:41:20 PM
KIM GUAY, Division Director, Office of Children's Services,
Department of Family and Community Services (DFCS), Anchorage,
Alaska, replied that OCS often encounters children whose
caretakers are no longer willing to provide care, and in some
cases the agency receives children without knowing where the
parents are. She said OCS makes efforts to locate parents in
those situations. She stated that if an infant were surrendered
in a device, OCS would still be obligated to identify and notify
the parents and family members if their identities were known.
She noted that when someone other than a parent surrenders a
child, parents typically return quickly upon realizing the child
is no longer in their care. She said the process would be the
same for any child or infant: OCS would take the child into care
and identify an appropriate placement. She stated that in past
safe-surrender situations, OCS has always been able to determine
who the parents are. She said this allows the agency to notify
the family and determine what occurred, rather than treating the
situation as a kidnapping.
1:42:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that if a grandparent delivered
a child to a safe-surrender location at the direction of the
parent, that action would constitute permission to surrender the
child and would not be considered a kidnapping.
SENATOR MYERS affirmed that would not fall under the status of
kidnapping because the parent gave permission. He said it was
the parent's intention, so he expressed his belief that would
not be a problem.
1:43:33 PM
SENATOR TOBIN noted that in the chair's scenario, the other
parent did not give consent.
SENATOR TOBIN asked how OCS finds who the parent of a
surrendered child is, and in a case where no information is
provided, what the process is to determine a parent's identity.
She said a child placed in a safe-surrender device is
essentially abandoned, without identifying information, and no
way to know from where they came or who they are.
MS. GUAY replied that OCS typically learns the identity of a
surrendered infant through community members, or at times a
parent will contact OCS to report that they surrendered the
child.
1:44:27 PM
At ease.
1:44:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reconvened the meeting.
1:45:02 PM
MS. GUAY continued her answer, stating that OCS generally finds
out who the parent is through community providers or through
direct contact with the parent. She said OCS typically
identifies the mother first, and then OCS seeks information
about the father or the tribe if the child is Alaska Native.
1:45:33 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said SB 9 indicates that a safe-surrender box is
intended to ensure the anonymity of the biological parent who
surrenders an infant. She sought confirmation that according to
OCS testimony, anonymity is not guaranteed because OCS has an
obligation to identify the parents.
MS GUAY replied, yes that is correct. She expressed her belief,
however, that the box would still provide some anonymity. She
stated that most children are surrendered directly to a person,
and although not always, OCS usually learns who the parent is
through community providers. She said a safe-surrender box could
provide more anonymity and reduce the perception of shame some
parents feel when they are overwhelmed and not in a good place
to parent a newborn.
1:46:36 PM
SENATOR TOBIN requested data and research supporting the
assertion that parents may feel shame or have related concerns,
so the committee can evaluate that information.
MS. GUAY replied that she did not have data available at the
moment and was speaking from her twenty-five years of experience
in child welfare, during which she has seen parents who want to
do right by their babies but who may be struggling with
substance use, mental health issues, domestic violence, or
lifestyle challenges.
1:47:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether state law specifies an age limit for
an infant to qualify for safe surrender.
SENATOR MYERS replied that Alaska law specifies 21 days.
SENATOR KIEHL said that when an infant is surrendered directly
to a peace officer, firefighter, or first responder, the age of
the child is presumably one of the questions on their intake
checklist. He asked what procedure applies when a 23-day-old or
a four-week-old infant is placed in a safe-surrender box.
SENATOR MYERS said OCS has created a form that is distributed to
peace officers and firefighters. If the parents are willing,
they would complete the form. It would go in the box with the
baby. He deferred to OCS for further detail.
MS. GUAY said OCS would still take the child into custody and
attempt to locate a relative or family friend for placement. If
that is not possible, the child would be placed with a foster
family. She said the infant would enter the child-in-need-of-aid
process and that OCS would seek to expedite permanency so the
child would not remain in foster care for an extended period.
1:49:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought confirmation that the difference is that a
parent of a four-week-old child who abandons the infant in the
box is subject to prosecution for abandonment, whereas the
parent of a twenty-one-day-old child would not.
MS. GUAY replied yes, that is correct.
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the size of the safe-surrender box and
who would construct it.
SENATOR MYERS replied that he was aware of at least three
companies that manufacture the devices. He said the box is
generally designed to fit an infant-sized bassinet similar to
those used in hospitals. He stated that it is relatively small
but built to accommodate a bassinet and a couple of other pieces
of equipment.
1:50:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the safe-surrender box is built to a
specific set of standards to ensure it is not too small or
otherwise poses a risk to an infant.
