Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
02/09/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB237 | |
| SB10 | |
| SB209 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 237 | ||
| = | SB 10 | ||
SB 10-PARENTAL LIABILITY FOR CHILD'S DAMAGE
8:57:14 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 10 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, bill sponsor, explained to the committee
that she drew up a matrix reflecting all the different
situations to help the committee discuss the options before
them. The issue is whether or not to hold the state liable for
children in state's custody. The original bill did not hold the
state liable but the committee amended the bill and since then
discussions have been in regard to the extent of that liability.
She said it was now up to the committee to finalize the bill.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked for clarification on the number of
juveniles in state's custody.
TONY NEWMAN, Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ), said there were approximately 2,300 juveniles in the
system.
SENATOR FRENCH asked the number of juveniles whose parents have
seen their parental rights terminated.
MR. NEWMAN said of those, there were approximately 200 children.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS asked whether there was potential that
the state would be the only payor on a claim.
SENATOR GUESS said that is not the intent nor is the bill
written that way. The juvenile would be responsible for the
first $5,000. The intent of the bill is to create consistency in
the system and to balance restitution to the victim.
9:00:30 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS expressed concern that juvenile and parents
might never pay the debt and that the state would be the only
entity held liable for restitution.
MS. CARPENETI said she thought that the state would end up being
the deep pocket on a lot of the claims. The normal way to
collect judgments from Alaskan citizens is through the permanent
fund dividend and that is not a guaranteed form of restitution.
She said Ms. Steinberg would be the best person to speak about
success in collections from juveniles and their parents.
9:02:27 AM
BRAD THOMPSON, Director, Division of Risk Management, Department
of Administration (DOA) testified and said it was a policy call
to decide at what segment the state should be held responsible.
As noted in the previous hearing, there could be a situation
where four juveniles cause some damage and the state would be
targeted if one of them were in state's custody.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Thompson whether there was any way to
access the risk in terms of dollars.
MR. THOMPSON said he researched the website for the insurance
information institute, which is a data collection entity for all
homeowner and renter policies. He estimated that vandalism was
10 percent of all property claims in the past five years.
Ninety-five percent of homeowners have insurance and sixty-four
percent of renters have no insurance. Arson is the leading cause
of claims and children are responsible for almost half of arson
fires. Juveniles under 18 years of age accounted for 42 percent
of arson arrests in 2004. He offered to provide more information
to the committee in the form of statistics.
9:05:58 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said out of the 2300 children in state's custody,
the most dangerous ones are in the pre-teen and teenage years.
He asked Mr. Newman the number of juveniles that fall in that
age group.
MR. NEWMAN said the majority of the children in state's custody
are OCS kids (Office of Children's Services) and they are
typically younger than those under watch of the DJJ. He did not
have a breakdown of the age distribution.
9:08:48 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said it was difficult for the committee to proceed
because there were no hard numbers to refer to. The committee
had no information of the actual occurrences of vandalism by the
juveniles and the committee was not aware of the actual number
of pre-teen and teenage juveniles and so they could not
determine a risk factor. He said he believes that somebody
should be held responsible so that the property owner gets
restitution. He expressed support for the state taking liability
for juveniles in custody.
SENATOR HUGGINS referred to the matrix provided by Senator Guess
and asked whether the parents would be held liable for
restitution under any of the potential amendments.
SENATOR GUESS responded under the first posed situation the
parents would be liable for a segment of the restitution.
9:12:21 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said part of his concern was for the property
owner and insurance companies tend to search for ways to recoup
their losses.
MR. NEWMAN said his previous testimony pointed out that the
state was already holding children accountable for causing
damage while in state's custody. The department forces the kids
to work off the damage and they occasionally take them to court.
Currently the statute says that parents retain residual rights,
one of which is support of a minor and would include acts of
vandalism. He said it was difficult to tell how the bill would
change the situation. By codifying that the state is liable it
would open up third party claims, which do not exist at this
time. He said he was reluctant to believe there was a problem
and that the bill was necessary.
9:14:52 AM
SENATOR GUESS clarified for the committee that the issue was
vandalism that is over $25,000 and the bill limits the state's
liability to $15,000. She took issue with the continuing
reference to the possible abuse from the "deep pockets" of the
state. From the data that the sponsors gathered the vandalism
claims were almost all $5,000 or less.
The bill is intended to hold juveniles and their parents
responsible for some of the damages incurred by vandalism. She
cited a recent case in Anchorage where a juvenile burned down a
playground and the parent advised the school that they shouldn't
have flammable playgrounds. The bill is to address those parents
that are not taking responsibility for the actions of their
children.
9:17:01 AM
MS. CARPENETI added that SB 10 would affect all sorts of
instances of children causing damages and the ability of people
to recover. The Office of Victim's Rights is interested to
testify on the bill as well, she said.
CHAIR SEEKINS said his personal leaning was toward option number
two, labeled 24-LS0115\O.4.
9:18:23 AM
STACY STEINBERG, Section Chief of Collections, Department of
Law, (DOL) commented there was a statistic that didn't seem to
match up. Her section, which is part of the civil division,
collects criminal restitution owed to victims and also they
collect restitution in juvenile delinquency cases that have gone
to formal adjudication. She reported that they currently have
356 open juvenile delinquency files and of that amount 124 were
over $5,000 dollars. This differs from Senator Guess's claim
that 98 percent of claims are less than $5,000 dollars and she
questioned what those numbers reflect. SB 10 would also make the
restitution process much slower, she reported.
SENATOR GUESS responded that the statistics were hard to
delineate between the person and the property crimes. The data
she cited was reported from the municipalities on actual damage
and not just the cases that had gone through the system.
9:21:22 AM
CYNTHIA HORA, Associate Victim's Rights Advocate with the Alaska
Office of Victim's Rights, said her comments were on behalf of
the victims. The Office of Victim's Rights supports the concept
of consistency relating to the ability of crime victims to
obtain restitution from those who have caused damage. The amount
and ability to collect should not depend on whether the juvenile
is placed on informal probation, formally adjudicated a
delinquent, or sued civilly when the state decides not to
prosecute.
Restitution is very important to victims. They often suffer a
high emotional price and they should not be made to bear the
economic price of the crime. The wait is often years until the
juvenile case is resolved and restitution is formally ordered.
The citizens of Alaska recognized the importance of restitution
when they passed the constitutional right to restitution.
The Office of Victim's Rights supports prompt payment of
restitution and they oppose any amendment that acts against
that. They oppose having the juvenile solely responsible for the
first $5,000 dollars. Victims should be paid first and having
the juvenile responsible does not serve that goal. The Office
also opposes a cap on parental liability especially when the
parents are financially able to pay. They oppose relieving the
parents of responsibility when the child is a runaway. The
purpose of the juvenile statutes dealing with delinquent minors
addresses both juvenile and parental accountability. Holding
parents fully liable will keep them involved by making the
juvenile work to pay the parents back and to get the restitution
paid off.
9:25:06 AM
MS. HORA directed the committee to AS 47.12.010 and cited the
majority of it:
Sec. 47.12.010. Goal and purposes of chapter.
(a) The goal of this chapter is to promote a balanced
juvenile justice system in the state to protect the community,
impose accountability for violations of law, and equip juvenile
offenders with the skills needed to live responsibly and
productively.
(b) The purposes of this chapter are to
(1) respond to a juvenile offender's needs in a manner that
is consistent with
(A) prevention of repeated criminal behavior;
(B) restoration of the community and victim;
(C) protection of the public; and
(D) development of the juvenile into a productive citizen;
(2) protect citizens from juvenile crime;
(3) hold each juvenile offender directly accountable for
the offender's conduct;
(4) provide swift and consistent consequences for crimes
committed by juveniles;
(5) make the juvenile justice system more open, accessible,
and accountable to the public;
(6) require parental or guardian participation in the
juvenile justice process;
(7) create an expectation that parents will be held
responsible for the conduct and needs of their children;
(8) ensure that victims, witnesses, parents, foster
parents, guardians, juvenile offenders, and all other interested
parties are treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, and
sensitivity throughout all legal proceedings;
(9) provide due process through which juvenile offenders,
victims, parents, and guardians are assured fair legal
proceedings during which constitutional and other legal rights
are recognized and enforced;
(10) divert juveniles from the formal juvenile justice
process through early intervention as warranted when consistent
with the protection of the public;
(11) provide an early, individualized assessment and action
plan for each juvenile offender in order to prevent further
criminal behavior through the development of appropriate skills
in the juvenile offender so that the juvenile is more capable of
living productively and responsibly in the community;
(12) ensure that victims and witnesses of crimes committed
by juveniles are afforded the same rights as victims and
witnesses of crimes committed by adults;
(13) encourage and provide opportunities for local
communities and groups to play an active role in the juvenile
justice process in ways that are culturally relevant; and
(14) review and evaluate regularly and independently the
effectiveness of programs and services under this chapter.
MS. HORA asserted people have a constitutional right to
restitution. Adults are ordered to pay the full amount of
restitution with no delay in beginning payments. She asked that
the committee not adopt the limitation on parental
responsibility. She asked that the committee not require the
juvenile to be responsible for the first $5,000 and that the
parents of runaways also be held liable.
