Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
02/27/2025 03:30 PM Senate HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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 | |
| SB89 | |
| SB88 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 88-CHILD PLACEMENT; DILIGENT SEARCH
4:08:21 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 88 "An Act relating to
placement of a child in need of aid; relating to adoption;
relating to variances for foster care licenses; relating to the
medical records of children in foster care; and providing for an
effective date."
4:08:43 PM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, District D, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 88, provided the following
introduction of the bill:
I appreciate you hearing this bill today. It's an
unfortunate, heartbreaking truth that sometimes a
child must be removed from the care of their parents.
It is then incumbent on the state of Alaska to ensure
that these kids receive the best care possible while
they are in the state's custody. This includes
amending Alaska laws necessary to ensure the
Department of Family and Youth Services and the Alaska
court system have guidelines that will allow for the
best possible outcomes for that child.
Studies show that every time a child is moved from one
placement to another, there is an impact on that
child. Kids in the foster care system, on average,
show greater issues of behavior, mental health, and
cognitive abilities than their peers. However, there
can be a direct correlation drawn between the number
of placements a child experiences and the impact that
it has on them. I have invited subject matter experts
that are online to speak about these concerns.
SB 88 seeks to minimize the number of placements a
child may experience in two ways. First, the bill
would place a 30-day timeline and more specific
requirements on the Office of Children's Services for
finding family members and family friends who are able
and willing to take care of a child earlier in the
process, to help minimize the number of placements
that a child may experience, and also help maintain
connections with family and their community. I have
heard stories of relatives that were unaware for
months or even years that a child was in foster care.
Ensuring that more thorough and timely searches are
conducted will help create better outcomes for kids.
Second, this bill provides more latitude to apply the
placement preferences placed on OCS in the court
system. SB 88 will allow the state to consider placing
a child with a foster family instead of a family
member if the child is under six years old and has
been with the family for more than 12 months and it is
determined to be in the best interest of the child for
them to remain there.
Twenty years ago, the Alaska Legislature enacted
policies giving family members ultimate preference
when placing a childpolicies I support through the
provisions that will strengthen family searches.
However, children under six are going through their
most significant phases of brain development, and
placement changes can have a much larger impact than
for older children. It is difficult to craft laws that
will perfectly apply to situations that are guaranteed
to vary widely from one child to the next. This change
in statute wouldn't mandate where a child is placed.
SB 88 provides moral latitude for making the decision
that is in the best interest of the child. Also, by
encouraging timely and diligent family searches, the
number of these difficult situations that occur can be
minimized or avoided entirely.
It's important to note that the statutory change about
placement will not apply to kids that fall under the
federal Indian Child Welfare Act. Placement decisions
will still be made under those federal guidelines.
4:11:53 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN continued his introduction of SB 88:
In addition, the bill clarifies that foster families
have the right to request a hearing about placement of
a child they have been caring for, in order to ensure
they, as the people most knowledgeable about the child
in their care, have a seat at the table when decisions
are made. They would not be parties to the case and
would not be eligible to have legal representation
under this provision.
It is also important to acknowledge the hard work of
the Office of Children's Services and the heavy
headwinds that they face every day. I am looking
forward to the outcome of the salary survey promised
by the administration, and I hope that we will be able
to find a way to help the division recruit and retain
enough people to keep up with their heavy and
challenging workload. That said, I believe that this
bill directly addresses issues that would be at play
regardless of the circumstances at OCS, and that we
need to act now to improve outcomes for Alaska's
children in foster care.
4:13:25 PM
LAURA ACHEE, Staff, Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, paraphrased the sectional analysis
for SB 88:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Senate Bill 88 Child Placement; Diligent Search
Version A Sectional Analysis
February 14, 2025
Section 1: Adds language to AS 47.10.080(s) to clarify
that foster parents may request a hearing regarding
the Department of Family and Community Services'
decision to transfer a child out of the foster home.
Clarifies that while foster parents may request
hearings regarding placement under AS 47.10.080(s),
they are not parties to child in need of aid cases.
