Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1996 08:50 AM Senate 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."
Senator Frank spoke briefly on behalf of the bill. He said
they had heard from constituents regarding what happened
when a juvenile ran away from a shelter. This bill
currently has a provision in it allowing an officer to pick
the child up, take them into custody and get them before a
judge within 48 hours so the judge can decide if the child
is in need of aid or a delinquent minor. At any time during
that time the child's parents can pick them up. It has a
temporary detention feature. It is overwhelming the lack of
a solution to the existing problem. There is no loss of
real liberty in a constitutional sense. There is a
constitutional question with the severability clause in the
statutes. If this is stuck down through a Court case there
will still be the remaining parts of the bill and it is not
the intent to deny juveniles of their liberty. There is a
huge problem in a small part of the population. It is
incumbent upon us to formulate a way that is reasonable that
gets attention to the problem. A new findings and purposes
section has been submitted as amendment #1.
Allison Gordon, staff aide to Senator Frank was invited to
join the committee. She advised that the correct amendment
without objection it was adopted. Ms. Gordon further
explained amendment #M.3. It will create a new subsection
(g) under AS 47.10.141 which makes it a violation for a
runaway who has been taken by a police officer to a semi-
secure facility to leave that place without the permission
of the minor's legal custodian or from an appropriate
employee of the semi-secure facility. If a minor violates
this statute then the shelter must immediately notify the
department, the nearest law enforcement agency and the
parents of the minor's absence. Law enforcement will then
be allowed to pick up a runaway that has left the semi-
secure facility and temporarily detain the runaway pending a
detention hearing within 48 hours. If there are no reasons
for detaining the minor, such as child-in-need-of-aid or
delinquency petitions, based on violating other laws, the
minor would be released to the legal custodian at the
detention hearing. At any time during the proceedings the
minor, barring abuse cases, has the option to go home.
Senator Frank explained that amendment M.4 was the findings
and purposes section and M.3 was the substantiative
amendment. Senator Halford indicated that M.4 was amendment
Becky Snow, Department of Law, Fairbanks testified via
teleconference. The department was concerned with the
proposed amendment because there was no language that
provides the child that the child could get out of detention
by deciding to go home. With regards to the statement of
Senator Frank that the period of detention provided for by
the amendment is very limited on page 2, line 8 and 9, that
is an amendment to what is now the temporary detention
statute that now applies only to juveniles arrested or
detained for committing delinquent behaviour. It provides
right now that if the Court finds probable cause the Court
can determine to detain the minor based on certain
additional findings. This amendment provides that if the
Court finds probable cause at the temporary detention
hearing the runaway minor could be detained pending the
hearing on the delinquency or child-in-need-of-aid petition.
That can be a substantial period of time. Even it if is a
child-in-need-of-aid petition, particularly the larger
jurisdictions like Anchorage, months before the petition for
adjudication is brought on for the adjudication trial. That
was a matter of considerable concern, especially if no
criminal conduct is being alleged. Usually criminal conduct
is the only constitutional basis for depriving a person of
their freedom to move about. The other concern is tacking
the remedy for the very frustrating pattern of runaway
behaviour on to the delinquency statute creating an
inconsistency in the way each runaway will be treated as
compared to runaways handled AS 47.10.141, where a police
officer may take a minor into emergency, protective custody
under AS 47.10.141 when certain conditions have been met,
and then have to bring the minor before the court within 24
hours. There may well be an equal protection problem
created by this inconsistency in the handling of runaways.
None of them are being charged with any criminal conduct.
Co-chairman Halford inquired of Ms. Gordon if there was a
citation that showed where the minor could go home and she
advised it was on page 2, line 26 of the amendment. Ms.
Snow said that it was not a reference to a detention
facility and once a minor was taken to a detention facility
they were no longer in charge of getting out. The operators
of the facility make that determination. The use of
"facility" is a facility for housing runaway children and it
does not automatically include detention facility. The
language on page 22, line 26 is meant to give the minor
control over whether they get out of the detention facility
and that raises an ambiguity as to the meaning of "facility"
in the bill itself.