9:27:07 AM
SENATOR GUESS clarified that current statute does not require
full restitution. SB 10 is the first attempt to conform all of
the systems so that full restitution can be reached. There have
been cases where the judge determines the amount that the
juvenile and parent can afford, assigns that number and declares
it "full restitution."
SENATOR GUESS said she believes that there should be consistency
in all of the systems as well as full restitution. The bill is
an attempt to create a better balance and has evolved out of
much public, departmental, and legislative comment. In response
to the Office of Victim's Rights, they are correct that if the
goal were simply to bring full restitution to the victims as
soon as possible then SB 10 would have to be changed
dramatically. That goal was not the sole intent, although that
is a valid concern.
SENATOR HUGGINS stated for the record that he did not agree with
a judge assessing fines due to ability to pay. His opinion was
that every vandal should be forced to pay full and unrestricted
restitution.
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony and asked for committee
comment.
SENATOR FRENCH moved to adopt Amendment 1.
24-LS0115\O.2
Cook
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR GUESS
TO: CCSB 10(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 4, lines 15 - 24:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 6. AS 34.50.020(b) is repealed and reenacted to read:
(b) The state is liable, to the same extent a parent
is liable under (a) of this section, for an act of an
unemancipated minor committed while in state custody if the
parental rights of the minor's parents have been
terminated. This subsection does not apply if the act is
committed while the minor has run away or is missing from
state custody."
Page 7, line 29, through page 8, line 7:
Delete all material.
Insert "(the index). The index for January of 2006 is the
reference base index. The state is responsible for restitution,
to the same extent a parent is responsible under this
subsection, for an act of a minor committed while in state
custody if the parental rights of the minor's parents have been
terminated. This subsection does not apply if the act is
committed while the minor has run away or is missing from state
custody."
Page 14, lines 22 - 31:
Delete all material.
Insert "of 2006 is the reference base index. The state is
responsible for restitution, to the same extent a parent is
responsible under this subsection, for an act of a minor
committed while in state custody if the parental rights of the
minor's parents have been terminated. This subsection does not
apply if the act is committed while the minor has run away or is
missing from state custody."
CHAIR SEEKINS objected and said he would prefer the option
labeled 24-LS0115\O.4. He said it closes a black hole as far as
the victim's property rights are concerned.
SENATOR GUESS said if the juvenile is in state's custody and the
parental rights have not been terminated they would still be
liable so there wouldn't be a black hole as far as the victim
was concerned.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:36:09 AM.
9:45:16 AM
SENATOR FRENCH withdrew Amendment 1.
SENATOR HUGGINS moved Amendment 2.
24-LS0115\O.4
Cook
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR GUESS
TO: CSSB 10(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 4, lines 15 - 24:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 6. AS 34.50.020(b) is repealed and reenacted to read:
(b) The state is liable, to the same extent a parent
is liable under (a) of this section, for an act of an
unemancipated minor committed while in the legal custody of
the state, except that the state is not liable if the act
is committed while the minor has run away from state
custody, is missing from state custody, or has been placed
by the state into the physical custody of a parent of the
minor. If the minor has been placed by the state into the
physical custody of a parent, the parent is liable under
(a) of this section for an act committed during that
placement. To the extent that the state is liable under
this subsection, a parent is not liable under (a) of this
section."
Page 7, line 29, through page 8, line 7:
Delete all material.
Insert "(the index). The index for January of 2006 is the
reference base index. The state is responsible for restitution,
to the same extent a parent with legal custody is responsible
for restitution under this subsection, for an act of a minor
committed while in the legal custody of the state, except that
the state is not responsible if the act is committed while the
minor has run away from state custody, is missing from state
custody, or has been placed by the state into the physical
custody of a parent of the minor. If the minor has been placed
by the state into the physical custody of a parent, the parent
is responsible for restitution for an act committed during that
placement to the same extent as a parent with legal custody."
Page 14, lines 22 - 31:
Delete all material.
Insert "of 2006 is the reference base index. The state is
responsible for restitution, to the same extent a parent with
legal custody is responsible for restitution under this
subsection, for an act of a minor committed while in the legal
custody of the state, except that the state is not responsible
if the act is committed while the minor has run away from state
custody, is missing from state custody, or has been placed by
the state into the physical custody of a parent of the minor. If
the minor has been placed by the state into the physical custody
of a parent, the parent is responsible for restitution for an
act committed during that placement to the same extent as a
parent with legal custody."
SENATOR FRENCH objected.
Roll call proved Amendment 2 passed on a three to one vote with
Senators Huggins, Guess and Chair Seekins voting yea and Senator
French voting nay.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked the sponsors to roll the amendment into a
committee substitute (CS) for the committee to consider during
the next scheduled meeting. He held the bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|