Legislature(1999 - 2000)
10/15/1999 02:12 PM Senate ARR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
October 15, 1999
2:12 pm
WORK SESSION
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Representative Jeanette James, Vice-chair
Representative Mary Kapsner
Senator Pete Kelly
Senate Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Regulation Review - Department of Health and Social Services,
Division of Family and Youth Services and Department of Revenue,
Child Support Enforcement Division.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Larry Persily
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110405
Juneau, AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSED procedures and regulations.
Ms. Barbara Miklos
Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Ave. Ste. 310
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding child support.
Mr. Dallas Cox, Manager
Accounting and Paternity Section
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th, Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99501-6699
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on child support issues.
Mr. Darrell Watson
Operation Manager
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Ave. Ste.310
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on child support issues.
Mr. Rick Krueger
P.O. Box 5604
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed his personal experience with CSED.
Ms. Dixie Tallman
P.O. Box 9025
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about adoption procedures of
foster children.
Ms. Sarah Short
Families First
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on child support reform.
Ms. Rebecca Snow, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Civil Division
Human Services Section
100 Cushman St. Ste. 400
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on Bethel Human Services.
Mr. Russ Webb, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99811-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on DFYS services.
Ms. Theresa Tanoury, Administrator
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, AK 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on DFYS services.
Ms. Linda Beecher
Public Defenders Agency
Department of Administration
550 W. 8th Ave. Ste. 304
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed disparity among courts regarding
court appointed representation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-07, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Joint Committee on Administrative
Regulation Review meeting to order at 2:12 p.m. Present were
Senator Pete Kelly, Representative Mary Kapsner, Representative
Jeanette James, and Chairman Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked that a representative of the Child
Support Enforcement Division (CSED) give an overview first.
MS. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director of CSED, explained that CSED is in the
process of a major rewrite of its regulations to clarify its
procedures, to make them public, and to ensure that its regulations
are applied clearly and consistently. All CSED regulations have a
due process focus.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated the purpose of the meeting is to receive and
discuss recommendations from state agencies and the public on
necessary legislative changes to better accomplish the agencies'
missions and to serve the public.
MS. MIKLOS referred to a set of questions posed to CSED by Sue
Mossgrove, Committee Aide, and noted those questions precipitated
such recommendations. She said the first question asked why would
a person need medical support. One question asked why CSED services
are required in cases in which a parent applies for medical
assistance only, particularly when child support has been paid
independent of CSED. She explained that federal regulations
require CSED to provide services when a person applies for medical
assistance unless the applicant requests otherwise. Alaska
statute, however, requires that medical assistance be provided as
part of a child support order therefore that order must be
established before medical assistance can be given. Ms. Miklos
suggested a legislative change to allow CSED to give a medical
support order without a child support order.
MS. MIKLOS noted another question asked of CSED is how it
communicates with the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS).
She explained CSED establishes relations with DFYS when a child is
in state custody or when a parent applies for public assistance.
Case information gathered by CSED and the Division of Public
Assistance (DPA) occurs through automatic interface. Most of the
interface between CSED and DFYS is via fax or telephone. CSED and
DFYS are working on an automatic interface system; that system does
not require any legislative changes.
MS. MIKLOS deferred to Darrell Watson, Operations Manager of CSED,
to answer the third question about how CSED handles allegations of
fraud in public assistance cases.
MR. DARRELL WATSON, Operations Manager, CSED, informed committee
members that the same process has been used for a while. The hire
of several new positions over the last summer prompted CSED to
review and revise its process for handling allegations of fraud and
to create easier instructions. CSED also updated its new computer
system, a three step process. A case worker who receives a report
of allegations of welfare fraud obtains the name of the person
reporting the offense, the name of the person committing the
offense, a case number, and the nature of the fraud and notifies
the Welfare Fraud Division of DPA. CSED also can alert them
through the computer system. CSED then copies the documentation
and sends it to DPA.