Adds language to allow a foster parent to schedule at
their own cost medical or psychological evaluations
for a child for the purpose of providing evidence
during a hearing regarding a proposed transfer.
Section 2: Amends AS 47.10.084(d) to allow foster
parents to request and receive the medical records of
a child under their care.
Section 3: Amends AS 47.10.088(i) to allow for
determination of the best interest of the child when
making decisions regarding permanent placement of a
child. This section also adds language regarding
determination of best interest, including whether a
child is under six years old and has been in the care
of the foster family for at least 12 consecutive
months. Adds direction to follow the new process in AS
47.10.145 when OCS is searching for family when
determining permanent placement of a child.
Section 4: Adds language to AS 47.10.142(i) that
conforms to the changes in Section 4.
Section 5: Adds a new section, AS 47.10.145, that
requires the Department search for adult family
members and family friends suitable for placement of a
child within 30 days of the State removing the child
from the home, describes what constitutes a diligent
statutorily required search, and requires ongoing
searches until excused to do so by the court or the
child is in a permanent placement.
Section 6: Adds language to AS 47.14.100(e) allowing
for consideration of placement with a foster family
when an adult family member has also expressed
interest for children who are under six years old and
have been in the care of that foster family for at
least 12 consecutive months if it is in the best
interest of the child. Also amends language to conform
to the change in Section 4.
Section 7: Amends AS 47.14.100(m) to add that
consideration of the best interest of a child may not
include consideration of poverty of the family member
who has requested placement or inadequate or crowded
housing. Adds language that non-parties requesting
hearings under this and other sections of this statute
are not eligible for publicly appointed legal counsel.
Section 8: Adds a new subsections that would require
the Department to assist adult family member's and
family friend's waivers to licensing requirements
under AS 47.32.032 and defines "department" as the
Department of Family and Community Services.
Section 9: Provides for a January 1, 2026 effective
date.
4:19:33 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked the sponsor of SB 88 if the legislation had
changed from a similar proposal introduced last year.
SENATOR BJORKMAN replied there were changes.
MS. ACHEE stated that two main changes had been made to SB 88
since last year. She explained that Section 1, now allows foster
parents to schedule appointments for mental or physical
evaluations. She added that Section 2 permits foster parents to
access the medical records of a child in their care.
4:20:20 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said she was unclear about the language in SB 88,
Section 5 and requested clarification. She noted that Section 5
(d) allows placement with a family friend but expressed concern
that earlier parts of the section do not clearly identify
fictive kin such as a godparent, close family friend, or
community member like a Girl Scout leader. She emphasized the
importance of ensuring this category is explicitly included. She
indicated she might be overlooking how the search and placement
process is defined within the section.
4:21:03 PM
MS. ACHEE responded that she understood the question as a
request to confirm whether the new section ensures that fictive
kin or adult family friends are included in all search and
placement considerations. She pointed to Section 5 (a), line 14,
which references "family member or family friend of the child
suitable for placement" as evidence of their inclusion. She
offered to review the language further if that did not fully
address the concern.
SENATOR TOBIN said she would like to follow up later to ensure
clarity that fictive kin placement is allowed.
MS. ACHEE stated her belief that current law already allows for
the inclusion of fictive kin. SB 88 does not change that
provision. She said SB 88 refers to fictive kin as adult family
friends. She emphasized that SB 88 carefully includes adult
family friends in the search requirements. She added that
conforming changes were made throughout the bill to ensure
consistent terminology.
4:22:12 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked a follow-up question regarding the
definition of "adult family member." She sought clarification on
whether this includes relatives such as a great-uncle or great-
aunt. She also questioned how "immediate family" is defined and
whether it extends to second- or third-degree relatives. She
asked where this definition is provided or if it remains
undefined.
MS. ACHEE said she would get back to the committee with an
answer.
4:22:46 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that she had not participated in a
previous hearing on the bill and framed her comments as an
educational question. She referenced language in SB 88, page 3,
line 15, concerning the department's obligation to consider a
child's physical and psychological well-being in determining
best interest. She noted the weight of that responsibility and
questioned how disagreements between the department and foster
parents are handled. She asked whether there is an appeals
process, what role psychological evaluations play, and how the
department makes such life-impacting decisions.