Senator Frank explained that he wanted the parents or legal
guardian of the child to be able to pick up the child so
that it was not up to the child as much as it was up to the
parents to come and retrieve the child. Ms. Snow said that
the bill would amend AS 47.10.141 to give the power to the
parents or legal custodian to determine whether the minor is
brought back to the legal custodian's residence or where the
minor is taken. That would be consistent. Senator Frank
said that was what he had intended. There should not be a
situation where the juvenile is in the detention center for
several hours and the parents cannot go and pick them up.
If they are ready to reconcile and the child is ready to go
home it seems that the parents should be able to go pick the
child up and take them home.
Senator Rieger said he felt the amendment was exactly what
needed to be accomplished and the objections raised were
incorrect. He referred to page 3 of amendment #2 and it
explained that one cannot leave a semi-secure facility
except with permission of the minor's legal custodian or if
one leaves without permission but goes straight home. It is
only required at the bottom of page 2 that the minor be
advised of the rules. There are two types of runaways; an
abusive situation at home and they are going to stay because
what they want is a safe place; and runaways because they
want to be runaways. Those are the ones that can be picked
up if they leave that safe place. The amendment is exactly
what we want to achieve.
Becky Snow advised that she had no further testimony and
there were no further questions by committee members.
Senator Frank did request that she write down her concerns.
He also requested suggestions to make this amendment work
within the parameters of the constitution. He stated that
it was understood that an individual was not to be deprived
of their liberty without due process or having committed a
crime.
Diane Worley, Director Division of Family and Youth Services
was invited to join the committee. She said the Division
supported the first version of the bill and did have some
concerns with amendment #2. The big issues that they were
faced with included the state detention facilities that were
extremely overburdened at the time. It is overwhelming to
think of adding juveniles to the system now. As an example
she stated the Johnson Youth Center had a capacity for 8
beds but was running between 15 and 16 children per day.
That is double capacity. The other major concern was
mandatory detainment. There are detention standards once a
youth has been picked up but no mandatory detainment at this
point. With the current overcrowding this would mean
releasing other delinquents that are not mandatorily
detained in order to have space to detain the runaways.
Another issue was the majority of runaways were not
criminals and should they be housed in detention facilities
with the juvenile delinquents who are in for rape, drugs,
weapons and assault. What will be done with a mandatory
detainment in communities where there is no detention
facility? A child-in-need-of-aid should not be put in a
locked facility. The child needs protection, not locking
up. It was feared that in this situation the secured
facility would become a revolving door. The juveniles would
be in an out, back at home, and back in again to the
overcrowded facilities. The last point made was that
currently there was a zero fiscal note, but this amendment
would constitute a considerable fiscal note. By detaining
runaways who are not delinquents and in particular those who
are children-in-need-of-aid the department would lose their
federal funding which is approximately $600,000. This would
cause the elimination of about 30 statewide programs being
funded with this money.
Senator Frank said that the situation was frustrating.
Those running away from a legitimate abuse situation would
not be likely to run away from a semi-secured facility and
they would not be the revolving door situation. Those that
do run away from the secured shelter are the only ones that
would be placed in the detention facility. If more
immediate action could be taken the escalation into criminal
behaviour could be eliminated. There is some offsetting
benefits from a prevention or early intervention standpoint.
There is always the potential of running into overcrowding
but it would be a very small sub-set of the larger runaway
class. He hoped that this could be restructured to meet
federal standards so that this funding would not be lost.
The problem is substantial enough that this federal funding
should not be driving the entire policy. These are real
families with real problems and real children with real
needs for focus on their problems. With more intervention
earlier more children and families could be helped.
Co-chairman Halford said that the same federal funds are
saying that nothing can be done to help parents deal with
the problems. The system is upside down and the federal
funds are not worth it. Parents are not empowered to do
anything and then there is only a response after the
children are criminals and then they are not treated in
adult courts.
Senator Rieger asked what the trigger for the ineligibility
for the federal funds was. Ms. Worley explained that
according to Federal law youth who are not delinquent may
not be detained in a locked up facility. Running away is
not considered a criminal offense. Senator Phillips
inquired whether it could be made a criminal offense. But
Ms. Worley said even if it was made a state crime it would
not be covered by federal funding. Senator Rieger said
perhaps the word "shall" could be changed to "may" on page
1, line 11 of amendment #2 and that would allow for some
flexibility. Senator Frank concurred if this would help
comply with federal regulations. Senator Rieger said there
is some argument in general about giving discretion to the
officer. However, this could be explored to see how far one
could go with regards to the federal funding. Ms. Worley
said she would have to investigate this matter, but it still
comes back to the matter of locking up a youth who is just a
runaway, has not committed a crime and is not a delinquent,
the department would be in jeopardy of the federal funding.
