02/27/2025 03:15 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2025
3:21 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Genevieve Mina, Chair
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Donna Mears
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Justin Ruffridge
Representative Rebecca Schwanke
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to the placement of foster children in
psychiatric hospitals; relating to the care of children in state
custody placed in residential facilities outside the state; and
amending Rule 12.1(b), Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of
Procedure."
- MOVED HB 36 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 36
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER CHILDREN PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRAY
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) HSS, FIN
02/27/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
KYLE JOHANSEN, Staff
Representative Andrew Gray
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 36
on behalf of Representative Gray, prime sponsor.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 36.
AMANDA METIVIER, Co-Founder
Facing Foster Care
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 36.
SARAH LEWIS, Project Coordinator
Facing Foster Care
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 36.
KXLO STONE, Youth Leadership Board Member
Facing Foster Care
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 36.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:21:48 PM
CHAIR GENEVIEVE MINA called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m.
Representatives Gray, Fields, and Schwanke were present at the
call to order. Representatives Mears, Prax, and Ruffridge
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 36-FOSTER CHILDREN PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT
3:22:32 PM
CHAIR GENEVIEVE MINA announced that the only order of business
would be, HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to the placement
of foster children in psychiatric hospitals; relating to the
care of children in state custody placed in residential
facilities outside the state; and amending Rule 12.1(b), Alaska
Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure."
CHAIR MINA invited Representative Gray and staff to present an
overview of HB 36.
3:23:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY, as prime sponsor, presented HB 36. He
paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Due process is a basic constitutional right of every
person in Alaska: adults, children, even children in
the custody of the state.
HB 36 would require a judicial hearing within seven
days of admission of a foster child to an acute
psychiatric hospital with the possibility of an
additional seven-day extension. HB 36 also allows
parties to appear remotely thus reducing cost and
protecting expedient due process.
In 2015 an Alaska Superior court deliberated the case
of a foster child admitted to an acute psychiatric
hospital. After the child had been stabilized, the
child was not discharged to a less restrictive
environment, but instead remained hospitalized
unnecessarily without any judicial review process in
statute.
The case, Hooper Bay v. Lawton, recognized an absence
of statutory guidance regarding children in the
custody of the state. The findings in that case led to
an injunction requiring a court hearing to be held
within 30 days for children admitted to acute
psychiatric facilities while in the custody of the
Office of Children's Services (OCS).
In the 2024 Alaska Supreme Court case Kwinkagak v.
State the court found that the lack of statutory
guidance evident in Hooper Bay had not been
ameliorated, and that 30 days was too long. In this
case a child was held for 46 days without a judicial
review. The Alaska Supreme Court concluded in its
decision:
"There is no doubt that children in OCS custody are at
substantial risk of being hospitalized for longer than
they need, or when they do not need to be hospitalized
at all." And further, "Clarifying the legal
protections for a vulnerable population of children in
state custody is of utmost importance."
House Bill 36 provides the necessary statutory
guidance asked for in the Kwinkagak decision.
I appreciate your support.
3:27:41 PM
KYLE JOHANSEN, Staff, Representative Andrew Gray, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Gray, prime sponsor,
presented the sectional analysis for HB 36 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1
Non substantive statutory construction
Section 2
Defines "acute psychiatric hospital" as suggested in
Kwinkagak v State of Alaska
Defines "contemporaneous two-way video conference" to
expedite due process
Section 3
New subsection
e) Allows the State to place child in an acute
hospital if it's the least restrictive option, the
child is gravely disabled/mentally ill and placement
would improve the condition of the
child with treatment or deteriorate the condition of
the child without treatment.
f) Requires all parties of the case to be notified of
placement within 24 hours
g) Requires a court review of placement within 7 days.
Gives the court the option
to extend the court review up to 14 days if necessary
to secure attendance of case
participants. Allows for contemporaneous two-way video
conferencing.
h) Requires case review each 30 days or by a "good-
cause" request by the child or interested
party.
Section 4
Adds "The number of children placed in residential
facilities providing care for children outside the
state' to the required annual report to the
Legislature on employee recruitment and retention,
including
a five year plan, for the division.
Section 5
Amends Court Rule 12.1 (b) Alaska Child in Need of Aid
Rules of Procedure to mandate the court
appointment of an attorney for a child who has been
placed in an acute psychiatric hospital.
3:31:05 PM
CHAIR MINA asked the committee for any questions regarding the
Alaska Court System.
3:31:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY, in response to a question from
Representative Prax, explained that a court rule change requires
a two-thirds vote in both bodies. He said that if a two-thirds
vote is not achieved in both parties, then the proposed change
of the bill would not pass, but the rest of the bill would pass.
He clarified that if part of a bill fails to pass with a two-
third vote from both bodies, then that part is severed from the
bill automatically.
3:32:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if seven days is too long for foster
children to wait for a hearing on their hospitalization and if
that time-period should be shortened to seventy-two hours.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY responded that seventy-two hours may be too
short of a period given the number of parties that must be
present for a hearing of this kind. He explained that HB 36
would allow parties to attend a hearing virtually. He
emphasized that seven days is much shorter than the current
thirty-day wait foster children experience in acute psychiatric
hospitals.
3:34:00 PM
CHAIR MINA asked Ms. Meade to describe the logistics required
for a court hearing regarding foster children in an acute
psychiatric hospital to occur, from an Alaska Court System
perspective.
3:34:19 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System (ACS), stated
that the Alaska Court System is neutral on HB 36. She explained
that, according to the [Alaska] Supreme Court and some trial
courts, a 72-hour time frame would be impossible to fulfill.