4:23:54 PM
MS. ACHEE responded that some of the questions regarding
placement decisions are best directed to the Office of
Children's Services (OCS). She noted that there are
opportunities at times for foster families, adult family
members, or parents to appeal decisions. She acknowledged she
was not fully familiar with the timelines or procedures involved
in those appeals. She added that a foster parent would be
included in invited testimony and anticipated that some might
also speak during public testimony, offering further opportunity
to explore their experiences.
4:24:41 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN explained that this portion of SB 88 gives
judges flexibility to consider a foster family's home as a
viable placement when making decisions about a child's
placement. He stated that under current law, if a relative comes
forward, even years after a child has been placed in a foster
home, the judge must prioritize the relative, regardless of the
time elapsed or the child's bond with the foster family. He
emphasized that SB 88 does not require judges to decide one way
or another but simply allows them to consider the child's
existing placement and emotional stability.
4:26:12 PM
SENATOR HUGHES referred to language in SB 88, page 3, regarding
the department determining the best interest of a child under
six. She sought confirmation that it is accurate to say that the
foster family could appeal to the court if the department
decided to move a three-year-old child to a newly identified
family member. She sought confirmation that the court would then
be able to consider the child's current placement and
potentially reverse the department's decision, confirming that,
under current law, the court does not have that authority.
SENATOR BJORKMAN replied that is his understanding.
4:27:37 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR expressed appreciation to Senator Bjorkman and his
staff for addressing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and
clarifying that SB 88 does not impact ICWA-related concerns. He
noted the timing of SB 88 coincides with another adoption-
related bill from Senator Myers, which has prompted outreach
from groups opposed to that approach. He stated that similar
concerns may apply to SB 88, especially in Section 3 and, to
some extent, Section 6, where language removes the presumption
favoring placement with an adult family member unless there is
good cause. He said some groups argue that removing children
from their cultural background can be harmful both to the child
and the broader community. He referenced the underlying
rationale for ICWA and asked whether cultural identity and
connection are considered when determining the best interest of
the child, particularly in cases where placement with a
culturally connected adult family member is at issue.
4:29:50 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Juneau,
Alaska, answered questions on SB 88. She explained that a
statute exists outlining how to determine the best interest of
the child, found in the Family Law Section, AS 25, which also
governs child custody. She summarized that courts consider
multiple factors, including the child's physical, emotional,
mental, religious, and social needs; the capability and desire
of the individuals seeking custody to meet those needs; the
child's preference if they are of sufficient age and capacity;
the length of time the child has lived in a stable environment;
and the willingness to support relationships with parents.
MS. MEADE stated that while these standards are applied in
custody cases, they also apply to child-in-need-of-aid cases. In
response to the Chair's question, she confirmed that courts
always consider the best interest of the child. She noted that
SB 88 primarily modifies the order of placement preference,
found on page 6, line 6 of the bill. Current law prioritizes
adult family members first, then family friends, followed by
foster homes. She explained that an "adult family member" is
defined under AS 47.10.990 as someone over 18 who is related to
the childsuch as a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, or legal
guardianand that for Indian children, the definition extends
further under ICWA.
4:32:46 PM
MS. MEADE stated that SB 88 allows, in cases involving children
under age six who have lived in a stable foster home for at
least 12 months, the foster family to be considered on equal
footing with adult family members in the placement preference.
She emphasized that this change introduces flexibility for the
court to apply a best interest analysis in situations where a
previously unknown or unavailable family member surfaces later
in the case, and that the change may also affect adoption
decisions, since other statutes refer to this placement order.
4:33:54 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR asked the same question to the Office of Children's
Services.
4:34:35 PM
KIM GUAY, Director, Central Office, Office of Childrens
Services, Anchorage, Alaska, she answered questions on SB 88.