SENATOR MYERS replied that the boxes have been in use for some
time and were first authorized in Indiana in 2016. He said they
have undergone real-life testing. He deferred to OCS for
additional details about the safe-surrender box.
1:51:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Ms. Guay.
MS. GUAY replied that she has not personally seen a box, but
believes they are designed for infants who are not yet capable
of rolling over or moving around too much. She said she does not
have enough information to answer the question in full and
deferred to the bill sponsor's staff for more details about the
device.
1:52:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Ms. Woldstad, the bill
sponsor's staff.
1:52:10 PM
MS. WOLDSTAD replied that she has a copy of the patent. It has
been used across the U.S. in multiple states. She said the
packet of materials contains examples of other states where
these baby boxes are in use. She stated that age limits vary
among states and believes one state allows surrender up to
approximately two months of age. She explained that the bassinet
used in the device is similar to the standard size found in
medical facilities. At a facility using the box, a parent would
place the infant inside the compartment where the bassinet is
located. She said box designs differ and some models do not
contain a bassinet but instead use a foam-insulated pad that
allows an infant a small amount of mobility. She emphasized that
the child is not kept in the box for an extended period. She
cited a recent case in Tennessee in which emergency personnel
retrieved a surrendered infant within two minutes. She said
safety of the child is the priority, which is why SB 9 requires
safety features such as climate control, monitoring, and an
alarm system.
1:53:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced invited testimony on SB 9 and invited
State Senator Mike McKay of Maryland to identify himself for the
record and proceed with his testimony.
1:54:22 PM
MIKE MCKAY, State Senator, District 1, State of Maryland,
Annapolis, Maryland, gave invited testimony on SB 9. He stated
that Maryland has had safe-haven laws for a couple of years. The
original law allowed a responsible adult to surrender an
unharmed newborn up to ten-days-old. He said the legislature
recently expanded that age limit to sixty days and formally
enacted the safe-haven program. He said the safe-haven boxes are
monitored twenty-four hours a day and are equipped with an alert
system that activates automatically when the box is opened. He
explained that the alert notifies the 911 system and immediately
dispatches emergency medical services. If the box is located at
a hospital or a twenty-four-hour public safety facility staffed
by firefighters or emergency medical personnel, those responders
are notified to retrieve the infant within minutes. He stated
that the boxes are climate controlled to ensure infants are not
exposed to unsafe temperatures. He said one point of interest is
that the Maryland General Assembly is known to pass bills based
on compassion, not necessarily bills that are politically
motivated, and this was the case for the safe-haven policy. He
said the safe-haven legislation passed unanimously, one hundred
thirty-five to zero in the House and forty-five to zero in the
Senate. He said that since 2007 Maryland had seven cases in
which infants were not safely surrendered but instead were
abandoned in unsafe locations and did not survive.
1:58:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN thanked the state senator from Maryland for his
testimony.
1:59:04 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed concern about the potential risks
associated with an anonymous drop box, such as a child who is
not the appropriate size or age, or an infant who is able to
rollover from back to front and becomes caught in the bedding,
noting that two minutes may be all the infant has. He asked who
the bill sponsor envisions as responsible for establishing
standards for response times and minimum facility requirements.
He emphasized that the last outcome members want is a situation
in which, in an effort to save lives, a device is created that
results in the death of a child.
SENATOR MYERS replied that this was part of the reason the bill
identified police stations, fire stations, and medical
facilities as potential locations. He said the bill included
these entities because they already understand safety
considerations or, in the case of additional locations, would be
approved by the commissioner through regulation. He said these
are facilities that maintain oversight sufficient to ensure that
a surrender location has adequate emergency medical support and
acceptable response times. He noted that fire stations and
police stations have personnel on duty, and medical facilities
are typically open around the clock, such as hospitals and some
clinics. He reiterated that SB 9 does not mandate any facility
install a safe-surrender device. He said a facility may decline
if it determines it is not positioned to meet response-time
expectations. He noted that a community with slower response
times may not view itself as an appropriate location. He said
the bill attempts to strike a balance and expressed hope that
medical professionals would be aware of response-time
limitations if a facility is not open twenty-four hours a day.
2:02:28 PM
SENATOR TOBIN referred to page 4, lines 1315. She asked whether
this subsection sufficiently satisfies the requirements under
the Indian Child Welfare Act. She further asked how DFCS would
determine whether an abandoned infant is a tribal member and, if
so, to which tribe the child belongs.
MS. GUAY replied that there is not a specific test to determine
which tribe an infant belongs to or whether the child is Alaska
Native. She said that based on past infant surrenders, OCS is
able to find a parent or family member of the child. She
explained that OCS has policies that outline how to determine a
child's tribal affiliation and follows the same process for
safe-surrendered infants as it does for other children who enter
OCS custody. She provided the policy number OCS uses to identify
an infant's tribe.
