Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
04/04/2006 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB346 | |
| HB468 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 482 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 467 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 426 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 346 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 468 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 346-CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS 3:06:03 PM CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 346, "An Act relating to child abuse investigations and training." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt CSHB 346, Version 24- LS1335\G, Mischel, 3/27/06. There being no objection, Version G was before the committee. 3:07:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the prime sponsor of HB 346, paraphrased from the written sponsor statement as follows [original punctuation provided]: On June 25, 2003, the "Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act" (CAPTA) was signed into law in our nation's capital. This act requires states to implement two provisions for protecting families during the child investigative process. Provisions of this act require states to ensure they have: (xvii) provisions and procedures to require that a representative of the child protective services agency shall, at the initial time of contact with the individual subject to a child abuse and neglect investigation, advise the individual of the complaints or allegations made against the individual, in a manner that is consistent with laws protecting the rights of the informant; (xviii) provisions addressing the training of representatives of the child protective services system regarding the legal duties of the representatives, which may consist of various methods of informing such representatives of such duties, in order to protect the legal rights and safety of children and families from the initial time of contact during investigation through treatment; This Bill ensures that as a state we are in compliance with CAPTA. It is important that the training of child protective services personnel ensures that they are knowledgeable in best practices for promoting collaboration with families and that they are fully aware of the extent and limits of their legal authority and the legal rights of parents while carrying out such investigations. 3:09:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that the committee substitute (CS) provides for the addition of three subsections to the existing statute [AS 47.17.033] which are labeled (j), (k), and (l), whereas the original bill included only two. He described the sections respectively: The revised subsection (j) provides parameters for the training of department representatives for conducting search and seizure; The existing subsection (k) becomes the new subsection (l); The new subsection (k) provides directives regarding a joint investigation conducted by the department and a law enforcement agency, which ensures that a family's Fourth Amendment rights will be protected. Under the new subsection (l) the language from the original subsection (k) is revised to provide a caveat which allows law enforcement officials to limit or prohibit notification of an individual regarding a specific complaint or allegation. 3:11:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how this will change what is currently in practice. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded that this language will bring Alaska statute in-line with CAPTA, which requires that states implement these standards. In further response, he noted that what is not currently in practice is the training requirement component. Although training does occur, he stressed that without specific language in statute, it is not necessarily emphasized, which may result in complaints of procedures not being followed. 3:13:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that page 2, line 2, stipulates that the "complainant may not be revealed". However, he questioned if that is strong enough language, and he related a personal experience that illustrated the ease afforded a perpetrator in identifying a complainant, thus allowing for confrontation or retribution. He underscored the importance of protecting the complainant's identity. 3:15:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled the recent efforts of rewriting the child in need of aid (CINA) law. He asked whether the rights of the families, as stipulated in HB 346, were not included in the revisions of CINA, and whether this bill represents a formality for federal purposes to indicate that particular issues have been placed into state statute. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN acknowledged the CINA revisions, but could not ascertain whether the issues addressed in HB 346 represent an overlap. He assured the committee that this bill will bring Alaska in-line with the required procedures established as federal standards under CAPTA. 3:17:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in response to Chair Wilson, confirmed that HB 346 has been included in HB 408, which has been approved by the Senate Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. 3:18:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO restated his personal experience with Office of Children's Services (OCS), and asked for an explanation of what measures are taken to ensure that a complainant's identity is protected. In the situation which he described earlier, he pointed out that the complainant's name was not issued by OCS, but the complainant's professional position in the community was and that made for easy identification by the perpetrator. He reiterated his question as to whether there is a need for stricter language in the bill. TAMMY SANDOVAL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Children's Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), expressed distress regarding the experience that Representative Gatto described. She explained that the standard operating procedures followed by OCS should never allow for identification of the complainant or make any identifying information available that could allow for such a situation to arise. She agreed that the language would be strengthened by amendment. She pointed out that the law does provide a legal caveat for when a case is presented in court, which allows for the complainant to be identified. However, it should not occur prematurely or outside of court as in Representative Gatto's situation. 3:21:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined whether changing the single word would suffice or if language could be included that would impose a misdemeanor against any person who reveals the identity of a complainant. MICHAEL LESMANN, Community Relations Officer, Office of Children's Services, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), cited AS 47.17.040(b) and paraphrased from the following [original punctuation provided]: (b) Investigation reports and reports of harm filed under this chapter are considered confidential and are not subject to public inspection and copying under AS 40.25.110 and 40.25.120. However, in accordance with department regulations, investigation reports may be used by appropriate governmental agencies with child-protection functions, inside and outside the state, in connection with investigations or judicial proceedings involving child abuse, neglect, or custody. A person, not acting in accordance with department regulations, who with criminal negligence makes public information contained in confidential reports is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. CHAIR WILSON stated: We're really covered .... Unfortunately, once in a while there is a slip-up, but no one ever does that intentionally. ... the intent is to not reveal the person who ... instigated an investigation. 