She stated that OCS operates under the Fostering Connections
Act, which includes provisions from the Multiethnic Placement
Act (MEPA). She explained that MEPA prohibits using race, color,
or national origin to discriminate in placement or permanency
decisions. She noted that this may address the question about
considering cultural background,
4:35:10 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR said he understood the federal limitations under
MEPA in the context of a system that prioritizes placement with
an adult family member. He asked whether the federal framework,
which restricts consideration of cultural background in
placement decisions, operates under the assumption that adult
family members are already given first preference, thereby
addressing cultural concerns through that prioritization.
4:35:35 PM
MS. GUAY confirmed that under current statute, an adult family
member is considered a first preference placement. She stated
that OCS prioritizes locating and considering adult family
members when identifying placement options.
4:36:02 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether adding foster families as a
consideration for children under six would affect or conflict
with the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA).
4:36:28 PM
MS. GUAY stated her belief that it would not.
4:36:50 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether, in the case of an Indian child,
the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) takes precedence over state
statute, meaning ICWA guidelines would govern the case.
4:37:13 PM
MS. MEADE stated her understanding that the Indian Child Welfare
Act (ICWA) takes precedence over state statutes in child-in-
need-of-aid cases involving Indian children. She clarified that
she did not want to speak out of turn and suggested that the
Office of Children's Services (OCS) could provide a more
detailed and informed response.
4:37:36 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN requested a response to the question from OCS.
4:38:00 PM
MS. GUAY stated that when OCS is working with a child covered
under ICWA, federal law takes precedence over state law. She
noted that many state statutes are aligned with ICWA
requirements.
4:38:31 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether, in cases involving a child covered
by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the federal law alone
governs decision-making. He questioned if there is any need to
consult current or amended state statutes, given that ICWA would
apply fully and guide all determinations, regardless of state
law alignment.
4:39:06 PM
MS. GUAY responded that the situation is more complex than
simply following federal law alone. She explained that while OCS
is committed to following the law, the best interest
consideration, such as those described by Ms. Mead, also play a
role. She emphasized that child welfare cases involve many
nuances and are not handled solely by OCS. Instead, they include
input from guardians ad litem, public defenders, attorneys,
assistant attorneys general, and ultimately a judge, making it a
collaborative legal process centered on the child's well-being.
4:39:54 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR recalled that the best interest test used by the
court system includes physical, emotional, social, and religious
considerations. He asked whether that test takes into account
the child's ethnic and cultural background, includingbut not
limited toAlaska Native cultures. He noted that, based on the
OCS director's earlier comments, federal law may prohibit
considering those factors and questioned how state and federal
law interact on this issue. He further asked whether "social and
religious needs" are interpreted narrowly, focusing only on the
child's immediate circumstances, or if they also include the
broader cultural group the child comes from.
4:41:08 PM
MS. MEADE responded that the best interest determination is not
a checklist-style test but rather an ongoing discussion among
all parties involved in the case. She explained that, for
example, if someone argues that a child's social needs would be
better met in a particular placement, various subjective and
objective factors would be presented to support that view. She
clarified that it would not be as simple as stating a child must
be placed with a family of the same ethnic background, such as
requiring a child raised in a Hmong household to be placed with
a Hmong foster family. Instead, the process involves broader
discussion and judicial discretion, with cultural background
potentially considered indirectly or contextually. She
acknowledged the complexity and said she could not offer a more
precise answer.
4:42:28 PM
MS. MEADE requested to offer a brief clarification regarding an
earlier question about the best interest finding in SB 88,
Section 3. She explained that while the department (OCS) makes
initial placement decisions, as outlined in Section 1, the court
has the final authority if an objection is raised. She
emphasized that this dynamic, common throughout child-in-need-
of-aid cases, reflects a shared and collaborative decision-
making process between the department and the court.
4:43:16 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced invited testimony on SB 88.