Number 218
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked whether CSED actually handles fraud
investigations.
MR. WATSON said CSED does not. Investigations are done by DPA's,
fraud section.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if CSED does any follow up on fraud
complaints.
MR. WATSON replied CSED has the option to do follow up on fraud
complaints and can put in a suspense date to check the status of
the case. The fraud section is very good about keeping CSED
advised on the status of a case.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what the protocol is, and if that is
optional.
MR. WATSON said that most case workers are very good about it,
depending on their case load.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if case workers contact CSED every time there
is an allegation of fraud.
MR. WATSON said no, as numerous other workers would be reported to
first.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if anyone keeps track of allegations of fraud
for an annualized review at the end of the year.
MR. WATSON answered that they hadn't in the past, but it is a good
idea and could easily be implemented.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if such statistics would provide better
communication between departments.
MS. MIKLOS said DFYS doesn't have as many issues with fraud. The
difficulty with communication with DFYS is when a child is in
custody. She further explained how the paternity process is
improved in the new regulations.
MR. DALLAS COX, manager of the Accounting and Paternity Section,
said the process CSED uses for making sure it has the right father
is very complex. Normally CSED receives an application from the
custodial parent or a third party or a public assistance form which
usually provides inadequate information about the father. CSED
contacts the named individual to get additional information, and
can contact the Division of Motor Vehicles to get a picture of the
individual. CSED sends it to the custodial parent for a positive
identification. CSED never enters that person's name in the system
until it has positive proof of identification. The individual is
sent a paternity notice packet with 30 days to respond. He can
complete one of three actions: an admission of paternity, a
request for paternity testing, or a denial providing supporting
evidence. If the packet is ignored, CSED goes through the court
system for assistance. He said CSED has new forms and a new
administrative process that it will implement soon.
Number 347
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained his concern is for situations like the
Krueger one in which a mother doesn't make a claim for 17 years and
then a person finds out he is a father and owes $30,000 to $50,000
in child support. He asked if there is anything that initiates an
earlier triggering and forces an applicant for Aid to Families with
Dependent Children to honestly declare who the father is in an
earlier time frame.
MR. COX replied he didn't know what happened in the Krueger case,
but in a lot of cases CSED has tried to find out who the father is
but has not had a lot of luck. It could be three to six months
before CSED sends out another letter to the custodial parent for
more information; the investigation is an on-going process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what CSED does with a lady who applies for
aid and has no idea of who the father is.
MR. COX explained they send forms to the applicant asking for as
much information as possible. It can be very time consuming.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if some people send CSED on a wild goose
chase, and whether there are any limits to what the applicant can
say.
MR. COX said it happens, but CSED has to get as much information as
possible to find out as soon as possible.
MS. MIKLOS added that the documents applicants are required to sign
are affidavits and people could be charged with falsifying official
documents.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if there is protection for a father to
not pay until he knows he is actually a father.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR inserted that the answer is no and there is no
statute of limitations.
MS. MIKLOS said that State collections can only go back 18 years
for child support.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how far back a father is responsible
when he is never notified.
MS. MIKLOS said a Supreme Court decision says they can go back to
the time of the birth of the child. CSED regulations allow it to
go back only to the date when the mother initially applied for
services. Paternity comes up more often in the Public Assistance
cases, but in those cases it is retroactive to the date the mother
applied for services. This is the point at which they would look
for the father.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if she was referring to the date the mother
applied for child support assistance or public assistance.
Number 454
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER responded if there is any outstanding child
support prior to the date of application of services, it is up to
the custodial parent to bring private action against the father.
MS. MIKLOS said that the State can only go back six years right
now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if these long-standing cases were brought to
light a few years ago when they passed the Welfare Reform Act.