3:23:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether there would be any legal concerns in amending the language as suggested. MS. SANDOVAL responded that the word "shall" could be inserted to replace the word "may", without difficulty. 3:24:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved Amendment 1, stated as follows: Page 2, line 2; Delete "may" Insert "shall" Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:24:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated his inquiry regarding the omission of the HB 346 issues in the CINA bill revision. MS. SANDOVAL stated that the department supports this bill, and explained that required training is provided to new OCS employees via the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) academy, and the DHSS standard operating procedure [SOP] also addresses the HB 346 issues. However, she said: "Is [the training and is the SOP] as specific and [do they] give [these issues] as much emphasis and weight within our own system, no. Do I think that we have addressed [these issues], yes. I think we could do better." She conceded that the changes required by HB 53 [CINA revisions] were extensive and the department is "still trying to make the tweaks in [routine] practice, ... regulations, ... policies, and procedures and this is [an area] that we haven't given specific attention to ... but it hasn't been entirely missed." 3:26:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that Ms. Sandoval's response answered the family rights aspect, but he requested further clarification regarding the section of HB 346 that deals with the protection of the complainant's identity. He asked if this was an area addressed in HB 53, and, if so, how is it being implemented by the department. MS. SANDOVAL explained that when an investigation begins, unless law enforcement stipulates otherwise, the department's SOP requires that OCS advise the alleged perpetrator of the allegations. However, she said, "I don't believe that HB 53 specifically addressed what's now being addressed in HB 346." MR. LESMANN interjected that Representative Seaton may be recalling the aspect of HB 53 that referred to feedback to reporters, if they asked to be notified of a status. 3:28:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked, referring to subsection (k), page 1, line 9, whether this language would require OCS to involve law enforcement prior to OCS having established an incoming report as representing a well-founded suspicion. MS. SANDOVAL described what routinely happens when a report is received, how the validity of a report is established, and how the decision to coordinate law enforcement occurs. She explained that often, after OCS determines the safety aspect of a situation, law enforcement may initiate a criminal investigation right away. 3:30:29 PM CHAIR WILSON questioned whether the "shall" [page 1, line 10] should be amended to "may". REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the "shall" only applies when a joint investigation has already been initiated. 3:31:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the language of subsection (k) comports with current departmental practice. MS. SANDOVAL assured the committee that this subsection represents current SOP. 3:31:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 24- LS1335\A.l, Mischel, 4/4/06, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "relating to intensive family preservation and reunification services;" Page 1, following line 2: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Section 1. AS 47.10.080(l) is amended to read: (l) Within 12 months after the date a child enters foster care as calculated under AS 47.10.088(f), the court shall hold a permanency hearing. The hearing and permanent plan developed in the hearing are governed by the following provisions: (1) the persons entitled to be heard under AS 47.10.070 or under (f) of this section are also entitled to be heard at the hearing held under this subsection; (2) when establishing the permanent plan for the child, the court shall make appropriate written findings, including findings related to whether (A) and when the child should be returned to the parent or guardian; (B) the child should be placed for adoption or legal guardianship and whether a petition for termination of parental rights should be filed by the department; and (C) the child should be placed in another planned, permanent living arrangement and what steps are necessary to achieve the new arrangement; (3) if the court is unable to make a finding required under (2) of this subsection, the court shall hold another hearing within a reasonable period of time; (4) in addition to the findings required by (2) of this subsection, the court shall also make appropriate written findings related to (A) whether the department has made the reasonable efforts required under AS 47.10.086 to offer appropriate family support services, available intensive family preservation services, or intensive family reunification services to remedy the parent's or guardian's conduct or conditions in the home that made the child a child in need of aid under this chapter; (B) whether the parent or guardian has made substantial progress to remedy the parent's or guardian's conduct or conditions in the home that made the child a child in need of aid under this chapter; (C) if the permanent plan is for the child to remain in out-of-home care [OUT-OF-HOME-CARE], whether the child's out-of-home placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child; and (D) whether the department has made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanent plan for the child; (5) the court shall hold a hearing to review the permanent plan at least annually until successful implementation of the plan; if the plan approved by the court changes after the hearing, the department shall promptly apply to the court for another permanency hearing, and the court shall conduct the hearing within 30 days after application by the department. * Sec. 2. AS 47.10.086(a) is amended to read: (a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) of this section, the department shall make timely, reasonable efforts to provide family support services to the child and to the parents or guardian of the child that are designed to prevent out-of-home placement of the child or to enable the safe return of the child to the family home, when appropriate, if the child is in an out-of-home placement. Within appropriations available for the purpose, the department shall also make reasonable efforts to refer a child for intensive family preservation services, or intensive family reunification services, or both, when those services are available and, if the child is in the home, the child's safety in the home can be maintained during the time the services are provided. The department's duty to make reasonable efforts under this subsection to provide family support services includes the duty to (1) identify family support services that will assist the parent or guardian in remedying the conduct or conditions in the home that made the child a child in need of aid; (2) actively offer the parent or guardian, and refer the parent or guardian to, the family support services identified under (1) of this subsection; the department shall refer the parent or guardian to community-based family support services whenever community-based services are available and desired by the parent or guardian; and (3) document the department's actions that are taken under [(1) AND (2) OF] this subsection, including whether intensive family preservation services or intensive family reunification services, or both, were appropriate, offered, used, or available." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 3" 3:32:23 PM CHAIR WILSON objected to allow discussion. 3:32:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained that this amendment matches the spirit of the bill in working to ascertain safety issues and by stipulating the preservation/reunification of the family unit. She said that the intensive family preservation model is a program which has been adopted in 33 states and 8 countries with positive results. She related her understanding that the department has existing services to support this type of family preservation and reunification model, which is successful due to its intensity. She pointed out that the bold type sets out what action should be taken if services are available, however, the amendment does not require the department to establish new services to support the model. MS. SANDOVAL described how the department's current levels of family preservation/reunification coincide with this intensive family preservation model. 3:36:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if statistics are available which would indicate that family preservation/reunification is a cause worth pursuing. MS. SANDOVAL stressed that family preservation is certainly worth the effort. Philosophically and generally speaking, children should stay in their home whenever possible, if safety can be assured, and even while support services are being administered to a family. She explained that the situation changes dramatically when a child is removed and the focus shifts to reunification. 3:38:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired why this amendment is necessary if it reflects what is already a standing alternative. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that the same could be said about the bill without the amendment, but she stressed that the amendment provides legislative intent. She said that this amendment would also serve to open opportunities for the state to pursue contracts with private vendors who would provide services in accordance with this model. 3:40:03 PM MS. SANDOVAL explained that when DHSS receives funding to administer the three areas of family support provided under OCS, a pot of money is created which is then granted to contractors who have submitted a successful request for proposal (RFP). She questioned how this amendment would serve to augment the existing system. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA clarified that this would enter the term "intensive family preservation" into statute to provide a focal aspect, which does not currently exist. Also, she opined that entry of this terminology into statute may afford a window of opportunity for people who provide this type of service to receive funding through The National Intensive Family Preservation Association, which locates grant money for allocation. She stressed the success that other states have experienced with this program. 3:41:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that "intensive family preservation services" is not capitalized in the amendment, but that it is being discussed in committee as a particular program. He paraphrased from the amendment Section 1, subparagraph (A), which states: "... to offer appropriate family support services ..., available intensive family preservation services, or intensive family reunification services ...", and suggested that by enacting this language the RFP procedure would be precluded and the department would be required to provide funds to whomever operated a program under this model. Further, he offered questions which would need to be clarified if his understanding is correct. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that these intensive services are already offered in Alaska, and are currently called "wrap-around services." She explained her understanding as to how the intensive model works, and opined that many organizations hold contracts with the state to provide services of this caliber. MS. SANDOVAL agreed and further illuminated that the implementation of methods for intensive family preservation and intensive family reunification are tools in the OCS "tool kit". She explained that OCS considers all of these options when attempting to rehabilitate a family. 3:45:48 PM CHAIR WILSON noted that by not capitalizing the title it removes the understanding of it being a specific program and identifies it as an intensive service model for assisting families. MS. SANDOVAL named the Home Builder's model as an example of a specific professional model currently in use which implements some intensive family preservation techniques. She stated that OCS staff has worked with a consultant who provides the state with technical assistance for administering an intensive family preservation program. CHAIR WILSON reiterated that by not capitalizing this name in statute, it would not be construed as a "specific program" but rather suggest an overall model that OCS could choose to implement. 3:47:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN echoed Representative Seaton's concern as to whether this amendment would create a connection to a particular company/organization or does it enact a standard appropriate for state statute. He expressed concern for including the name of an organization in the bill because it may complicate matters. 3:49:18 PM JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Child Protection Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), clarified that this is not a specific program but rather a generic model which eliminates any conflict. 3:49:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that despite his original concerns, he now understands, through committee discussion, that this language pertains in fact to a model versus a specific program, thus funds would not be channeled to a particular provider. He requested that the sponsor of the amendment provide a statement to that effect for the record. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that this amendment is to provide a class of service and to indicate a general service model which can be provided through various ways and means. 3:51:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO established that the "National Family Preservation Network" is a proper name with a website and describes itself as using characteristics of the Home Builder's model which is a registered trademark. However, he agreed that providing specific terms in lower case would not present a problem. 3:52:51 PM CHAIR WILSON withdrew her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved to report CSHB 346, Version 24- LS1335\G, Mischel, 3/27/06, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 346(HES) was reported out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|