Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
02/23/2005 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB109 | |
| SB83 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 84 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 83-TERM. PARENTAL RTS/CINA/DELINQUENCY CASES
9:31:06 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 83 to be up for consideration.
9:33:20 AM
MS. STACIE KRALY, senior assistant attorney general, Department
Of Law (DOL), introduced the bill, which would amend AS
25.23.180 to permit parents to relinquish their parental rights
while retaining certain privileges such as ongoing communication
or visitation with the child. The proposal also adds language to
AS 43.23.005 to allow children who are placed temporarily by the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) outside of the
state to maintain eligibility for permanent fund dividends
(PFDs). SB 83 also adds language to AS 47.10.020, which
clarifies the court may issue any orders necessary to aid the
DHSS in its investigation of an allegation of child abuse or
neglect.
9:36:31 AM
SB 83 amends the definition of the term "mental health
professional" in AS 47.30.915. The DOL offered an amendment to
sections 5 and 9 of the bill, which would effectively amend AS
47.10.080(L) and would directly affect child in need of aide
(CINA) rule 17.2. The amendment would require the court to rule
on whether DHSS has made reasonable efforts toward permanency of
the child.
A M E N D M E N T 1
Page 1, line 4, following "delinquency proceedings;":
Insert "relating to findings in permanency hearings in
child in need of aid proceedings; amending Rule 17.2, Alaska
Child in Need of Aid Rules;"
Page 3, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 47.10.080(l) is amended to read:
(l) Within 12 months after the date a child enters
foster care as calculated under AS 47.10.088(f), the court
shall hold a permanency hearing. The hearing and permanent
plan developed in the hearing are governed by the following
provisions:
(1) the persons entitled to be heard under
AS 47.10.070 or under (f) of this section are also entitled
to be heard at the hearing held under this section;
(2) when establishing the permanent plan for the
child, the court shall make appropriate written findings,
including findings related to whether
(A) and when the child should be returned
to the parent or guardian;
(B) the child should be placed for adoption
or legal guardianship and whether a petition for
termination of parental rights should be filed by the
department; and
(C) the child should be placed in another
planned, permanent living arrangement and what steps
are necessary to achieve the new arrangement;
(3) if the court is unable to make a finding
required under (2) of this subsection, the court shall hold
another hearing within a reasonable period of time;
(4) in addition to the findings required by (2)
of this subsection, the court shall also make appropriate
written findings related to
(A) whether the department has made the
reasonable efforts required under AS 47.10.086 to
offer appropriate family support services to remedy
the parent's or guardian's conduct or conditions in
the home that made the child a child in need of aid
under this chapter;
(B) whether the parent or guardian has made
substantial progress to remedy the parent's or
guardian's conduct or conditions in the home that made
the child a child in need of aid under this chapter;
[AND]
(C) if the permanent plan is for the child
to remain in out-of-home care, whether the child's
out-of-home placement continues to be appropriate and
in the best interests of the child; and
(D) whether the department has made
reasonable efforts to finalize the permanent plan for
the child;
(5) the court shall hold a hearing to review
the permanent plan at least annually until successful
implementation of the plan; if the plan approved by the
court changes after the hearing, the department shall
promptly apply to the court for another permanency hearing,
and the court shall conduct the hearing within 30 days
after application by the department."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, following line 28:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
DIRECT COURT RULE AMENDMENT. Rule 17.2(f), Alaska
Child in Need of Aid Rules, is amended to read:
(f) Additional Findings. In addition to the findings
required under paragraph (e), the court shall also make
written findings related to
(1) whether the Department has made reasonable
efforts required under AS 47.10.086 or, in the case of an
Indian child, whether the Department has made active
efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative
programs as required by 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1912(d);
(2) whether the parent or guardian has made
substantial progress to remedy the parent's or guardian's
conduct or conditions in the home that made the child a
child in need of aid; [AND]
(3) if the permanent plan is for the child to
remain in out-of-home care, whether the child's out-of-home
placement continues to be appropriate and in the best
interests of the child; and
(4) whether the Department has made reasonable
efforts to finalize the permanent plan for the child.
