Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/29/1996 02:10 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 289
"An Act relating to runaway minors and their families
or legal custodians."
Members were provide with a proposed committee substitute,
Work Draft 9-LS1635\D, 4/27/96 (copy on file).
JUDY SHIFFLER, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network. (Ms. Shiffler's written testimony is on file.) She
expressed concern that section 6 of the proposed committee
substitute on page 5 would not adequately slow down or stop
the revolving door. She stated that SB 289 needs to provide
clear and immediate consequences. She stressed that the
section allows to much time to pass before consequences
occur. She maintained that the bills should be designed as
an early intervention measure. She emphasized that the bill
does not replace other facilities that troubled kids can
turn to on a voluntary basis.
GUY PATTERSON, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network. He observed that there are two classes of
children. The abused child that is running from an abusive
situation and those that are out on the street because they
11
do not want to follow their parent's rules. He maintained
that children are encouraged to run away by other kids. He
suggested that the process be simplified. He emphasized
that it should not be assumed that the parents are at fault.
He stated that when the State takes custody the State should
provide a safe place. He maintained that the State should
know where the child is in the middle of the night. He
spoke to the expense of lock up facilities. He asserted
that children would not leave home if they knew that they
would be placed in lock up facilities.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Patterson clarified that Fairbanks does not have children on
the streets that are under 12 years old.
LESLIE DRUMHILLER, FAIRBANKS testified via the
teleconference network. She noted that she is the parent of
a 15 year old runaway. She recounted experiences with her
child. She emphasized that early intervention can protect
children. She stressed that the threat of lock up can
persuade children to seek help.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-147, Side 2)
ALLISON GORDON, STAFF, SENATOR FRANK testified in support of
SB 289. She observed that the legislation was introduced to
address the growing concern among parents for the safety of
their runaway children. She maintained that: "The runaway
epidemic is a significant problem in our communities that
needs serious consideration. The overwhelming frustration
parents currently feel can be best attributed to the lack of
support they receive from the government. Parents are held
accountable for their children's actions yet they are not
given the necessary tools to exercise authority and instill
guidance in their children's lives. Current law provides
minors with the ability to thumb their noses at figures of
authority, whether they be parents, teachers, law
enforcement or otherwise. Their freedom is guaranteed and
they have learned how to exploit and manipulate the system
in order to get what they want. We feel that parents should
be the ones who should decide what is best for their
children and be able to nurture and guide them in a manner
they see fit until the child is old enough to make their own
decisions, support themselves, and be on their own. Senate
bill 289 tightens existing law in an attempt to close the
revolving door that currently allows runaways the freedom to
avoid having to abide by rules and parental authority."
Ms. Gordon noted that the legislation strengthens the
language within AS 11.51.130 regarding contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. "By discouraging people from
harboring runaways, it will compel these children to take
12
advantage of available services that are necessary for
assessing the individual's situation and beginning the
process of reconciliation with the child's family."
Ms. Gordon stressed that the legislation clarifies that a
police officer's first course of action, after picking up a
runaway, will be to take that child back to his or her
parents unless the officer believes that there has been
abuse to the minor. If the parent will not accept the
child, then the second course of action will be to take the
minor to a safe place agreed to by the parent. If this
cannot be accomplished then the police officer must take the
child to a semi-secure shelter for assessment of the child's
situation and determination of the course of action that is
in the best interest of the child.
Ms. Gordon noted that various ways to address the secure
placement of a minor who is a habitual runaway were
addressed. The version that passed the Senate would place
runaways who run from placement in semi-secure shelters into
secure placements. This provision jeopardized OJJDP funding
from the federal government in the amount of $600,000. The
Department of Health & Social Services also attached an
extremely high fiscal note.
Ms. Gordon noted that members were provided with a proposed
committee substitute, Work Draft 9-LS1635\D, dated 4/29/96.
This version authorizes law enforcement to temporarily
detain a minor who has fled from a semi-secure shelter
pending a court hearing to ascertain whether probable cause
exists to conclude that the child is a child in need of aid.
At the hearing the court is required to determine placement
of the minor and to order that minor to remain in that
placement. If the minor runs from placement they will be in
violation of a court order and will be picked up and
detained in a secure environment, thus shutting the
revolving door.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW expressed concern with revisions to the Contributing to
the Delinquency of a Minor statute on page 3. She urged the
Committee to change this provision to make it easier to
prosecute individuals who contribute to the delinquency of a
minor and encourage children to be absent from the custody
of their parents. She stressed that "just cause" needs to
be defined. She observed that new language on page 3, line
30 - page 4, line 1 is not clear enough. She noted that it
is easier to prove lack of knowledged than lack of
permission. She suggested that on page 3, line 1 after
"custodian" that "or without the knowledge of the parent,
guardian or custodian" be added. Representative Parnell
pointed out that Representative Kelly has an amendment to
13
that effect.