There may be some ways this matter could be worked with.
Alaska is not the only state dealing with this issue. It is
felt there are other ways in dealing with runaways such as
prevention and early intervention. Senator Frank said he
would like to focus on some real counselling and
professional help in dealing with these issues. However it
is difficult to bring the services to bear when the child is
running. Detention may help to bring this into focus.
There will be those who will respond to this intervention
but it is not a cure-all.
Senator Phillips asked what is the philosophy of the
department in dealing with this problem. Ms. Worley said
they want to assist families as early as possible, provide
more community based help and programs. The issues need to
be worked on as families. The department wants to provide
whatever support necessary to see successful families. She
said runaways were an ongoing problem. If child abuse is
claimed that is an issue that has to be dealt with as
mandated. If a situation is investigated and no abuse is
substantiated the family would be referred for services to
help deal with this. The runaway issue is probably the most
difficult one to be dealt with. Unless we are committed to
locking children up until they are eighteen there are some
children that we will never be able to keep at home. Co-
chairman Halford said state and federal governments have
taken away from parents the ability to enforce the word
"no". It has been replaced with social gibberish that has
done no good for the last two or three decades. Senator
Phillips concurred saying that this is the message they are
getting from their constituents.
Senator Frank said there are the children who will not
respond, but greater focus needs to be placed on those who
will. At the present there is a policy of non-intervention
and there is help for the family through counselling.
Perhaps children will respond to a little more authority.
Ms. Worley agreed that all concerned should continue to work
together.
Senator Sharp asked if there were statistics available on
how many of the children at the detention center were
runaways. Ms. Worley said that there was nothing to show
this information presently. Senator Sharp voiced concern of
adults providing overnight shelter for runaways based on
their own pleasure. He felt that the best deterrent was to
spend one night in jail. Now we are only providing a
revolving door convenience for safety. A runaway must know
that they are making the choice to runaway and spend the
night in prison. This may wake them up to realize that home
is not that bad. The child must know that there are choices
to be made and one of them is if you run away from home and
not abused there are some responsibilities and some
deterrents. He supported the bill.
Senator Zharoff voiced concern about not all runaways are
criminals nor did all criminals start off as runaways. This
is a problem in urban areas as well as rural. Perhaps this
is something that should be worked on piece by piece until
solution is found. It would be good to find out how many
runaways there are. In a large number of communities there
are no detention facilities and it would be necessary to
ship a village runaway to Anchorage to the detention
facility. He felt as Senator Rieger in changing the "shall"
to "may" would help correct this problem.
Co-chairman Halford referred to Senator Rieger's amendment
detention center and that was his reason for submitting this
amendment. Ms. Worley said the department would agree to
the change of "shall" to "may". However, according to
federal regulations, a secured facility is still locking up
a non-delinquent and the department would be in jeopardy of
losing federal funds. It would remedy the situation of
overcrowding and need for additional staff and facilities.
Senator Frank said he did not believe Congress was
interested in preventing states from addressing these
problems. He could appreciate them being concerned about
locking up runaways but asked that a quick research be done
about what is going on in Congress. Perhaps it would allow
an opportunity for this kind of intervention for a limited
time. Ms. Worley in response to a question from Senator
Phillips said the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention regulations are existing regulations. There are
a number of other states dealing with the same issues and
she said Congress is looking at the possibility of making
some changes in those regulations.
Senator Frank said in light of the fact there have been
several hearings on this bill, in order to achieve what the
committee would like to and give the department more
flexibility, he recommended the passage of the two
amendments and continued work with the department as the
bill moved through the process in order to try and save
federal funds.
Senator Rieger moved his amendment to amendment #2 and
without objection it was adopted. Senator Frank moved
amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted. Senator
Frank moved CSSB 289(FIN) and without objection it was
reported out with individual recommendations. Co-chairman
Halford asked the Department of Health and Social Services
to submit a new fiscal note recognizing a change. Senator
Sharp asked the department provide the federal statute
preventing detention of a juvenile. Co-chairman concurred.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|