Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
01/25/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB10 | |
| HB101 || HB148 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 10 | ||
SB 10-PARENTAL LIABILITY FOR CHILD'S DAMAGE
8:37:18 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 10 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, bill sponsor, introduced SB 10 and
explained that it was clearly complicated. She offered to give
an overview of the sections and then open it up for questions.
Increasingly juveniles are vandalizing and community members are
seeking ways to control and stop the vandalizing. Historically
communities have dealt with the civil part of the issue and the
amount that the parent is liable for. There are three different
processes a juvenile can go through. There is an informal
process with juvenile justice, a criminal process, and a civil
process. They all deal with the child and the parent differently
when it comes to restitution. SB 10 is an attempt to insert a
consistent system into law and to start holding children
accountable for their actions. SB 10 proposes to hold a juvenile
liable for the first $5,000 worth of damage. The parents would
be responsible for the next $15,000, and that comes out of
current law. The idea behind the bill is for parents and
children to create a payment plan and for the payment plan to go
past the age of 18. If the victim were not interested in getting
full restitution that would be their choice.
8:41:28 AM
SENATOR GUESS continued by saying she tried to create a balance
of many issues, such as restitution versus accountability,
affordability of the family, and the length of time it would
take to make restitution.
8:43:58 AM
At the request of other members of the Legislature, Senator
Guess offered that a portion of the permanent fund dividend
(PFD) could be taken to help pay for restitution and/or the
driver's license of the youth could be taken away or the
issuance postponed.
8:45:34 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator Guess whether SB 10 would make the
State of Alaska responsible for restitution in the case where
the child is a ward of the state.
SENATOR GUESS said no. That language is in current law and was
Senator Fred Dyson's intent of four years ago.
CHAIR SEEKINS felt the state should assume liability if they
assumed responsibility.
SENATOR GUESS advised she would double check and get back to the
committee. "The difficulty is that if the child doesn't have
parents or if they have parents that are exempt from liability,
that $15,000 can't be recovered any other way because of equal
protection."
8:48:46 AM
Senator Gene Therriault joined the committee.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH said the criminal justice system's power
over a minor ends about a year after they turn 18. He asked how
the bill would keep the power of the court on the minor after
emancipation.
SENATOR GUESS offered to find out and get back to the committee.
8:51:03 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said when a court orders restitution; it shows up
on that person's credit report. He asked whether the same would
occur.
SENATOR GUESS said it was the intent of bill that it would once
the person turns 18. It would follow the same as any debt, and
it would for the parent as well.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS referred to page 8 lines 7 and 8 and
noted "The schedule must provide for payments adequate to
fulfill the total restitution amount before the minor reaches 18
years if age." He wondered the outcome when this doesn't happen.
SENATOR GUESS clarified that was for the informal action. If it
couldn't be satisfied by age 18 it would have to go to either a
criminal or civil action.
8:54:09 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the reason for not commanding the court to
order full restitution and to allow the court to apportion
between the juvenile and the parents as the court sees fit
according to the facts of the case.
SENATOR GUESS said the extremes are the easy cases. She made the
policy call to putting a structure to the restitution instead of
having the courts decide things such as negligence of a parent.
She said most cases are not black and white. She said there
could be inequities when depending on the courts to decide.
8:57:20 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said the bill would strike a balance and should
prod parents to control the activities of their children.
8:59:19 AM
SENATOR GUESS asserted many people have strong opinions about
the bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked for public testimony on SB 10.
8:59:57 AM
MR. TONY NEWMAN, program officer, Division of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ) expressed concern related to the sections devoted to the
changes in the apportioning of restitution between parents and
juveniles as well as the revocation of driver's licenses. He
said placing restitution solely on youth might decrease the
likelihood that restitution would get paid. SB 10 could saddle
youth with a debt they could never repay. Another concern is
that revoking a driver's license would be issuing a penalty that
was not associated with the crime. There is no evidence that
juveniles would be less likely to commit a crime knowing their
driver's license would be revoked.
9:02:12 AM
The DJJ has invested heavily in looking at factors that are
linked to delinquent behavior and have adopted a new assessment
tool that will help target resources and responses to crime for
youths with the highest likelihood of re-offense. SB 10 has an
exemption for taking away the driver's license for those who
need transportation to work. He suggested juveniles need their
license to get to appointments with probation officers, and
family counseling, among other things.
9:03:34 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the level of conviction required to pull a
driver's license.
MR. NEWMAN said in SB 10 it must be pulled for a formal or
informal case.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator Guess whether it would be a
discretionary or mandatory action on the part of the courts.
SENATOR GUESS said as written now, it would be mandatory.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Newman to describe the steps required
to go through both an informal and formal adjudication.
MR. NEWMAN explained when a youth breaks the law, the police
forward a report to a juvenile justice intake officer who looks
at the facts of the crime and makes a determination whether or
not to forward the case to a court or to handle the case
informally, which means calling the parent for a discussion. The
latter is done generally when the damage is relatively low in
value. Many cases the family will pay to avoid an appearance in
court. In fiscal year 2005 the DJJ gathered 97 percent of
restitutions ordered informally before case closure. When the
damage gets into the thousand-dollar range it is most likely to
go to the formal level.
9:06:18 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the court procedures during a formal
adjudication.
MR. NEWMAN explained the intake officer petitions the court and
the court brings the juvenile in and the court orders
restitution. The DJJ has an arrangement with the Department of
Law (DOL), which has a collections unit that is responsible for
seeing that all restitutions ordered through the formal court
process are paid.
9:07:27 AM
SENATOR FRENCH noted a juvenile would be given an attorney prior
to formal court adjudication and would have the opportunity to
contest the charges.
MR. NEWMAN agreed. He said the process is different than adult
court in that youth are not convicted of specific charges. They
are either adjudicated delinquent or not, based on many factors
over and above the specific crime.
SENATOR FRENCH asked the legal trigger for pulling the driver's
license.
SENATOR GUESS corrected the record saying that is only in the
formal adjudicated process in the bill.
9:10:43 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 10 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|