* Sec. 10. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. Section 5 of this Act takes effect
only if sec. 9 of this Act receives the two-thirds majority vote
of each house required by art. IV, sec. 15, Constitution of the
State of Alaska."
Renumber the remaining bill section accordingly.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked whether the bill related to criminal
incarceration.
9:39:12 AM
MS. KRALY responded there are two provisions within SB 83 that
address children in state custody. They deal with the PFD
dividend and allow the child to remain eligible for the
dividend. The bill does not relate to criminal incarceration.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Kraly to describe the PFD restitution
process.
MS. KRALY informed the state applies for the PFD for the child
in custody and the dividend goes into a trust account. When the
child is released, the PFD goes to their legal guardian,
adoptive parents, or to them if they have aged out. The DOL may
request permission to use the PFD to repay restitution for a
criminal infraction.
9:42:18 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the Alaska Supreme Court decision that
brought about the first part of SB 83 [allowing parents to
retain communication with the child.]
MS. KRALY responded it was Keith MW79P3rd 6/23/2003.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what happened.
MS. KRALY said the general premise was there was no mechanism
within the current statutory frame for a relinquishment to
contain any residual privileges or rights to a parent
relinquishing.
SENATOR FRENCH noted the relinquishment is voluntary and a
termination is caused through action by the department. He asked
whether they were two different processes.
MS. KRALY said historically the DOL and the Office of Children's
Services (OCS) have looked at them as two different processes.
There are instances where it makes sense to allow for parental
contact, such as when another family member adopts the child.
9:45:47 AM
The relinquishment with the conditions is an effort to allow a
parent to make a difficult decision easier and still allow for
some contact.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the foster parents could choose to
allow the contact and could they also discontinue the contact.
9:47:47 AM
MS. KRALY said the foster parent always has the ability to make
those kinds of decisions.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Kraly whether SB 83 is part of a
larger strategy to modify how the DOL and OCS operate.
MS. KRALY advised SB 83 is a technical amendment to the current
statute. Over the course of hundreds of court cases, the DOL has
discovered some hitches that need fixed in order to successfully
litigate some cases. The bill would help the DOL more than the
OCS as a tool to manage caseloads.
9:50:37 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS noted he would ask the drafters to consider the
amendment for the next time the committee looks at SB 83.
SENATOR HUGGINS moved Amendment 1 be adopted for staff rewrite
for consideration.
SENATOR FRENCH objected for the purpose of discussion. He asked
Ms. Kraly to summarize the amendment.
MS. KRALY said currently the court is required to make certain
findings in CINA hearings. An omission that the federal
government requires for foster care funding was discovered.
Under state and federal law after 12 months of a child taken
into custody, it is required there be a new hearing to discuss a
permanency plan. The government requires that the court make a
special judicial finding that the DOL has made reasonable
efforts to finalize the permanency plan for the child. Judges
are uncomfortable to make those findings. The amendment proposes
to make it a required finding so the department can continue to
receive foster care funding under Title 40.
SENATOR FRENCH assumed the department wouldn't get the funding
if the finding didn't occur.
MS. KRALY said correct.
9:53:58 AM
MS. MARCIE KENNAI, deputy commissioner, Office of Children's
Services, said what the finding is is irrelevant; they just need
a finding to continue to receive the federal funding. It is a
check and balance.
9:55:15 AM
SENATOR FRENCH removed his objection.
MS. MARCY SCHMIDT testified in favor of SB 83.
9:57:16 AM
MR. SCOTT CALDER testified in favor of the proposed amendment to
SB 83. He expressed concern with the word "privilege" in Section
1. He is not in favor of Section 4. It would be appropriate for
the court to authorize the department to conduct an
investigation to the extent of search and seizure of a child.
Section 5, line 10 should say "diligent search" instead of
"reasonable search."
9:59:56 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Calder to explain his reference to the
US Constitution Fourth Amendment.
MR. CALDER explained the department could say that in conducting
an investigation they may want to conduct an action to or upon a
person. That should be a point where the court should authorize
the action.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Calder whether his concern is the extent
of the investigation.
MR. CALDER said yes, if the investigation amounts to more than
just a phone call. Search and seizure requires greater scrutiny
and should be required through judicial oversight.
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 83 in committee and adjourned the meeting
at 10:05:41 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|