Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/09/1996 09:00 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 9, 1996
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 188
"An Act relating to reports of suspected child abuse or neglect,
and requiring that, as part of the investigation of the reports of
suspected child abuse or neglect, all official interviews with
children who are alleged to have been abused or neglected be
videotaped."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 188 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Mike Miller, Co-Sponsor
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed sponsor statement.
Senator Robin Taylor, Co-Sponsor
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed SB 188.
Del Smith, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188 as written.
Diane Worley, Director
Division of Family & Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188 as written.
Joann Hawk
Tundra Women's Coalition
PO Box 574
Bethel, Alaska 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 188.
Connie Tromble
Tundra Women's Coalition
PO Box 1765
Bethel, Alaska 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 188.
Helen Sorensen
Tundra Women's Coalition
PO Box 1926
Bethel, Alaska 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 188.
Carmen Lowry, Executive Director
Tundra Women's Coalition
PO Box 1537
Bethel, Alaska 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Concerned that SB 188 has not received enough
time and scrutiny.
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188.
Helen Mehrkens
Education Program Support
801 W 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188 as written.
Dan LaBrosse
475 Hall Street
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed his experience as a previous social
worker and encouraged further work on SB 188.
Michele Callaham, Executive Director
Unalaskans Against Sexual Assault
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188.
Lynda Gauthier
Guardians of Family Rights
PO Box 2246
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the need for checks and balances in
order to protect everyone.
Gene Ottenstroer
Guardians of Family Rights
PO Box 1059
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the need for videotaping.
Pam Grant
STAR
1057 W Fireweed #230
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188.
Jennifer Bostick
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Did not believe that SB 188 was right.
Duane Stone, Officer
Ketchikan Police Department
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern that a case could be lost if
a videotape is not taken due to the mandatory
provision of SB 188.
Christine Herrman
Women In Safe Homes
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that SB 188 does not intend to protect
children, but rather punishes DFYS.
Dan Morris, Chief
Kenai Police Department
107 S. Willow Street
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188.
Brenda Wieffering, Executive Director
WRCC
325 S. Spruce
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188.
Walt Bonner, Chief
Soldotna Police Department
44510 Sterling Highway
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 188.
Harry Nehaus
Guardians of Family Rights
PO Box 55455
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 188.
Gene Altig
Guardians of Family Rights
4396 Al Cory Road
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 188.
Jody Delaney
PO Box 56064
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the need for a check and balance.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-6, SIDE A
SHESS - 2/9/96
SB 188 VIDEOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
Number 001
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:00 a.m. and introduced
SB 188 as the only order of business before the committee.
SENATOR MILLER, Co-Sponsor of SB 188, read the following sponsor
statement:
PURPOSE: this legislation was prompted by distress from concerned
parents requesting a more stringent "check and balance"
accountability system for state agencies in regard to child abuse
legislation.
INTENT: is that all interviews be video taped from the onset with
allegedly abused or neglected children; furthermore, the interview
may not proceed unless the above mentioned process is in place.
In turn this would help implement sound public policy by requiring
accountability of agency action in the sensitive area of state
interference in private family life; it would also provide a
protection of the rights of the person conducting the interview.
I strongly urge your support of SB 188.
Senator Miller pointed out that the Ombudsman's report in the
committee packet raises many concerns regarding the handling of the
reports. He stated that one of the biggest case loads that a
legislator faces is problems with the department of which the
department seems to be wrong the majority of the time. There does
not seem to be a standard that the department follows. He noted
that when he was a member of the Legislative Budget & Audit
committee a few years ago, the department was not handing out the
required pamphlets. Senator Miller acknowledged that the agency is
not happy with this bill and have attached large fiscal notes in
order to kill the bill. He requested that the agency come forward
and address the problems and ways to alleviate them.
Number 079
SENATOR TAYLOR, Co-Sponsor of SB 188, discussed his experience on
the bench and the bar with regards to drunk driving. He estimated
that when he went to the bench, there was a 50 to 60 percent
conviction rate of those drunk drivers having an aggressive trial.