MS. MIKLOS said that is a fact and that's what prompted their
regulations. CSED has chosen to be conservative because of such
situations. CSED also tries to establish paternity for the benefit
of the child.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR related the situation of a woman in Palmer who has
a debt against her for children who are now in their 30's. He
thought the mission of the agency was to get money for children
during their minority.
MS. MIKLOS said that was correct. The debt does continue after the
age of majority because it acts as a deterrent for people who might
avoid paying while the children are still minors. CSED does not
put the same effort into collections when the child is over the age
of majority.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if CSED can file liens.
MS. MIKLOS said yes, they do collect, but not as aggressively.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if CSED has adequate resources to collect for
children from 0-18 years of age.
MS. MIKLOS said she didn't think CSED does, and that is why after
18 years, it would be more or less automatic activities.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested changing the law to say collection of
amounts owed after a child attains majority requires a civil action
that is available for either the child or the custodial parent to
pursue.
MS. MIKLOS repeated that CSED does not focus on cases of children
in their 30's. She asked to know more about the case he is
referring to.
Number 542
MR. LARRY PERSILY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue,
agreed that federal and state regulations need to be parallel and
that adequate resources are always a problem. He explained that of
the 48,000 CSED cases, about 20 percent are current. CSED has a
very small investigative staff whose job it is to locate parents
and sources of income.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that whenever the State wants to
make stronger laws, the federal government threatens to reduce its
funding.
MR. PERSILY agreed that the vast amount of the CSED budget (70
percent) is federally funded and the federal government threatens
to withhold funds just as it does to other departments. The
question is would they carry it through. He said some states, Ohio
for one, was fined $15 million for not complying.
MS. MIKLOS explained that the federal government requires states to
provide services unless someone asks them not to. State law does
not even allow someone to opt out of the child support collection.
State law could change to allow people to opt out without danger of
losing federal funding.
TAPE 99-7, SIDE B
Number 580
MS. SARAH SHORT, representing Families First, suggested when a
mother does not make an attempt to notify a man that he is a
father, that CSED allow the father the same amount of time to pay
back any arrearage with a retroactive limitation of five years.
The mother would have to prove she attempted to notify the father
and for every year he did not pay it back, the money would not go
to the mother; it would pay part of the State's expenses and
possibly go into a trust fund for the child who could access it at
the age of 18. She suggested a regulation that would eliminate the
interest for those missed years non-payment is through no fault of
the father. She felt it is not in the best interest of the child
to take away the father's right to drive.
MS. SHORT explained in the case of Richard Schaeffer vs. State of
Alaska, the State's cost to prosecute Mr. Schaeffer was in excess
of the $29,000 owed in child support plus over $30,000 in interest.
His daughter is 28 years old and has a family of her own and wrote
a letter to CSED saying she felt she is being victimized by CSED
because they are now aggressively pursuing her father who is a
disabled veteran. This man volunteers to help families in need.
It doesn't help anything to take away his business and driver's
license.
MS. SHORT said the State of Massachusetts is considering a child
support card similar to the ATAP account where the money is placed
in an account and the custodial parent can use the card to access
funds. The use of the card creates a record. Certain percentages
of the card can be used for certain purchases.
MS. REBECCA SNOW, Supervisor of the Division of Human Services,
Department of Law, said she supervises the Bethel Office. One of
the questions this committee asked is how probable cause hearings
are handled in Bethel. She has held hearings in Bethel and has
talked to officers. There is a perception that the judge in Bethel
was waiving the probable cause requirement at the initial hearing
after taking emergency custody. There is no pre-trial facility in
Bethel and the judge makes the decision about whether or not the
plaintiff qualifies for a state paid attorney. He asks the people
if they want to have a hearing or if they want to wait and talk to
their attorney first. Usually they want to talk to their attorney.
The probable cause decision is required by AS 47.10.142 for the
court to extend temporary custody until the parents can talk to an
attorney. They don't generally come back and contest the probable
cause hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she knows of a case in which a person
who didn't speak English very well asked for an attorney and no
provisions were made for her. It would have been appropriate for
her to have court appointed counsel. After this didn't happen, she
was asked if she waived probable cause, to which she answered she
didn't understand. When asked again, she gave the same answer.