2:04:11 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether that process satisfies the
requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act. She asked
whether the department's current procedures fully meet those
requirements, or whether complications could arise later due to
a surrender in which there is no ability to know who surrendered
the child.
MS. GUAY replied that she did not know of a situation in which
OCS was unable to find the parents of a surrendered child. She
said that sometimes it takes a couple of days, but OCS typically
learns who the child belongs to. She stated that OCS at times
struggles to identify the father and may need to conduct
paternity testing. She noted that in some cases the mother does
not know who the father is, resulting in an unknown father. She
said those situations would be the same whether the child was
safely surrendered or not, since OCS would still attempt to
gather information about the parents and then identify relatives
and tribes. She said she was not sure if this fully answered the
question, but that it was likely the closest explanation she
could provide.
2:05:35 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said the United Nations opposes these types of
boxes because they can perpetuate the perception that children
who are surrendered are fatherless, family-less, or without
identity, which she said is not the case. She stated that when a
child is surrendered, the child has an identity and a right to
that identity, which is what the UN articulates. She said every
child has a right to know who they are and where they are from.
She expressed understanding of the desire to keep an infant
alive, noting that a child cannot know who they are if they are
not alive. She said, however, that there are many layers to this
issue, and she has a lot of discomfort with this particular
approach.
2:06:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the packet of materials identifies that nine
infants have been surrendered since the safe-surrender law was
enacted. He asked whether, of those nine infants, the department
was unable to identify both parents.
SENATOR MYERS deferred to Ms. Guay.
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Ms. Guay.
MS. GUAY replied that she does not recall, stating that safe
surrenders are infrequent, and she does not have all that
information on those nine infants. She said, anecdotally, for
many of them, OCS was able to identify the mother and father.
Some of the infants returned back to the parents after OCS
assisted.
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that she was referring to the
infant, that OCS returned infants back to the parents.
MS. GUAY answered in the affirmative. She stated that some
infants were returned after OCS put services in place, while
others were adopted by family, friends, or through the foster
care system.
2:07:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether, in her experience, she recalled any
cases in which the department was unable to identify both
parents. He asked whether, even in situations where a parent
gave a child up for adoption and did not wish to be involved in
parenting, there had ever been an occasion when the department
could not identify both parents.
MS. GUAY replied that she only has anecdotal stories but does
not have hard data. There are times when OCS is not able to
identify fathers. She recalled horrific situations in which
teenagers had infants without their parents' knowledge, and the
infants died because the teenagers did not know what to do.
These situations are infrequent but have occurred in Alaska. She
stated that she does not have hard data on how many safe
surrenders involve an unidentified father. She said that as far
as mothers, she is fairly confident that in almost every case a
mother has been identified.
2:09:24 PM
SENATOR STEVENS requested information on how many infants passed
away from being abandoned and exposed.
MS. GUAY replied that she does not have hard numbers, but to the
best of her recollection, two infants in the last five years.
She said that is her best estimate.
2:10:05 PM
SENATOR MYERS replied that his office was aware of three cases
since 2013 in which an infant was abandoned and found outdoors.
In two of those cases, both in Anchorage, the infants passed
away before they were found. He said the third case occurred in
Fairbanks in 2022, and the infant was found alive, which he
considered remarkable because it was New Year's Eve, the
temperature was about zero degrees, and the wind chill was ten
below.
2:10:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN brought up the nine safe-surrender cases, stating
that OCS was not completely certain about those cases. He asked
how it is that the bill sponsor seems to have a better certainty
of them than OCS.
SENATOR MYERS replied that he received the information on the
nine cases from the department and that he simply requested the
numbers. He said his office had not asked whether OCS was able
to identify both parents in those cases. He said he could reach
out to the department about that.
CHAIR CLAMAN requested that he follow up with the department
because he is specifically interested in those nine safe
surrender cases. He said those appear to be part of the same
structure, and so to the extent that OCS always identifies the
parents, he believes that the notion of a true, anonymous, safe
surrender, does not, in reality, happen.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether it is fairly common for fathers to
remain unknown or is OCS fairly successful in finding their
identities.
2:12:32 PM
MS. GUAY replied that OCS often conducts paternity tests to
establish who the father is. She said that in a large majority
of cases, OCS is able to identify the father. She noted,
however, that there are some cases in which the father cannot be
identified. She said she did not know the percentage but
estimated that in approximately five to ten percent of cases,
OCS is unable to identify a father for a child in the family.
2:13:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether she could recall any cases where OCS
was unable to identify the mother.
MS. GUAY replied that she could not recall any case.
2:13:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced invited testimony on SB 9.
2:14:06 PM
At ease.
2:14:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMN reconvened the meeting and moved down the agenda to
public testimony.
2:15:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 9.
2:15:42 PM
PAMELA SAMASH, representing self, Nenana, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 9, stating that infant-saving devices exist in
several states across the country and that Alaska should have
them due to its extreme weather conditions. She said these life-
saving boxes provide a very scared or traumatized mother a warm
and safe place to surrender her child while respecting her
privacy. She said the boxes also contain information explaining
the mother's rights and encourage her to obtain medical care.
she stated, as a result, the mother and child are respected,
cared for, safe, and warm.
MS. SAMASH said SB 9 does not cost the state money and noted
that organizations and churches are prepared to help pay for the
boxes. She stated that when an infant passes away due to the
elements, many people suffer, but the infant suffers the most.
She said the mother will carry the pain for the rest of her
life, and first responders will never forget the moment they
took the call or responded to the scene. She urged the committee
to help prevent another tragedy by supporting SB 9 and
encouraging others to do the same.
MS. SAMASH said that when a baby is privately surrendered in an
infant-saving device and the person is unknown, an individual
who wants to surrender a child secretly faces two choices: a
frozen park bench or a warm baby box. She said the broader point
is that the infant is likely in danger and whatever is happening
at home is not safe. She said the infant needs a warm place
where responders will arrive quickly. She stated that SB 9 does
not change existing law but provides warmth instead of allowing
an infant to succumb to the elements. She emphasized that saving
the child's life is the highest priority and that OCS policies
apply afterward. She said that if a child freezes to death
first, then it is too late.
2:18:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SB 9.
2:18:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reopened invited testimony on SB 9.
2:18:58 PM
FRANCES ROBINSON, Dispatcher, Anchorage Fire Department,
Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, provided the
following invited testimony in support of SB 9:
I am a dispatcher for the Anchorage Fire Department. I
want to thank you for hearing this bill today and
thank you to Senator Myers for bringing this bill
forward. I appreciate being able to go on record in my
support for SB 9. In October 2013, I answered a 911
call for a baby that had been abandoned in a public
park and found deceased by a gentleman walking his
dog. He had heard the baby crying the night before but
had been unable to locate the baby until the following
morning. I want to believe that the mother wanted her
baby to be found since she left the baby in a public
park. SB 9 allows for the expansion of the current
safe-haven law and would have provided an anonymous
option for this mother to safely surrender her baby in
an infant safety device. Despite the current safe-
haven law, Anchorage has had two abandoned infant
deaths. The one I experienced in October 2013, and
another in November 2024, just one block from our
downtown fire station, where they could have safely
surrendered the infant. There have been two abandoned
infants found in cardboard boxes in Anchorage in 1986
and, in Fairbanks, in inclement weather in December of
2021. These illegal abandonments show us that mothers
are seeking to keep their identity secret.
SB 9 does not change the current safe-haven law but
allows for the safe surrender of an infant 21 days or
less in an infant safety device without fear of being
recognized, the stigma associated with the surrender,
or the fear of prosecution due to lack of knowledge
and misunderstanding of the safe-haven law. It is the
only option of safe surrender that offers anonymity.
Confidentiality is not anonymity.
The devices are for approved sites and are secure
medical bassinets that are monitored and have a
temperature-controlled environment to address the
concern about blankets. The ones that I've seen are
just a fitted sheet; again, they are temperature-
controlled. Each box has a resource bag for the
surrendering parent that can be catered to each city.
They can include medical information, legal rights,
and the National Human Trafficking Hotline. They are
voluntary and do not require funding by the local,
state, or federal government. The states that have
these infant safety devices have had a reduction in
illegal abandonment. Ultimately, our goal is to save
the lives of infants. I believe we can achieve that
with the passage of SB 9, expanding the current safety
of the law that would allow for safe surrender in an
infant safety device. This concludes my testimony, and
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
2:21:38 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked what the criminal penalty is for a person
who abandons a child who dies.
SENATOR MYERS replied that he does not recollect off the top of
his head; however, there is an abandonment law in statute. He
deferred to OCS.
2:22:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the criminal law question to OCS and asked
her to cite the abandonment statute if she knows it.
MS. GUAY replied that she does not have that information readily
available.
SENATOR MYERS said the statute is AS 11.81.500.
2:22:55 PM
At ease.
2:23:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reconvened the meeting. He said AS 11.81.500 is a
statute that prohibits prosecution for safe surrender; it does
not identify the criminal section. He asked the bill sponsor to
work on collecting that information before the next hearing.
2:24:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 9 in committee.