Shortly after that time, Alaska's police departments and state
troopers began videotaping the "drunk" individual doing the field
sobriety tests. The conviction rate rose above 75 percent.
Senator Taylor emphasized that videotaping is the single most
valuable tool in law enforcement because it brings the best
evidence into the courtroom.
Senator Taylor informed the committee that a few years ago the
department had estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the child abuse
cases were dismissed as not found after a thorough investigation.
That presents concerns about the inability to know the number of
true perpetrators that have gone free. Even more disturbing, is
the inability to know how many have been wrongly accused and have
had their lives destroyed. We are not utilizing the proper tools
to determine if the incident did or did not occur.
Number 151
Senator Taylor discussed his experience with the prosecution in
such cases coming without notes or protocol; there never seemed to
be a pattern. He suggested that videotaping would eliminate the
complaint in court about hearsay testimony which is often utilized
in child abuse cases. Videotaping is the most tremendous evidence
put before a court. He cited budget constraints and lack of
training of personnel as reasons why videotaping in such cases has
not been performed. The State should spend money on this in order
to deal with it properly.
Number 209
Senator Taylor acknowledged that the bill had been hastily drafted
and they had not been able to work with the department yet. He
recognized that in some instances, the application of the bill may
be difficult. Hospital directors have expressed concern that they
would be required to have someone trained to do videos in the
emergency room; women's shelters have similar concerns. He hoped
that everyone involved would come forward in order to work on this
issue to avoid situations like the one described in the Ombudsman's
Report. The Ombudsman's Report recommended that case workers
retain their original file notes and maintain them in the case
file. In the case the Ombudsman investigated, not only were the
original file notes lost but also the transcription of those notes
were lost. Furthermore, the agency refused to accept that
recommendation by the Ombudsman's recommendation.
Number 246
SENATOR SALO pointed out that Senator Taylor's example of
videotaping drunk drivers videotapes the perpetrator rather than
the victim as in a child abuse case. She believed videotaping an
abused minor was meritorious in drawn out cases, however, caution
should be taken in order not to further victimize the child. She
indicated that videotaping the accused perpetrator of child abuse
at the time of the charge could be important. She asked if the
bill allows a case to be thrown out because no videotape was taken.
SENATOR TAYLOR said yes and agreed with Senator Salo's concerns.
Senator Taylor hoped that the committee process would result in a
better SB 188.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the report was the response to the
feasibility study that the Ombudsman recommended for the Division
of Family & Youth Services. SENATOR TAYLOR replied yes.
Number 281
DEL SMITH, Deputy Director of Division of Public Safety, opposed
SB 188 as currently written. He believed that capturing an
interview on video or audio produces a good product which should
always be strived toward. The provision of the bill that the
prosecution of the suspect would not go forward if that videotape
was not done causes great concern and is the reason the department
opposes the bill. In the case of a drunk driver, the prosecution
would not be precluded even without the audio or video.
SENATOR SALO asked if any videotaping was currently being done in
any child abuse and neglect cases. DEL SMITH replied yes. Mr.
Smith believed that at least four departments have rooms
specifically set up to interview children.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that Chief John Newell's letter reported that
Sitka routinely videotapes interviews of children regarding
suspected abuse. DEL SMITH said that Chief Newell's letter
represented his personal opinion. Mr. Smith seemed to think that
SB 188 would require that a conversation, perhaps with a teacher,
began by a child would have to be stopped in order to videotape the
conversation. That is a concern because not all the people a child
could have a conversation with are under Mr. Smith's control and
would that information be unusable.
Number 324
SENATOR SALO asked if videotaping as an investigative technique or
protocol was the trend. Will there be more than four rooms in the
state for such videotaping in the next few years? DEL SMITH
believed that if videotaping is possible then it should be done.
The main concern is that if for some reason be it a logistical or
a technical difficulty the videotape is not done, then the person
could not testify as to their conversation with the child.
SENATOR TAYLOR inquired as to how the bill could be changed in
order to avoid that problem while encouraging the utilization of
videotaping. DEL SMITH was unsure. In Mr. Smith's view, the goal
of videotaping is desirable and should be obtained. Mr. Smith
suggested that evidence could be presented in order to explain why
a video was not acquired in a particular case. Mr. Smith mentioned
another bill which had an audio tape serve as a backup, however,
again the inability to continue with only notes is a concern.
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed an experience on the bench which
illustrated his fear that the department would not find videotaping
convenient. He admitted that he was not comfortable with the
dismissal of a case without video, but what other method could be
utilized in order to encourage the use of videotaping in suspected
child abuse cases. DEL SMITH offered to consult with law
enforcement across Alaska in order to make some recommendations.
The intent of legislation such as this should be the protection of
the victim and future victims.
Number 391
DIANE WORLEY, Director of the Division of Family & Youth Services
(DFYS), stated that the division is opposed to SB 188 as currently
written. She acknowledged that the issues of accountability, the
safety of children, and the protection of families are all
important. Concerns regarding the mandatory aspect of the bill were
reiterated. She mentioned that there are many field offices which
are one person offices. In the current system, mandatory
videotaping in every case is impossible.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to how many cases are handled each year.
DIANE WORLEY informed the committee that there are approximately
20,000 reports of which about two-thirds are investigated.
DIANE WORLEY stated that requiring every case be videotaped would
also require lots of time, effort, and money. She pointed out that
often children in these cases move around during the interview
which would create difficulties in acquiring a good quality film of
that testimony. Furthermore, DFYS wants to protect the interests
of the child without being any more intrusive than the interviewing
process already poses. DFYS feels that for some children the video
camera and additional people in the room during the interview would
be inhibiting. Also some of the children, especially those
involved in sexual abuse, experienced video cameras as part of the
abuse which could be damaging to that child.
Number 427
Ms. Worley recognized that one issue taken with DFYS is that they
take too many children into their custody. Children are taken into
State custody only when absolutely necessary. Under this bill's
mandatory provision, more children would be taken into emergency
custody in order to take the child to a place to videotape the
interview. Also if parents do not consent to the interview being
videotaped, children would have to be taken into emergency custody
in order to comply with the mandatory provision of the bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if parents can currently deny an interview
with the child in the home and would the division then take
emergency custody of the child. DIANE WORLEY replied yes.
DIANE WORLEY informed the committee that she had been Director for
only ten months. She did believe there to be some inconsistencies
within the system as it is applied across the state, however,
flexibility to address the different communities and families is
necessary. There are policy and procedural manuals that are to be
followed by the staff. Those manuals are being updated in order to
create more consistency across the state. Also the issue of
training is important. Ms. Worley did not believe that the
division has had enough training for the staff. This is being
reviewed through the establishment of a new training plan. The
division is also reviewing accreditation procedures for social
workers in order to be consistent with youth service staff and
juvenile probation officers who are accredited. Another area under
review is the hiring procedures; tighter requirements for the
register and becoming a social worker are being worked on. Ms.
Worley also expressed the need to review the notion of cross-
training with DFYS and DPS, especially in the cases of sexual child
abuse because they are criminal cases. DFYS does try to videotape
an interview with DPS in such cases, although it may not be the
initial interview. Ms. Worley noted that some rooms for
videotaping purposes are being set up in nonprofits.
Number 476
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that would cover DFYS personnel. DIANE
WORLEY clarified that some nonprofits are setting up rooms in areas
where such rooms are unavailable at the police station. The
availability of rooms is increasing across the state. Ms. Worley
mentioned that there is a pilot project in the Anchorage Providence
Hospital in which all children who are sexually abused go through
a videotaped interview at the Child Advocacy Center.
Ms. Worley expressed concern with the costs brought about by this
bill. Mandatory videotaping would require the necessary equipment
and staff as well as training to carry out this provision. She
indicated that money would probably be funneled to the training of
operating video equipment rather than training on interview
techniques. There would also be concerns regarding the
confidentiality of the tapes; who would have access to the tapes?