She said that a seven-day time frame would still be difficult,
but reasonable given the interests at stake. She said that,
according to HB 36, the Office of Children's Services (OCS)
would need to notify all parties of the Child in Need of Aide
(CINA) case within 24 hours of their hospitalization. After
receiving that notice, the court would need to schedule a
hearing within seven days of the child's hospitalization. She
confirmed that a three-day requirement is difficult due to the
large number of parties required to attend a hearing regarding a
child in need of aide case. This number may be as large as ten
or twelve parties. She added that the absence of any of these
parties would cause an absence of due process. Ms. Meade added
that seven days strikes a balance, as the period would allow
doctors at a facility the time to complete a thorough enough
analysis of the child to provide meaningful evidence at a
hearing.
3:37:49 PM
CHAIR MINA announced the committee would hear invited testimony.
3:38:06 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, Co-Founder, Facing Foster Care, described her
lived experience with the foster care system as a foster child,
foster parent, and social worker. She explained that HB 36 came
after a request by foster youth to ensure that foster youth are
not forgotten in acute care settings. She said that a hearing
within seven days would weed out youth who do not need this
level of care and would begin the process of identifying a more
appropriate placement setting in a timely fashion. She said
that HB 36 would create a sense of urgency and would enhance the
rights of youth in the foster care system. She emphasized that
shortening the requirement of a hearing from the current 30 days
to 7 days would not be burdensome as ACS often makes early
hearings happen in CINA cases where constitutional rights are at
stake. She asked the committee for their support of HB 36.
3:42:12 PM
SARAH LEWIS, Project Coordinator, Facing Foster Care, described
her personal experience with the foster care system as a sister,
a caregiver, a mother, and a peer of youth who have been placed
in these hospitals. She explained that youth are placed in such
facilities even when the placement is unnecessary. She
exemplified this with an anecdote about her brother who was
placed in an acute psychiatric hospital due to false accusations
from his foster parents at the time. His court hearing was
scheduled for the twenty-ninth day of his hospitalization,
during which the judge determined that Ms. Lewis' brother did
not meet the criteria for placement in an acute psychiatric
hospital and needed to be released immediately. Ms. Lewis also
shared her experience of witnessing another sibling of hers
being placed in an acute psychiatric hospital. She recounted
watching a nurse at this facility taunt another patient with the
use of "booty juice," which Ms. Lewis defined as the "IM shot
that chemically sedates a child." Ms. Lewis also explained how
heavily medicated her sister was while placed at this acute
psychiatric hospital, describing her sister "like a zombie."
Ms. Lewis said that she is sharing her story now to help those
who do not have a voice when being placed in an acute
psychiatric hospital. She said that 30 days is too long for a
child to be in an acute psychiatric hospital before they receive
a court hearing to determine if the criteria are met for them to
be placed in that acute psychiatric hospital. She encouraged
the committee to support HB 36.
3:48:54 PM
KXLO STONE, Youth Leadership Board Member, Facing Foster Care,
described her personal experience with the Foster Care System in
Alaska. She explained that the challenges her mother faced with
finding stable housing, navigating the legal system, and
maintaining relationships with her children with little to no
support, prevented her mother from being able to advocate for
her sister when placed in acute psychiatric hospitals. Ms.
Stone said that her sister was often hospitalized "for normal
behavioral issues for a child experiencing the pain, confusion,
and instability of her situation." She said that her sister was
often left in psychiatric facilities for endless months, with no
visits, no communication, or updates to the family, and that
these hospitals were used in lieu of finding an appropriate
placement for her sister. Ms. Stone asked the committee to not
view the placement of youth in these facilities as a one-size-
fits-all solution. She said that psychiatric hospitals should
be places where youth can find a path forward to recovery,
rather than feeling trapped or punished by their circumstances.
She emphasized that the decision to place a child in an acute
psychiatric hospital should not be taken lightly, and that the
decision on whether the youth needs placement in that facility
needs to happen sooner than later. She explained that foster
children, and their communities, need more than a system that
merely provides shelter, but a system that cares, supports, and
prioritizes their overall well-being. She emphasized the
vulnerability of foster children and requested that the
committee advocate for this vulnerable population.
3:53:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:53 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.
3:54:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked where foster children would be placed,
if not in psychiatric hospitals, when there is no other foster
placement for the child.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY responded that if there is not a placement
for the child outside of the facility, that is a problem for
OCS, not the facility itself. He described examples of OCS
placing a child in a hotel room and hiring somebody to monitor
the floor of the hotel where foster children are staying. He
explained that, although not ideal, this situation would still
be a less restrictive environment than a hospital would be for
the child, and that a hotel room costs less per night than an
acute psychiatric hospital. He emphasized that moving HB 36
should not be paused because of concerns that there are not
enough placement sites for foster children in Alaska, given that
there exist options that could be utilized that would be in
better interest of foster children than leaving them in a
psychiatric facility.
3:57:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said that building out a continuum of care
is necessary, which would include complex care residential
homes, outpatient behavioral health services, preventative care
for kids, and early intervention.
3:57:29 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:57 p.m.
3:57:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to report HB 36 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 36 was reported out of the
House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
3:57:58 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:57 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.
3:58:41 PM
CHAIR MINA announced that HB 36 was reported from the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
3:59:21 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:59 p.m.
3:59:43 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 3:59 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 36 Bill Packet 02.25.25.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Fiscal Note Courts.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Fiscal Note DFCS.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Kwinkagak v. State.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Native Village of Hoooper Bay v. Christy Lawton.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 N Version.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Sectional Analysis Version N.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Sponsor Statement Version N.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36-Court Case Excerpts-Version N.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36-Document with links to relevant court cases Version N.pdf |
HHSS 2/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 36 |