The magistrate then said to let the record show the mother waived
probable cause. This was on the transcript. She suggested they
look at this case and perhaps fire the magistrate.
Number 462
MS. SNOW said she would be happy to look into it, but she didn't
have the power to fire magistrates. Legal terms and statutory
requirements are usually beyond the grasp of most people with an
average education. She thought that the Bethel system is trying
because it has a cultural navigator who is Yupik speaking and can
explain the proceedings, the process, and individual's rights. It
also hired a new magistrate, using some federal funds, who is a
Yupik speaking person. That magistrate is supposed to be handling
juvenile delinquency cases, but she does hear some other cases. Of
course, then, the court needs to have someone translate for the
non-Yupik speaking people.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the magistrates serve at the pleasure of the
presiding Superior Court Judge for that district who is Judge
Beistline in Fairbanks. Judge Beistline could fire all of those
magistrates in one day if the magistrates don't part their hair
right. He said you could also address problems to the Judicial
Conduct Commission which is different than the commission that
appoints judges.
MS. SNOW commented that most often probable cause is not contested
unless the attorney has a good chance of winning.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said often the parents never get to say
anything while DFYS presents its case so the judge often takes
DFYS's position. She expressed concern that parents do not try to
win the case because they do not believe they can win.
Number 350
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he gets frustrated with this process because
there is no opportunity for the parties to sit down in front of the
judge and freely discuss the case. In a criminal case, probable
cause may be a major aspect or, if you're dealing with custody in
a civil matter under Title 47, probable cause may be an important
threshold. Often probable cause is what brought the group before
the judge in the first place, similar to a person being pulled over
for a broken tail light and then being arrested for DWI. Depending
upon the purpose for which the hearing is being held, the standards
can be different. We often get tied up in the legal aspects of
making certain that each parties' rights are protected to the point
that no one can freely talk about what the family needs at this
point in time.
VICE-CHAIR JAMES said the future of a child is in jeopardy when you
are removing a child from his/her biological parent or taking the
parent away from the child. She expressed concern that probable
cause does not address that issue.
MS. LINDA BEECHER, Public Defenders Agency, said there is wide-
spread disparity across the state as to when counsel should be
appointed for parents. The court system is looking into the
problem and looking at greater uniformity. The parents should turn
to the court for a probable cause case. The court should get all
the information to the parents, the counsel, and DFYS regarding the
case. It is a mistake for the court to proceed when the parents do
not have counsel. It is not a DFYS problem as much as it is a
court problem.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER agreed wholeheartedly. If the state is
going to work in the best interest of the child, the Public
Defenders Agency needs to be properly funded, especially in the
remote areas.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that neither Wrangell nor Petersburg has a
public defender. The state has huge discrepancies demographically,
and people don't always get the service they need in the areas that
need them.
Number 263
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the cultural navigator position in
Bethel, which is only one year old, and asked whether it is
working. She also asked whether similar positions should be hired
in other parts of Alaska including urban areas, such as Fairbanks,
where cultural barriers exist. Individuals need to understand the
laws and regulations. She suggested when children are concerned we
need to address the issue in a different way.
MS. SNOW said she doesn't have a lot of experience with the
cultural navigator. She asked why those positions are not more
involved with delinquency cases and child protection cases. They
need to advise people involved in those cases, especially when
English is not their first language. The judge needs to educate
people on the legal terms and process so they understand what is
going on in the case proceedings.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said the person who uses the cultural
navigator does have a high level of familiarity with the legal
process. Are they going to be needing extensive training to use
the Cultural Navigator System?
MS. SNOW explained that social workers do not have legal training,
but understand the legal process. They may need Cultural Navigator
System (CNS) training. Child Protection has a safeguard because a
hearing must be held within 48 hours because of the disruption to
the home and family life.