4:43:34 PM
BRADLEY GALBRAITH, Policy Director, The Center for the Rights of
Abused Children, Phoenix, Arizona, testified by invitation on SB
88. He stated that children entering foster care have already
endured significant trauma and that the most effective way to
reduce further harm is by quickly placing them in stable, loving
homes, ideally with relatives who can offer familiarity and
continuity. He shared an example from a pro bono law clinic in
Arizona, where a relative expressed interest early in a case but
was ignored, and the child was placed with a foster family.
Years later, on the verge of terminating parental rights, the
state sought to move the child to that relative, despite the
child having developed a strong bond with the foster family. He
described the judge's frustration over the department's delayed
and inadequate response.
4:45:26 PM
MR. GALBRAITH argued that while federal and Alaska law require
relative searches, they lack clarity and accountability. He
explained that this can lead to unnecessary moves, emotional
harm, and prolonged foster care. He said SB 88 introduces
essential reforms by requiring timely and thorough searches,
providing relatives with clear information about their
caregiving options, and enabling courts to review search
efforts. He concluded that SB 88 prioritizes the child's
emotional stability by allowing long-term foster families of
young children to be treated like relatives, helping ensure
permanent and loving placements when relatives are not
identified early in the process.
4:47:04 PM
MALAIKA TESSON, Foster Parent, Anchorage, Alaska, testified by
invitation on SB 88. She testified that she and her husband have
been lifelong Alaskans and licensed foster parents for five
years, with a deep commitment to creating positive change in
their community. She shared the recent experience of having to
surrender two long-term foster children, siblings aged eight and
four, to the Office of Children's Services (OCS), despite having
cared for them for four years. The children had formed deep
bonds with their foster family and had only recently met the 70-
year-old great grandmother they were placed with. She emphasized
that this was not an Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) case.
MS. TESSON stated that SB 88 would have allowed them to request
a placement review hearing and provide testimony from medical
providers and others familiar with the children's extensive
physical, cognitive, and emotional needs. She described the
grievance process currently available as inadequate, often
involving biased internal review and long timelines that are
unworkable in urgent situations. She argued that SB 88 would
empower foster families to bring relevant information to the
court and ensure decisions are made based on a comprehensive
understanding of the child's best interest.
4:51:12 PM
MS. TESSON detailed the children's significant medical and
developmental challenges and stressed that disrupting their
established home environment caused severe trauma. She explained
that the relative placement had originally expressed interest
but withdrew due to health concerns, only reappearing years
later. She concluded by urging the passage of SB 88 to prevent
future harm to vulnerable children, stating that while it is too
late for the children that were in her care, the bill is
essential to protect others.
4:54:39 PM
KRISTEN A. MOORE, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, testified
by invitation on SB 88. She stated she is a nurse and oversight
case manager for adults and youth on Medicaid waivers. She
emphasized that children in foster care experience frequent
movesaveraging eight or more placements which causes emotional
distress and instability. She stated kinship placement is ideal
because it preserves connections to family, school, community,
and cultural identity, which promotes normalcy and healing. She
urged the department to conduct timely and diligent searches for
family members to avoid delayed placements that cause further
trauma. She added that while foster families develop an
understanding of the child's needs over time, uninvolved
relatives may lack awareness of the child's medical and
emotional history, making abrupt placement changes potentially
harmful.
4:57:11 PM
MS. MOORE stated that access to medical records is critical,
especially since one-third of children in foster care have
chronic health conditions and up to 80 percent have significant
mental health needs. She described how lack of consistent
healthcare due to placement changes can cause delays in care and
worsen medical outcomes. She referenced Utah's system, where
child welfare staff gather medical history early and share it
with foster parents to coordinate care. She supported SB 88,
stating it helps ensure timely kinship searches and better
access to medical information to support the child's well-being.
CHAIR DUNBAR thanked the individuals invited to testify on SB
88.
4:59:07 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR held SB 88 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 88 Support Document The Effect of Placement Instability 2007.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Support Document Placement Narratives.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Support Document Months to Permanent Placement With Kinship.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Sponsor Statement Version A.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Fiscal Note FCS FLSW 2.21.25.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Version A.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Fiscal Note JUD ACS 2.24.25.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB88 Support Letters as of 02262025.pdf |
SHSS 2/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |