Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
01/25/2016 01:30 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 | |
| SB112 | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 112-ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
1:32:17 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN announced the consideration of SB 112.
1:32:49 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), presented
information on SB 112. She called SB 112 "simple and
straightforward" and said it would have meaningful positive
impacts for Alaska Native children and families.
She related that at the end of the last legislative session,
Governor Walker introduced SB 112 and subsequently approved
emergency regulations that mirror it. She said that SB 112 seeks
to remove barriers to adoption of Alaska Native children by
Alaska Native families by ensuring that those families have a
less cumbersome way of adoption and the highest preference
placement, when available. She reported that Congress enacted
the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978 due to the alarming
numbers of Indian children being removed from their homes by
state and private child welfare agencies and being placed in
non-Indian foster and adoptive homes.
MS. LAWTON explained that SB 112 and its companion bill, HB 200,
were introduced by the Governor's office in April 2015 in
response to several legal decisions related to the ICWA. Two
competing cases were working their way through the courts. One
was the U.S. Supreme Court case filed out of South Carolina -
"Baby Veronica." This case related to the adoption of American
Indian children by a non-Indian family. The second case,
Tununak, was working its way through the Alaska courts, in which
challenges were raised related to OCS's compliance with ICWA's
adoption placement preferences, which give higher preferences to
relatives, other tribal members, and other Indian family
members. These two cases were decided separately in their
respective courts; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
significantly influenced the Alaska Supreme Court decision. As a
result, the Alaska Supreme Court decision created procedural
processes that created significant legal barriers for Alaska
Native families to exercise their rights to be considered as a
preferred adoptive placement for their Alaska Native children.
MS. LAWTON continued to say that the primary impediment created
by the U.S. Supreme Court was a requirement that perspective
adoptive families had to file a formal petition for adoption to
even be considered as a possible adoptive placement. For many
Alaska Native families who live in rural Alaska, for whom
English may be their second language, and who may not have
access to legal counsel and to the court system, this
requirement may eliminate them from consideration. This bill, in
response to those decisions, will make the process easier and
less burdensome.
1:35:44 PM
MS. LAWTON said that SB 112 seeks to eliminate complicated
procedural barriers so that adoption can be considered through
the Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings, instead of entirely
different proceedings in Probate Court. Families will be able to
assert their desire to adopt a child through CINA and would be
considered for adoption after the permanency goal changes to
adoption. These changes would benefit the most vulnerable
children by assuring that adoption proceedings for children in
need of aid are conducted in the most beneficial manner.
This legislation establishes procedural requirements for the
department and the courts to ensure that extended family
members, other tribal members, or other Indian families are
provided the opportunity to be considered as a permanent
adoptive placement for a relative child and that their request
is preserved throughout the life of a case, even when workers,
judges, or attorney's change, or when the case takes several
years.
This bill will allow for the use of a "proxy" in lieu of a
formal petition to adopt; the proxy could be filed by a child's
relative, tribal member or other Indian family. A tribal member
or relative also could make the request to the department by
telephone, mail, fax, electronic mail, or in person. Lastly, a
proxy for a formal petition could be made by the child's tribe
or by a tribe in which the child would be eligible to be
enrolled.
This legislation ensures that the placement preferences are
accurately applied in adoption proceedings where Alaska Native
families seek to adopt. The adoptive preferences are: a member
of the child's extended family, with other members of Indian
child's tribe, or with other Indian families.
MS. LAWTON emphasized a key aspect of the bill: It would bring
the adoption proceedings into CINA proceedings, versus as a
separate legal proceeding in probate court, ensure placement
preferences are adhered to, preserve proxy requests, and ensure
that all of the essential adoption information is in one forum,
in order to make decisions that will impact a child for life.
She concluded that SB 112 is important for so many reasons. It
will help ensure Alaska Native children who aren't able to
safely return to their parents will grow up in the care of their
extended family and culture.
1:38:25 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE noted that "extended family" does not
necessarily mean an Alaska Native. He requested a definition of
"extended family."
MS. LAWTON replied that "extended family" has a broad
definition. She requested that the Department of Law
representative clarify that definition.
1:39:10 PM
KATIE LYBRAND, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, answered questions related to SB 112. She
addressed the broad definition of "extended family" which
includes uncles, brothers, grandparents, etc., and does not
differentiate based on tribal affiliation.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked what the Governor's intent regarding that
definition is. He said OCS should have the best interest of the
child in mind, not political and cultural biases.
MS. LAWTON replied that the intention of the bill is to place
children with relatives as often as possible first, and includes
relatives on both sides of the family.
1:41:35 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL voiced concern that putting the adoption process
into (CINA) would not expedite the removal of the child from its
natural parents and suggested that the bill might imply that it
would.
MS. LAWTON stressed that is not the intent of the bill. The
action in SB 112 comes into play after all efforts for
reunification have been exhausted or the child has been in
foster care too long, and the goal for adoption has been already
set.
1:42:45 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN opened public testimony and, seeing no
testifiers, closed public testimony.
SENATOR STOLTZE suggested that there should be support documents
to support the bill. He said he has not heard compelling public
policy yet.
1:44:56 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked Ms. Lawton to meet individually with
committee members. He noted it was the first hearing of the bill
and he expected more public interest in the future.
SENATOR STEDMAN held SB 112 in committee.