02/08/1993 03:00 PM House HES

  HB 97:  PARENTAL CARE FOR CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY                             
                                                                               
  Number 344                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIR TOOHEY brought HB 97 to the table.                                     
                                                                               
  DIANNE OLSEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE HUMAN                        
  SERVICES SECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified from                    
  Anchorage, making herself available to answer questions on                   
  HB 97.  She referred to SB 396, from the 1992 legislative                    
  session, which was drafted in response to the Alaska Supreme                 
  Court decision on the case In re E.A.O.   That court                         
  decision indicated that the statute as constructed required                  
  the Department of Health and Social Services to retain                       
  responsibility to provide food, shelter, education and                       
  medical care for children it had removed from abusive homes                  
  and assumed legal custody of, even after they were returned                  
  to the family.  Ms. Olsen said that some attorneys in                        
  Anchorage representing parents have argued not only that the                 
  department is responsible for children's medical care, but                   
  also for first and last months' rent for housing, and for                    
  counseling not approved by the department.  She said the                     
  department had not contemplated assuming such responsibility                 
  and felt HB 97 might correct the situation.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 375                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. VEZEY asked why HB 97 includes language restricting the                 
  state from assuming responsibility for granting a child                      
  permission to enlist in the armed services.                                  
                                                                               
  MS. OLSEN said she could not answer, but the enlistment                      
  language had been in the statute for years.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 388                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIR TOOHEY noted that a bill similar to HB 97, introduced                  
  by the House HESS Committee, passed both houses of the                       
  legislature without opposition in 1992, but died in the                      
  closing days of the session.  She said the sponsors of the                   
  bill last year felt there was a danger that, if children                     
  were not placed back with their families, the high cost of                   
  caring for children might discourage the state from assuming                 
  care for them.                                                               
                                                                               
  REP. BUNDE asked whether HB 97 should not carry a negative                   
  fiscal note, given that it might save the state the                          
  potential medical, educational and housing costs.  He also                   
  asked whether such potential bills were accounted for in the                 
  department's budget.                                                         
                                                                               
  MS. OLSEN answered that In re E.A.O involved a child whose                   
  medical bills exceeded $100,000.  She said she did not know                  
  whether, following the 1991 Supreme Court decision, the                      
  department had to pay such costs.  She said she thought the                  
  department had waited until after the decision to see about                  
  budgeting for such costs in hopes that last year's bill                      
  would pass.  She said a negative fiscal not was not                          
  appropriate.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 418                                                                   
                                                                               
  DEBORAH WING, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH                   
  SERVICES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,                    
  testified in support of HB 97.                                               
                                                                               
  REP. PETE KOTT asked for an example of a case in which,                      
  under current practice, the department would remove a child                  
  from his home, then return him.                                              
                                                                               
  MS. WING said it could happen that the Department of Health                  
  and Social Services could determine a child was in an unsafe                 
  home and remove him.  But after helping rectify the problems                 
  in the home, the department could return the child to the                    
  parents' physical custody, while still retaining legal                       
  custody.                                                                     
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT asked if the department might ever remove a child                  
  from one parent but later return him to a different parent,                  
  if the parents were divorced or separated, or even joined                    
  with other partners who might then be considered step-                       
  parents.                                                                     
                                                                               
  MS. WING answered that there is a potential for a child to                   
  be returned to a different home than the one from which he                   
  was removed.                                                                 
                                                                               
  (Rep. Gail Phillips arrived at 3:36 p.m.)                                    
                                                                               
  Number 446                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GARY DAVIS asked what responsibility the state would                    
  have for informing the parents of any medical problems their                 
  child might develop while in state custody.                                  
                                                                               
  MS. WING answered that if a removed child is found to have                   
  medical problems, then the department will (unintelligible)                  
  the parents upon the child's return to the home, as                          
  appropriate.  She said the question would remain as to the                   
  duration of the department's financial responsibility for                    
  medical care of the child while he was living in his                         
  parent's home, "until the department got out of a case plan                  
  with the child and family."                                                  
                                                                               
  REP. G. DAVIS noted that parents might be surprised by a                     
  child's potentially expensive medical condition upon his                     
  return.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MS. OLSEN said that was correct.                                             
                                                                               
  CHAIR TOOHEY asked for and received clarification from Rep.                  
  Davis on his question.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 486                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. WING added that if a child under state custody was found                 
  to have medical problems, then the state would notify the                    
  parents upon the child's return.  But because the state                      
  would not have fully dismissed its custody of the child, it                  
  would retain responsibility for the costs of medical                         
  treatment even after return to the home.                                     
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT asked where the statute indicates that the state                   
  would assume financial responsibility.  He said that creates                 
  a dangerous situation in which parents might unload children                 
  with severe medical problems into state custody.                             
                                                                               
  MS. WING agreed with Rep. Kott.  She said the state is now                   
  responsible for children in both their physical and legal                    
  custody, but HB 97 pertains to children in the state's legal                 
  custody but in their parents' physical custody.                              
                                                                               
  Number 505                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. B. DAVIS expressed confusion about Ms. Wing's answers.                  
  She asked whether parents might be allowed to pay some of                    
  the costs of medical care for children even if the children                  
  are in the state's legal custody.                                            
                                                                               
  MS. WING answered yes.                                                       
                                                                               
  REP. B. DAVIS stated that the Department of Family and Youth                 
  Services (DFYS) is required to plan a way to return to                       
  parental custody any child for which it assumes legal                        
  custody.  She added that the parents are not kept ignorant                   
  of a child's medical condition while the child is under                      
  state custody.  She said the bill clarifies the fact that                    
  after a child returns to physical custody of the parents,                    
  the state would be relieved of responsibility for medical                    
  bills.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 537                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. OLBERG asked again why HB 97 restricts the state from                   
  delegating authority to grant a child permission to enlist                   
  in the military.                                                             
                                                                               
  MS. WING said she would have to find the answer later.                       
                                                                               
  REP. VEZEY said he understood the bill to mean that the                      
  authority to grant permission to marry or enlist could not                   
  be delegated by the department.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 554                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIR TOOHEY said she read HB 97 to mean that the department                 
  could not grant a child under its custody permission to                      
  enlist; only the parents had that power to grant such                        
  permission.                                                                  
                                                                               
  REP. VEZEY said he interpreted HB 97 to read that parents                    
  whose children had been removed into state custody forfeited                 
  the authority to grant permission for military enlistment,                   
  which is required of 17-year-olds.  However, he acknowledged                 
  he may have read the bill incorrectly.                                       
                                                                               
  REP. BUNDE said it is likely the state does not want the                     
  power over a child's enlistment; that power must remain with                 
  the parents.                                                                 
                                                                               
  CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no further questions, closed testimony                 
  on HB 97.                                                                    
                                                                               
  REP. B. DAVIS moved that the bill be passed with individual                  
  recommendations and a zero fiscal note.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 566                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no objections, declared HB 97 PASSED                   
  WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.  She announced the                          
  teleconferenced portion of the meeting was concluded.