Number 157
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he wants to focus on DFYS and why the number
of children in custody is increasing. Alaska exceeds most other
states. He thought this increase has overloaded DFYS's ability to
check on backgrounds and has resulted in some real tragedies.
MR. RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), agreed that Alaska's rate of child abuse, neglect,
and rape is among the highest in the nation. Reports have
increased over the last three years, but this could be due to
DHSS's additional capacity to respond.
MS. TANOURY agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said DFYS is obviously overburdened and she
wondered why it is soliciting (through ads on TV) very questionable
and anonymous reports that could encourage false or malicious
reporting.
MS. TANOURY responded that those ads were from the University of
Alaska Anchorage journalism department. DHSS does not publish ads
soliciting anonymous reports.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if DHSS has any say in who puts ads in
the newspaper or on TV that will affect it.
MS. TANOURY replied that DHSS doesn't really have any control over
it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR informed members that the committee has copies of
the ads, both of which were published by the UAA journalism
department.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if DFYS will screen anonymous reports
for criminal intent and asked if there are sanctions for making a
criminally false report.
MS. TANOURY answered that the anonymous reports make up about 8
percent of the total reports that come in. They are similar to
calling 911. She explained that some anonymous reports have saved
children's lives.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said there are times when a vendetta is
involved and someone is using the system.
TAPE 99-8, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked what the sanctions are for someone
who knowingly makes a false report. Ms. Tanoury stated that the
only protection provided is for mandatory reporters under Title 47.
One of the problems with prosecuting false reports is trying to
persuade mandatory reporters that it is not their job to
investigate the situation. This is the job of the investigating
social worker. She did not know of anyone who has been
prosecuted for filing a false report.
Number 060
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what number of complaints handled by DFYS are
found to be baseless concerning alleged sexual misconduct or abuse
of a child.
MS. TANOURY didn't know the percentages but offered to get that
information for Chairman Taylor.
Number 200
SENATOR LINCOLN was concerned about whether or not the calls made
to DFYS are adequately responded to. This is an issue for all the
communities of her district. She asked what percent of calls are
responded to and what the reason is for so many unfounded reports.
Number 273
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked how DFYS defines the word
"substantiated".
MS. TANOURY responded that the definition is based on a finding
from the conclusion of an investigation. A substantiated finding
is one where the available facts in the case show that a child
suffered harm as a result of abuse and neglect. It is a
caseworker determination. There are three outcomes for reports -
substantiated, unconfirmed (based on the facts, the worker cannot
determine whether there has been harm) and invalid (no facts
available).
Number 306
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER wanted to know who the case goes to once a
determination has been made. MS. TANOURY responded that a case
cannot be closed without a supervisors review. The fact finding
mission goes beyond the child to doctors, teachers, friends, etc.
Number 340
MR. RICK KRUEGER, Ketchikan, relayed to the committee the ongoing
problems he has been having with DFYS and CSED. Mr. Krueger is
being required to pay AFDC for a debt concerning his daughter, her
mother and the mothers other child, who is not related to Mr.
Krueger. Mr. Krueger feels he does not have an obligation to pay
for the mother and the child that is not his.
Number 488
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PERSILY first stated that Mr. Krueger's case
had not been handled well, and then said he will ask the Attorney
General's office to review the bankruptcy case. He explained the
amount a noncustodial parent pays in child support is determined by
the order which is based on the noncustodial parent's income. He
noted the welfare fraud investigation reports will go to DPA. If
welfare fraud is determined, the charges will be removed from the
noncustodial parents debt to the state.
Number 529
MS. MIKLOS stated that child support payments are based on the
ability of the noncustodial parent to pay support. It is rare that
CSED gets the full amount of the childrens' grant in child support.
Grants will not pay for the custodial parent, just the children for
which paternity has been established.
