Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/29/1999 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 15 - FOSTER PARENT RIGHTS TO DISCLOSE INFO Number 0914 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill No. 15, "An Act relating to disclosure of information about certain children; and amending Rule 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules." Number 0928 JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant for Representative Norman Rokeberg, sponsor of HB 15, came forward to present the blank committee substitute (CS) 1-LSO131\D for HB 15. The previous bill would have allowed the foster parents to talk to the legislators. With the assistance of the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and their legal counsel, they have come up with this proposal which says if foster parents feel that a proposed placement is not in the best interest of the child, they can approach a judge and ask that judge to look at the matter. Then the judge can either uphold the department or agree with the foster parent. It is a safety valve for foster parents. Number 1039 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt the proposed (CS) for HB 15, version 1-LSO131\D, Chenoweth/Lauterbach, 4/14/99, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version D was before the committee. MS. SEITZ told the committee that the DHSS has requested an amendment that would remove the term "out-of-home caregiver" wherever it appears in the legislation. She indicated that Representative Rokeberg would not oppose that. Number 1090 RUSSELL WEBB, Deputy Commissioner, DHSS, came forward to testify saying they have worked with the sponsor to provide a safety valve for a very limited, and narrow range of cases, recognizing that no one is perfect, and there may be instances where the DHSS makes a mistake. They want to provide an opportunity for foster parents who have information that indicates that a department's decision about a child's placement will risk the health or safety of the child, to have a safety valve in a very limited range of cases. Number 1135 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the current grievance procedures are for foster parents to address their concerns. MR. WEBB answered currently their grievance procedures through their regulations do not allow a foster parent to grieve a change in placement. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Version D will give the DHSS an ability to provide that grievance procedure. Number 1183 MR. WEBB said they are attempting to fix a very small problem. They are specifically not attempting to provide party status to a case to foster parents. They clearly do not want to provide foster parents with the right to intervene in a case; they want to give them a safety valve. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked is there a step down from court. Number 1244 MR. WEBB answered there is, and there are several safety valves discussed previously. There is an opportunity for foster parents to raise their concerns to parties to the case, including the child's guardian ad litem (GAL). Other avenues also exist. In this instance, the foster parent believed that they were not heard either by the DHSS or the child's GAL. CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL asked for the reason for removing out-of-home caregiver. Number 1297 MR. WEBB answered that they want to narrow this down because foster parents have a different relationship to children than a residential care provider or care provider in an inpatient psychiatric facility. Those people have a different relationship to the child, and potentially have a financial interest in the child remaining in a placement, and they want to narrow it so the safety valve exists, but it is very limited. MR. WEBB suggested that the amendment remove the words "out-of-home caregiver" on page 2, lines 2, 5, and 6, and 8. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why they want to take out "out-of-home caregiver." MR. WEBB answered if a provider had concerns and reported it to the DHSS, they would be interested in the information, but they wouldn't necessarily have the information about a change in placement. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked for some examples of an out-of-home caregiver. MR. WEBB replied a residential care provider, Alaska Children's Services in Anchorage, Charter North, or a relative, but relatives have different status to bring their concerns up. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN pointed out that the word "caregiver's" on page 2, line 3 should also be removed since it refers to the "out-of-home caregiver." Number 1604 MR. WEBB agreed. He pointed out another reason for removing those words because it gives an avenue for a for-profit entity to bring the matter to the court's attention, when the for-profit entity might have a financial interest in the issue. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Seitz how the sponsor would feel about the amendment. MS. SEITZ responded that the sponsor is interested in narrowing this to foster parents. Number 1733 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion for a conceptual amendment to strike the words "out-of-home caregiver or caregiver's placement" on page 2, line 3, 5, 6 and 8. There being no objection, the amendment was adopted. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Webb if they support this process. MR. WEBB reiterated that they are not creating party status for foster parents. They are creating a safety valve that would be applied in a very limited number of cases. If HB 15 were interpreted to mean that anytime the foster parent disagreed with the placement decision made by the DHSS, the foster parent could go to court, the department would be opposed to it. If it is applied in those circumstances where foster parents have credible information that indicates that the DHSS is making a bad decision, they can bring that information to the court, and the court can evaluate it. If the court believes that it has credibility, the court can grant a hearing on it. It would be a very small number of cases. He indicated that they would need some advice from the Department of Law to look at this closely, but he indicated that now they are getting close to their intention. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON commented that HB 15 goes to the Judiciary Committee next and that would be an appropriate place for that discussion. Number 1894 MARCI SCHMIDT testified via teleconference from the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Legislative Information Office (LIO) asking if, under this proposed CS, they are no longer allowing foster parents to discuss the case with the legislators. Number 1918 MS. SEITZ agreed this is an entirely new draft because of the concerns raised about the Title IV-E funding that they would lose under the first bill. MS. SCHMIDT said she would rather have the original language of HB 15 put back in; it is vital for the safety of their children. It seems a shame that they are so concerned about dollars rather than children. She supports the original language being put back in. Number 2018 JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward to testify saying that the proposed CS does fix the problem of federal funding. She is concerned that they are heading down the road giving foster parents party status; this bill doesn't do it, but foster parents are hired by the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) to provide temporary shelter, but they are not parties themselves. However, last year HB 375 gave several rights to foster parents, one being the right to get notices and an opportunity to be heard in hearings and also to get notice in the change of placement. Now this bill allows them an additional right to petition the court to object to a placement in certain circumstances. MS. RUTHERDALE pointed out that this applies in cases when no one else agrees with the foster parents. She noted some problems: it will pull everybody into court when they may not need to; it may be a frivolous motion to the court. If they are called into defend it, it could require DFYS to go on record as defending their position which is defending the parent. It is possible that later the case could change and they sought to terminate parental rights, the DFYS is now on record of testimony saying "Look how great this parent is." It also raises questions if this somehow allows the foster parents to have court-appointed attorneys if they can't afford their own attorney. She asked if the foster parents will be allowed to practice law without a license or do they have a right of appeal. There might be a fiscal note from the court. Since this is a work draft, the Department of Law hasn't submitted a fiscal note, but she estimated conservatively that there could be 40 cases which could cost $18,000. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Rutherdale if a foster parent can now go to court to protest a placement. MS. RUTHERDALE answered as a practical matter, yes. They have to go through parties. This bill doesn't seem to be necessary, but foster parents are being allowed in court anyway. TAPE 99-46, SIDE B Number 2240 SARAH SHORT, President, Families First Partnership, testified via teleconference from Anchorage saying she agreed with Marci Schmidt that the original text of the bill was better for the child's best interest. Any external review of DFYS is an absolute necessity. Anything to aid the child should be done. She pointed out that the foster parents spend more time with the children than other people that are parties to the case. She said she believes that the process now does not work. There is no external review because they have taken away the Foster Care Review Board. She pointed out that sometimes children are at Alaska Children's Services for one to two months before they are placed in a foster home, and she wondered why they wouldn't be allowed to have adequate input since they have daily interaction with these children. MS. SHORT stated that the foster parents should have access to any legislator because they set the laws, and they should know every single thing about these children out there in crises. The DFYS profits from keeping children in care so she doesn't understand why they wouldn't allow the other for-profit groups to have a say. She believes that the foster parents have better insight than most of the case workers and guardians ad litem. They need to be able to openly communicate, and she urged them to go back to the original language. Number 2034 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if she did not want the foster parents to be able to go into court. Number 2031 MS. SHORT said they should be able to tell not only the court but also the legislators. She agreed that HB 15 is a good bill, it just needs to be able to open up a little bit more and also include the out-of-home caregivers. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed with Ms. Short that the Foster Care Review Board is important, and it is needed. But the important distinction between the two drafts before them are that the legislators do not make decisions on the disposition of a child in state custody, the courts do. The foster parents need to be able to have access to the courts, and the proposed CS does that. Number 1939 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move the proposed CSHB 15, version 1-LSO131\D, Chenoweth/Lauterbach, 4/14/99, as amended, out of the committee with individual recommendations. There being no objections, CSHB 15(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee. Number 1916 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON commented that strongly over his objection they eliminated the Foster Care Review Board, which was a major protection and safety valve, and it worked well in some cases. He appreciates the sponsor and the DHSS working together on this. He agreed the original bill had some merit, but he is not going to go against the sponsor and amend it.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|