Where would the tapes be stored and what would that cost? She
mentioned the cost of transcription. What would happen to a case
if the audio portion was not good quality and not usable?
Number 504
SENATOR MILLER expressed concern with Ms. Worley's admittance that
the staff lacked training and yet they still are allowed to go into
the field without using resources to better their training.
Senator Miller felt that training should be a priority. DIANE
WORLEY agreed and reiterated that the division is moving in that
direction. Ms. Worley emphasized that the majority of the staff is
well trained, but there has been a reduction in available training
over the past years. Ms. Worley explained that as budgets have
decreased so has training since it is often considered a luxury;
however she did not agree with that view. Ms. Worley reiterated
that the division is reviewing accreditation and hiring procedures.
Also there is the possibility of a testing procedure for basic
skills before an employee is placed on the register.
SENATOR MILLER asked if all notes taken on a child abuse or neglect
case are kept in the file or are they being destroyed. DIANE
WORLEY reiterated that the division is updating its policy and
procedures manual of which that is a portion. Ms. Worley clarified
that in the Ombudsman's case, the original notes were destroyed but
the transcription was not destroyed and was present in the file.
Ms. Worley believed that those notes should have been in the file.
A committee is working on the policy and procedure manual in which
that issue will be addressed. Currently there is no policy
requiring that the notes be placed in the file.
SENATOR MILLER did not understand why that issue is being reviewed
due to the importance of that information. DIANE WORLEY reiterated
that she had only been the director for a short time and was
proceeding as best she could on the issues.
Number 539
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Worley if he was correct in that DFYS
handles a child abuse case differently than a child sexual abuse
case. In a child sexual abuse case, the child's interview is
videotaped at some point. DIANE WORLEY replied yes and explained
that the child sexual abuse cases are mainly in the criminal courts
as opposed to the civil courts. Because DFYS works closely with
public safety officers in order to establish the criminal case,
DFYS works with them in obtaining videotape.
SENATOR TAYLOR surmised that Ms. Worley was referring to another
category with child abuse cases. Therefore, the protocol is not to
do videotaping in child abuse cases. DIANE WORLEY explained that
current protocol views video and audio taping as something that can
be done, but there is not the capability or equipment to do so in
all cases. Ms. Worley reiterated the impracticality of attempting
to videotape every interview due to logistical obstacles.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the current protocol regarding child sexual
abuse cases, forces the child to have an additional interview.
This child has probably been interviewed three or four times by the
time the case is determined to be sexual abuse in which the
interview must be videotaped. Because the video is not done early
or done by DFYS, the enforcement personnel must do another
interview with the child. DIANE WORLEY explained that when there
is suspected child sexual abuse and disclosure begins, the
interview is often stopped and DPS is contacted so there would not
be multiple interviews. In most cases, regardless of the
videotaping, a child would probably face two interviews. SB 188
would require that the disclosure in front of a camera would begin
before DFYS even knew if there was anything to interview.
Number 573
SENATOR TAYLOR inquired as to how Ms. Worley's testimony would
differ if the department wanted to do this videotaping. DIANE
WORLEY said that she could not respond to that hypothetical
question. In her opinion, mandatory videotaping would not work
under any circumstance. However, Ms. Worley did believe that there
are situations in which videotaping is appropriate such as child
sexual abuse cases. Audio taping can also be useful. Mandatory
videotaping is impractical and would put more children at risk.
SENATOR TAYLOR reiterated that police officers do everything
possible to obtain the best possible evidence to make the case.
TAPE 96-6, SIDE B
Senator Taylor asserted that this department indicates that under
no circumstance would they be forced to videotape and it would be
avoided at all costs and there are separate protocols for how cases
are handled. If the case looks as if it will go to court, then law
enforcement utilizes videotaping. He asked if the videotaping was
being done in the department's offices.