Number 529
MS. MIKLOS pointed out that the income for the noncustodial parent
is not based on the highest income year. CSED collects income
reports for all years and bases their amount on that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Krueger for his suggestions concerning
changes in the law so this type of situation could be prevented.
MR. KRUEGER suggested that CSED try to find the father as soon as
his name is disclosed. He also feels something should be done
about arrearage.
Tape 99-8, Side B
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested that there should be a one year statute
of limitation set after the determination of paternity. This would
be a motivating factor for DFYS and CSED.
MR. KRUEGER felt this was a good idea.
Number 551
SENATOR LINCOLN felt that the finances must be in place before the
departments try to locate fathers. She also felt a time limit
should be set.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested that there needs to be some incentive for
improving the reporting process and some practical solutions need
to be found so that the state can determine who the fathers are.
Number 510
MS. MIKLOS stated that there is a statute for the voluntary
acknowledgment of paternity. CSED just distributed a video tape to
all hospitals and birthing centers encouraging people to
voluntarily acknowledge paternity. In one month there were 700
illegitimate births with 500 voluntary acknowledgments of
paternity.
Number 482
MS. DIXIE TALLMAN, Foster Parent, said she had a foster child for
14+ months until an adopting family was found for the child. The
transition went well. The biological father came forward at this
point and there was a hearing. The child went to live with her
father. The child became very withdrawn and showed no emotion.
Ms. Tallman wanted to know why a psychologist is consulted on
transition if there is no follow through and why the mental health
of a child is not considered.
Number 437
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wanted to know if the Tallman family
considered adopting their foster child. Ms. Tallman explained they
felt that because of their age it would be unfair to the child.
MS. TALLMAN felt that DHSS has too much power and that more common
sense needs to be used when placing a child.
Number 423
MR. LYNN LEVENGOOD, a Fairbanks attorney, made the following
comments and brought some recommended changes for the departments
concerning the benefit of children.
DFYS's non-legal staff can take emergency custody of a
child without providing notice to the parents, even
though it is required by statute, and they can file the
papers in court without an attorney or the AG's office
reviewing the papers. This is the most abused statue on
the books. This statute should be changed to read that
an attorney is required to review the facts and
circumstances of every emergency custody case and that
the legal requirements are satisfied.
People are being overtly threatened by DFYS that if they
don't sign some type of agreement their children will be
taken from them. This problem needs to be addressed.
Regarding parentage, a statute of limitations is
absolutely necessary, and he noted that many states have
a two year statute of limitations.
The ability to retroactively modify, at the time of the
modification of child support enforcement orders, should
be limited to the actual date they file the motion and
not the notice of their intent to do so. The statute
should be altered to preclude the collection of any child
support for persons who are no longer a minor.
Currently, the statute states that as long as there is a
child support order DFYS shall collect. It does not
matter how old the child support order is, the department
shall collect. DFYS should not be in the collection
business. Another problem is that the affidavit that is
required for the application of DFYS and CSED services
does not require any evidentiary support. Evidentiary
support should be required.
MR. LEVENGOOD suggested the statute be changed to preclude the
collection of any child support for persons who are no longer a
minor. If any child support is owed after a child reaches 18 years
of age, the cause of action should be a civil action.
VICE-CHAIR JAMES asked about the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
Enforcement Act.
MR. LEVENGOOD explained that only produces cooperation when a
parent goes to court to try to establish custody in another state.
MR. LEVENGOOD made one last suggestion. Any requirement for non-
biological parents to pay child support should be removed unless
they had adopted the child.
MS. JODIE OLMSTEAD, a resident of Fairbanks, said she feels that
regularly scheduled meetings on this topic need to occur and that
Alaska needs to look at what other states are doing about false
allegations of sexual abuse of a minor. According to a DFYS social
worker, each allegation of harm requires 80 hours of investigation
which puts caseworkers two years behind. She suggested mandatory
video recording of all allegations of child abuse, neglect, or
sexual abuse of a minor. Videotaping would save the state money
and six states are using it. At this time no checks and balances
exist within the process because the citizens review panel does not
exist. Another concern is that SB 190 contains the word
"intentionally."
