Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/10/1995 01:37 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to recovery of damages from a minor's
parent or legal guardian when property is destroyed by
the minor."
SHELDON WINTERS, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY detailed
claims from 1/193 to 10/31/94. Of 334 claims processed by
State Farm Insurance Company:
1
* 69% were less than $1.0 thousand dollars;
* 84% were less than $2.0 thousand dollars;
* 96% were less than $5.0 thousand dollars;
* 99% were less than $10.0 thousand dollars.
Mr. Sheldon stated that the State Farm Insurance Company
does not feel there is a compelling reason to increase the
recovery ceiling from $2.0 to $10.0 thousand dollars.
Representative Parnell clarified that the statistics given
by Mr. Sheldon refer to home owner policies. School
buildings and vehicles were not included.
Representative Mulder asked if the company has a general
policy in regards to claim collections. Mr. Sheldon replied
that the company has not been successful in their collection
attempts.
Representative Therriault provided members with Amendment 1
(Attachment 1). He explained that Amendment 1 modifies
section 2, which exempts parents if their child is a
runaway. The amendment clarifies that the parent would be
exempt from responsibility for the child's actions after the
parent reports, as authorized by AS 47.10.141(a), that the
minor has run away or is missing.
JACK CHENOWETH, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES
clarified that the legislation proposes an exemption for
parents, legal guardians or persons having legal custody of
unemancipated minors who are runaways. There is no
provision in current statutes. The legislation is not
applicable to minors who have already been emancipated.
Representative Brown referred to page 2, line 7, "believes
is absent from the minor's residence for the purpose of
evading the minor's parent, legal guardian, or legal
custodian". She thought the parent, legal guardian, or
legal custodian would know if the minor was absent. Mr.
Chenoweth illustrated examples where the parent legal
guardian, or legal custodian would not know if the minor was
absent with the intent to evade parental control. He
accentuated that the intent is to identify minors that are
attempting to evade parental control.
Members discussed the time frame involved in reporting a
minor as missing. Alaska Statute 47.10.141 requires that a
law enforcement agency shall make reasonable efforts to
locate the minor and complete a missing person's report.
The agency is required to transmit the report, no later than
24 hours after completing it, for entry into the Alaska
Public Safety Information. A parent may file a report at
2
any time if they reasonably believe that the minor is
missing in an effort to evade their legal authority.
Representative Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Therriault provided members with Amendment 2
(Attachment 2). He explained that Amendment 2 clarifies
that the person liable for the actions of the minor is the
person having the legal custody of an unemancipated minor
under the age of eighteen. He observed that "person" as
used in the statutes refers to person or persons.
Representative Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment 2. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Parnell suggested that in the case where a
mother has full custody of a minor and the father still
retains visitation rights, the father would be the legal
custodian in regards to any action which takes place while
the minor is visiting the father. He stated that the fact
that the father has retained visitation rights indicated
that he would have some legal interest in custody.
Representative Brown agreed with Representative Parnell's
interpretation.
Mr. Chenoweth recognized that it is up to the courts to
determine the scope of "person having legal custody". He
stated that custody could be based upon the natural
relationship between parent and child, an adoptive
relationship, a guardianship, or a custody determination as
contained in AS 25.39.00. He pointed out that AS 25.39.00
includes visitation rights in regards to a custody
determination.
Representative Navarre MOVED to report CSHB 9 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of CSHB 9 (FIN). He
felt the ceiling could be raised to $15.0 thousand dollars.
Representative Therriault noted that with the addition of
inflation $2.0 thousand dollars would equate to $10,832
thousand dollars in 1995.
Representative Kohring concluded that it was appropriate to
garnish permanent fund dividends of perpetrators. He
suggested that perpetrators could be required to perform
community service obligations.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 9 (FIN) was moved from
3
Committee.
CSHB 9 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with six zero fiscal notes, three by the
Department of Administration, two dated 1/30/95, two by the
Department of Health & Social Services, dated 1/30/95, one
by the Department of Law, dated 1/30/95; and with an
indeterminable fiscal impact note by the Alaska Court
System.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|