DIANE WORLEY specified that where an interview is videotaped
depends upon the community in which the case is located. Also
joint interviews are done with DPS in sexual abuse cases.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that he meant, DFYS is adopting law
enforcement's protocol. DIANE WORLEY explained that the protocol
of DFYS regarding child sexual abuse cases is that DFYS works with
DPS. SENATOR TAYLOR emphasized that the protocol for DFYS does not
include videotaping while law enforcement protocol does include
videotaping. DIANE WORLEY agreed, but noted that DFYS does have
protocol which strives for the best evidence possible through
appropriate interviewing techniques and case work. However,
videotaping is not being utilized in every case.
Number 568
SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that the people of Alaska, even in
territorial days, required that every committee hearing be
transcribed as well as the votes on the floor which illustrates the
importance of keeping records. He encouraged the department to
keep better records of these incidents for both sides of the case.
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested that Ms. Worley work with the sponsors on
this bill.
SENATOR SALO observed that DFYS and DPS have different missions.
The mission of DFYS is the protection of the child while the
mission of DPS is to create a criminal case. Therefore, the
protocols of the two differ as well.
SENATOR MILLER asserted that the lack of a paper trail is
unexcusable.
SENATOR SALO felt that Senator Miller's statement was a gross
generalization. In the Ombudsman's Report, the Ombudsman did note
that the paper trail could have been handled differently. She was
sure that there is a paper trail and records on the cases in DFYS.
She did agree that sometimes it could be better.
DIANE WORLEY stated that there is a clear paper trail. Ms. Worley
surmised that Senator Miller was referring to the handwritten notes
which are often taken in a person's individual short hand. All
those transcribed notes are kept in the file as well as every
contact with the family.
SENATOR TAYLOR identified another mission of DFYS, to reunite the
family. DFYS has to make a discretionary call on whether to
reunite the family or prosecute based on the interview. When that
decision is made, then the very best evidence should be available.
He expressed disappointment and frustration in all the excuses why
DFYS does not want to have the best evidence.
CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the witnesses that their testimony should
be limited to three minutes. If several people representing an
organization have the same thought, perhaps, one spokesperson could
outline the organization's position. Any information can also be
faxed to 465-3805 which will be distributed to the committee
members.
Number 528
JOANN HAWK, testifying from Bethel, opposed SB 188. She discussed
the access problems in the rural areas. She felt that putting
children, especially those in the Bethel area, in front of a video
camera would make these children feel more ashamed.
CONNIE TROMBLE, speaking on behalf of a native woman from Alaganik,
opposed SB 188. She explained that Upiaks are very shy and are not
accustomed to being on camera; this would jeopardize rather than
help the situation.
HELEN SORENSEN, testifying from Bethel, informed the committee that
she had been working with children for the past ten years.
Children often feel that abuse is their fault. She felt that
children would feel victimized again when they are videotaped as
well as when they go to court. Because of the quiet nature of the
natives in the area, videotaping would be intimidating. She
mentioned the need for confidentiality in the videotaping. She
posed a situation in which the family could find fault with the
interview or the videotaping, that staff would be liable and
scrutinized for their work. Many will have their jobs on the line,
especially if they are unexperienced in this area.
Number 472
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director of the Tundra Women's Coalition
(TWC), explained that TWC provides a range of services from
emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault to legal amnesty for victims testifying in court. TWC
provides these services in the Yukon-Kuskokim Delta Region which
encompasses 100,000 square miles and approximately 52 villages.
She expressed concern with SB 188 which she did not believe had
received the necessary time and scrutiny. She was concerned that
SB 188 was not intended to increase the safety of abused children,
but rather to enhance the public's trust in the fairness of the
child protection system. SB 188 will not improve the public's
perception nor will it encourage more children to speak out about
their abuse. Therefore, training for child protection staff must
be improved as well as creating public confidence in the State's
system. Ms. Lowry questioned the quality of justice being offered
to the young victims under SB 188 when the burden of the public's
perception of state agencies is placed on the backs of the victims.