TAPE 99-9, SIDE A
MS. OLMSTEAD discussed her own experience dealing with state
agencies in regard to a false allegation. She believes she was
accused of welfare fraud because she was actively pointing out
things that should be changed within the agencies. She requested
a fair hearing from ATAP and then received a letter in the mail
notifying her that they planned to drop the matter because she did
not show up for the hearing. The notification letter was mailed to
her the day before the hearing. She felt the only thing a client
can do, if the agencies will not use video recording and the
citizens review panel is not re-established, is to litigate to get
some action. She emphasized that no outlet exists for parents who
are unfairly treated to use.
VICE-CHAIR JAMES empathized with Ms. Olmstead and stated that she
has not given up on the possibility of requiring video recorded
interviews with children. She acknowledged that legislators
understand her concerns and how she has been wronged.
MS. OLMSTEAD said she was discouraged that the 1996 feasibility
study relied on statistics from 1992.
VICE-CHAIR JAMES commented that any time legislation is passed that
makes an action mandatory, exceptions must be included for
emergency situations that arise, particularly for rural areas. She
noted that in conversations with DFYS employees, she learned they
liked the idea because videotaping is an excellent training tool.
She pointed out that once an interview is recorded, the issue of
confidentiality arises.
MS. OLMSTEAD suggested treating the video recording like a court
document with a transcript. Regarding the mandate, the social
worker could give the videotape to his/her superior for approval,
and then have the videotape returned to the social worker who could
make it accessible to the parent in question to review.
Number 176
SCOTT CALDER, a Fairbanks resident representing himself, said about
six years ago he met Jodi Olmstead. He found it difficult to
understand Ms. Olmstead's belief that he was probably trusting the
agency people he was working with too much and that similar
problems had been occurring for over a decade. Having had no
experience with what he now believes are fundamentally corrupt
state agencies, he continued to try to work with the agencies to
help his child who had been pepper-sprayed, handcuffed and taken to
the Fairbanks Youth Facility in April of 1993. It was only after
about four years of watching his child be tortured, he is fully
prepared to endorse Ms. Olmstead's beliefs.
MR. CALDER pointed out that SLA 117, enacted in 1990, created a
citizen review panel which has never been established. He also
referred to an excerpt from PL 96-272 which is referenced in SLA
117. Page 2 of the excerpt addresses case plans, case review
systems and plan approval. Case plan review is only occurring
inside the agencies in Alaska that clients are complaining about.
MR. CALDER asserted that the State of Alaska is moving backward
because Section 42 of HB 375, which passed in 1998, sets out that
no duty of standard of care for services to children and their
families is created in the legislation.
MR. CALDER added that Representative Dyson wrote a memo to all
Alaska legislators on how to handle phone calls regarding referrals
to DFYS. Mr. Calder stated that the problem must be big if
legislators must advise and coach each other on how to deal with
DFYS and parents. He asserted that it is time to listen to the
people who have been complaining, and that he and others have boxes
full of information that establish a paper trail explaining the
problems that have occurred. He pointed out that the complainants
cannot afford to hire an attorney.
VICE-CHAIR JAMES stated that she has been involved in government
family and youth service agencies and with foster parents in
Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, and has found the same problems in
all three states, as well as nationwide. Her evaluation comes from
her belief that the people who are being mistreated under the
system are in the minority, and that the public attitude toward
this issue is that saving a few children is more important than
"trashing" a few families. She noted it is difficult to get
testimony from the department, the public and legislators, who are
trying to protect the people in their districts. The problem is
systemic and she is not sure what the solution is. She pointed out
that the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit found DFYS to be
understaffed. As a result, more positions have been funded in that
agency in the last few years. She empathized with Mr. Calder's
frustration and pledged to do what she can to improve the
situation, however she cautioned that the Legislature is faced with
having to cut the budget further. She added that her constituents
want the DFYS budget cut.
