Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
03/28/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB318 | |
| HB408 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 408-DEFINITION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
9:54:55 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced CSHB 408(FIN) AM to be up for
consideration.
Rynnieva Moss, Legislative Aide for Representative John Coghill,
introduced the bill. She advised the committee that the bill was
the product of a friendly takeover of the Governor's
legislation, which originally defined child abuse and involved
medical personnel who were involved in a delivery to report any
suspected adverse conditions to a newborn child from alcohol or
drug abuse. Language from HB 327 has been added as well and many
members of the House have added amendments along the way.
9:57:03 AM
MS. MOSS summarized the sections of the bill. Section 1 raises
the level of proof from "a preponderance of evidence." Section 2
raises the standard for termination of parental rights to "clear
and convincing evidence." Section 3 contains language clean up
to accommodate Section 2. Section 4 clarifies that the employee
has five working days to respond once the information is
requested. Section 5 would allow OCS the ability to disclose the
nature and validity of any report of harm if the parent makes
public disclosure, if the perpetrator is charged with a crime,
and if there is a death or near death of a child.
9:59:34 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Moss to define what constitutes "public
disclosure."
MS. MOSS responded that would be disclosure of confidential
information to the public. It would normally be disclosed to the
press.
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Children's
Services (OCS) agreed with the description.
10:00:56 AM
MS. MOSS continued Section 6 broadens the Department's ability
to discuss a report of harm with any child who is in the care of
a perpetrator. Section 7 comes from a real life incident where
the foster parents took the children's Permanent Fund dividends
(PFD). The money would be put into a trust and once the child
ages out in the system they would be able to file for the PFD.
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified that the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) has the affirmative responsibility to apply for
the PFD under existing law.
MS. MOSS noted the bill contains a provision for the legal
guardian to petition the court for the PFD. Section 8 requires
that practitioners of the healing arts involved in the delivery
or care of a child who determines the child is adversely
affected by a controlled substance or alcohol must notify OCS.
Section 9 comes from a recommendation from the Citizens Review
Panel. Section 10 contains indirect court rules. Section 11 is
the applicability to pending and non-pending cases. Section 12
is the immediate effective date.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked for a definition of "practitioner of the
healing arts."
MS. MOSS read it the definition as, "includes chiropractors,
mental health counselors, social workers, dental hygienists,
dentists, health aides, nurses, nurse practitioners, certified
nurse aides, occupational therapists, occupational therapy
assistants, optometrists, osteopaths, naturopaths, physical
therapists, physical therapy assistants, physicians, physician's
assistants, psychiatrists, psychologists, psychological
associates, audiologists and speech language pathologists,
hearing aide dealers, marital advisors, religious healing
practitioners, acupuncturists and surgeons.
10:06:25 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the list was all-inclusive.
MS. MOSS deferred to the Department of Law.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), indicated the definition was very precise.
CHAIR SEEKINS expressed concern with terms of limitations of
prosecution for someone implied to be on the list but was not on
the list.
MS. RUTHERDALE speculated a prosecutor would only attempt a case
with a person on the list.
CHAIR SEEKINS suggested specifying the practitioner of the
healing arts as defined in AS 47.17.290(13).
MS. RUTHERDALE agreed.
10:09:00 AM
MS. SANDOVAL added the original intent of HB 408 was to comply
with federal law.
REX SHATTUCK, Staff to Representative Mark Neuman, explained
that Section 9 is language from HB 346 and adopts language from
the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 into state
statute.
10:12:01 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked whether the Citizens Review Panel report
was confidential.
MS. SANDOVAL said by statute they have an obligation to release
the report to legislators and then it becomes a public document.
MS. MOSS affirmed that it is a public document.
SENATOR HUGGINS said the report lists weaknesses with Mat-Su
Valley OCS. He asked whether the bill addressed and corrected
the weaknesses.
10:14:57 AM
MS. SANDOVAL said as the deputy commissioner her responsibility
is to ensure that corrections to system weakenesses happen.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Sandoval to comment on whether HB 408
strengthens the confidence level of the community.
MS. SANDOVAL said she is committed to reviewing all of the
confidentiality laws and co-training assistant attorney generals
as well as OCS staff. There are inconsistencies around the state
regarding the amount of information shared. Everyone involved
will be re-trained according to current legislation.
10:18:37 AM
MS. MOSS advised the committee that the legislation would give
OCS transparency and allow the public to see more of what OCS is
doing. The system is not broke it's just that the policies have
not been implemented in the past.
SENATOR GUESS asked whether the change to five working days was
in conflict with the recent decision by Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics on confidentiality.
10:20:57 AM
MS. MOSS replied the Ethics decision dealt with hearing officers
and do there would be no contradiction between the bill and the
decision.
SENATOR GUESS asked whether "clear and convincing" was a higher
standard that "preponderance of evidence."
MS. MOSS replied yes. It puts a higher burden of proof on the
DOL to terminate parental rights.
SENATOR GUESS asked Ms. Moss to comment on the committee
substitute (CS) before the committee.
MS. MOSS stated it contains the addition of Section 9.
10:23:01 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked for explanation of the higher burden of
proof standard. He clarified there are certain situations in
which the court does not order changes in the behavior of the
parent in order to allow the child to return home.
MS. RUTHERDALE said whenever a child is removed the state must
prove they have attempted to keep the child in the home even if
that involves correcting of parental behavior. Once they have
removed the child, OCS must show reasonable efforts to correct
the behavior so the child can return home, such as getting an
alcoholic parent into rehabilitation. If OCS comes to the
conclusion that the child can never return home and they change
their plan to termination of parental rights, they must show
with clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts have
been made to return the child home.
In 1998 the Legislature decided that it would be an exercise in
futility for OCS to make reasonable efforts in some cases. For
example, if the parent has murdered a child and is in jail there
would be no need to waste their resources.
10:27:02 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked for explanation of Section 2.
MS. RUTHERDALE advised Section 2 is already in law and the state
already has to prove that a child is a "child in need of aide"
due to the parent's behavior and that the parent hasn't remedied
the behavior so that the child can return home. Section 2
increases the standard to prove that the state has made good
attempts to return the child home.
When the statute was enacted in 1998 it didn't contain the part
about "reasonable efforts." That was added later because federal
funding required it. It has since come to the attention of the
DOL that there is a legitimate constitutional reason for the
higher standard.
10:29:42 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Sandoval whether the Ombudsman has a
role in OCS.
MS. SANDOVAL responded yes. They can review cases and make
inquiries and the OCS is required to respond.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked whether OCS has contract employees.
MS. SANDOVAL said OCS does engage in grants in contracts with
agencies in the community that provide direct services to
families.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked whether that creates a recurring problem
in that Ombudsmen do not have the authority to get information
from contract employees.
MS. SANDOVAL responded that was not a routine concern.
10:31:16 AM
SENATOR GUESS referred to Section 7 and said she knows a foster
parent who is concerned about handing over 18 years of PFDs to a
young person. She asked whether there has been any discussion on
that and whether there should be options for children who have
been in long-term childcare.
MS. SANDOVAL replied the OCS has regional independent living
specialists who plan with youth who are aging out of the system.
They work with them on successful transitions and they do
consider the amount of cash that the child is about to receive.
10:33:13 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS commented once the child is out of state's
custody, the law requires the state to give them their money.
SENATOR THERRIAULT added unless the state has deemed the child
is not capable. Absent of that it is a property right.
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt version L as the working document
before the committee. Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
CHAIR SEEKINS held the bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|