Ms. Carpeneti referred to page 6, lines 10 and 11. She
noted that the Court can order the child to remain in the
custody of the parents or another party without a finding of
probable cause if the child is a child in need of aid. She
stated that this language is problematic. Under AS
47.10.010(A)(2)(a) a finding of probable cause is needed for
the court to have jurisdiction over the issue and child.
Ms. Carpeneti observed that page 4, lines 21 - 25 takes away
the provision that the sole fact that the child is a runaway
is not enough to justify emergency custody. She stated that
it is unclear of the effect of this deletion.
Ms. Carpeneti suggested that on page 6, line 9 that the
court when making its order, should specify the terms and
conditions that must be followed by the minor and the parent
or guardian. She observed that there are cases where the
parents are as much of the problem as the child.
DIANE WORLEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH
SERVICES clarified that the Division supports the House
Judiciary version of SB 289. She expressed concerns with
the proposed committee substitute. She acknowledged the
need for legislation. She stated that the Division supports
parents having more control over their children. She
asserted that some of the new amendments are going to
complicate the issue and set up false expectations. She
emphasized that the State cannot make children follow the
rules any more than the parents can. The State can provide
early intervention, counseling and support.
Ms. Worley referred to page 2, lines 12 - 14. She
emphasized that the requirement that the Division take
emergency custody of a minor who has previously left a semi-
secure program without permission would take away any
discretion from the Department. She noted that there are
no cases where the Division is currently required to take a
child into custody. She observed that language on page 5,
lines 27 - 30 also removes discretion from the Division.
Ms. Worley expressed concern that if children know that they
will be detained and taken into state custody if they run
from semi-secure shelters that they will not use the
shelters. She acknowledged frustration of parents with the
revolving door syndrome. She emphasized that semi-secure
shelters provide safety for children that would be on the
streets. Children have the opportunity for counseling and
intervention services in the semi-secure shelters.
Representative Therriault noted that children often go to
14
shelters only after being picked up by enforcement officers.
Ms. Worley agreed and added that the police will have to
take the child home. Children will only go to a shelter if
the parent refuses to accept the child. She maintained that
many children use the Family Focus shelter in Fairbanks on a
voluntary basis. She noted that all the children at
Covenant House in Anchorage are voluntary.
Ms. Worley observed that the legislation will only apply to
children that are running from a semi-secure facility. Only
five facilities around the State would be under the mandate
to become semi-secure. She observed that children in other
parts of the State will not be affected by the law.
Ms. Worley referred to page 7, lines 9 - 12. She observed
that Covenant House operates on a voluntary basis. This
language would exempt Covenant House from the provision to
maintain a semi-secure facility. She noted that Covenant
House stated that they would end operations if they were
forced to operate a semi-secure facility. She pointed out
that Covenant House serves 84 percent of the State's
runaways.
Ms. Worley summarized that the Division supports tougher
consequences for adults that harbor runaways and more
parental involvement and responsibility. The Division has
concerns regarding the mandate to take runways into
protective custody.
Representative Mulder asked if the fiscal note would change.
Ms. Worley estimated that it would cost $250.0 thousand
dollars to implement the proposed work draft. This
represents an increase of three social workers, two in
Anchorage and one in Fairbanks.
Representative Martin spoke in support of the provision
exempting Covenant House.
Ms. Gordon noted that language on page 2, lines 13 - 15 was
a drafting oversight based on a previous version. She
observed that the requirement that the Division take
children into emergency state custody was removed. She
observed that this provision should be deleted. She added
that the Department of Health & Social Services is
instructed to file a child in need of aid petition with the
court. The legislation requires that a law enforcement
officer take into protective custody a minor that has fled
from a semi-security shelter. A minor that has fled a semi-
secure shelter after placement could be arrested as a
delinquent and could be detained under AS 47.10.080.
Representative Therriault noted Representative Kelly's
15
intent to delete (4) on page 2, lines 3 - 5 and lines 12 -
15.
Ms. Worley clarified that the requirement to file a petition
is a higher standard than the Division is currently under
for child in need of aid cases. Ms. Gordon responded that
the sponsor feels that something needs to be done to require
the Department to take action in these situations.
SB 289 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|