Number 318
MR. CALDER commented that he thinks a path has been cleared so that
more people can be served better, but the problem needs to be
identified correctly which requires speaking the truth out loud,
and demanding action and results. He said people never believed it
could happen and do not know what to call it. He noted the big
problem is that direct harm is delivered at an exorbitant expense
to citizens of the state by state government. He suggested
enacting stronger statutory criminal penalties for crimes committed
against citizens by government agencies or agents. He maintained
that anyone, other than a state employee, who committed such acts
would be considered criminal. He concluded that the only way we
can get beyond the problems is if people are honest about what has
occurred.
Number 399
GARY MAXWELL made the following comments via teleconference. The
two issues on today's committee calendar are very complex areas of
law and should be heard separately. Second, he finds it
frustrating to sit at a meeting for four hours only to find when he
is finally able to speak, most participants have left. He thanked
Mr. Krueger for testifying about the dysfunctional operations of
CSED. He pointed out that sexual abuse charges and reports of harm
filed during divorce cases are found to be false about 90 percent
of the time. Those reports are filed to strengthen one's position
in custody battles.
MR. MAXWELL said that CSED has six years in which to establish
paternity and to collect AFDC debt. He alleged that CSED employees
were under a mandate by management to sit on the AFDC cases for
about three or four years and then start to work them at which time
the arrearage amount has increased substantially. CSED creates
"deadbeat" dads through its own inefficiency. He recommended that
Civil Rule 90.3 be codified in statute so that the public can have
some input into its contents. He suggested that CSED try to be
user friendly instead of operating with "bullet-proof" glass.
VICE CHAIR JAMES agreed that the state should not yield to threats
of reduced federal funding for child support enforcement as much as
it does. She also expressed concern that many people leave their
jobs as soon as their wages are about to be garnished for child
support payments. Those employees would not be able to survive
with the remainder of the paycheck and no provision is made for
that. She said she has thought about providing a period of amnesty
in which people could come forward and state their financial
positions and negotiate a payment plan.
SENATOR LINCOLN thanked participants for waiting to testify. She
referred to the advertisement published in the Anchorage and
Fairbanks newspapers on October 11 that contains a DFYS phone
number for reporting child abuse and expressed concern that
although she wants to encourage people to support child abuse, she
wondered whether DFYS can respond to the increased number of calls.
She asked how DFYS coordinated the advertisement with the
University of Alaska and the Advertising Federation of Alaska.
RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Health and
Social Services, said that to his understanding, DHSS had no
knowledge of the ads before they were published. He speculated
that the authors of the ad were trying to do a good thing by
encouraging people to report child abuse and neglect. Regarding
the impact to DFYS, he did not know that the ad has caused a
significant increase in reports, but he cautioned that many
confounding factors beyond the ad could make measuring the impact
of the ads difficult. He said DFYS could determine what reports
came in on the days immediately following the publication of the
ads.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Deputy Commissioner Webb to also find out the
number of people who called but could not be referred to an intake
worker.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WEBB clarified with Senator Lincoln that she
would like to know whether DFYS encountered an increase in the
number of reports filed during the days immediately following the
days the advertisement was published, and the number of calls that
had to be deferred until a caseworker was available.
SENATOR LINCOLN also asked that he provide the number of calls at
each office. She also asked whether his permission was needed to
put the 800 phone number in the advertisement.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WEBB replied it is a matter of public record so
anyone can publish it.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked whether Deputy Commissioner Webb would have
sanctioned its use if he was asked.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WEBB said DHSS would not object to information
being made public about a service it wants the public to
understand.
There being no further business to come before the committee, VICE
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|