Currently, there are no mandatory requirements for the videotaping
of adult victims. She pondered the extent to which child victims
of violent crime should be treated differently than adult victims.
She urged the committee to oppose SB 188. Imagine being a child
that does not speak English as their first language and lives with
the perpetrator of their abuse; what can leaders and policy makers
do in order to protect these children and make them feel safe when
reporting abuse?
Number 439
ANNE CARPENETI, Criminal Division of the Department of Law, opposed
SB 188 for the following reasons:
(1)Videotaping can be intrusive and intimidating to anyone,
especially children. In imagining what it would be like to be
a child disclosing abuse or neglect to a stranger, Ms.
Carpenenti was reminded of her own adolescent daughter having
to go into another room to tell her she received a C on a math
test.
(2) The bill is too broad. The bill covers the first
conversation a child would have with a teacher; before the
teacher could ask who did it, a video camera would have to be
obtained in order to record the disclosure. That is
impractical and unfair to the child. This applies to
prosecutors and public defenders but not to private attorneys
or private investigators which affords them an unfair
advantage. The department also fears that unrecorded
interviews would be suppressed by being found to be illegal.
(3) The resources necessary to administer this bill would
divert the scarce resources of the State. SB 188 would limit
the ability to protect children.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Department of Law opposed the protocol
of DPS in which they do everything possible to videotape the
juvenile before the case goes before the District Attorney. ANNE
CARPENETI said no and clarified that the Department of Law opposes
the mandatory nature of SB 188. Of course, the Department of Law
wants the best possible evidence in every case, but it is not
appropriate to mandate the videotaping of every interview with a
child.
SENATOR MILLER expressed confusion with Ms. Carpeneti's testimony
that videotaping would be intimidating to the child, but when DPS
performs the videotaping there is no problem. ANNE CARPENETI
clarified that often when the police perform the videotaping, there
are one way mirrors and other ways in which it is not intrusive and
not intimidating. A video camera would be intimidating no matter
what the circumstances. When prosecutors interview children, they
attempt to make the experience as easy as possible. The department
does not oppose videotaping and in many cases videotaping would be
preferable in order to eliminate multiple interviews. However,
SB 188 sweeps too broadly.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that he and Senator Miller agreed. He
explained that the department doing the initial investigations
should act consistently with the department that does the
prosecutions. He did not want to see cases thrown out due to the
lack of a videotape, but at the same time the pattern of throwing
out 70 percent of the cases before the department should not
continue either. He hoped that the department would assist in the
development of a better system.
Number 374
SENATOR SALO noted that currently, Alaska allows police officers
and agencies to utilize video and audio taping and bring that into
the court. No states have mandatory videotaping requirements. She
emphasized that videotapes are not an absolute assurance that the
evidence would proceed smoothly in court. In some states that
utilize videotapes more than in Alaska, the technical issues of the
videotape become the focus. She pointed out that the arguments
regarding how notes are taken could be applied to the videotaping
as well. The intent of the sponsors is good, but the legislation
is not worth trying to fix. The pieces to achieve the intent is
already in law. If the intent is to improve the use of
videotaping, then the money necessary for the equipment and for
more taping sites could be placed in the budget.
Number 348
HELEN MEHRKENS, Department of Education, opposed SB 188 as
currently written. She reiterated the concerns surrounding the
privacy and protection of the child. Also the implementation of
the bill is reason for concern; as written, a child's initial
conversation with school personnel would be considered the initial
interview. The school is not prepared to videotape those
conversations which often begin as a regular counselor visit, a
guidance process or clarification process. Attempting to obtain
and set up the video equipment that would more than likely be
located in another classroom would be disruptive to the child who
would be conversing with a person, determining whether they are a
safe person to talk with or not. Ms. Mehrkens expressed concern
with the prospect that the conversations a child might discuss in
the classroom before an investigation took place would be
considered part of the interview process also. Most of these
children continue in the classroom as the investigation continues.
Would the teacher not be allowed to ask how the child is doing or
any other nurturing types of conversations?
SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that AS 47.17.027 provides that any time
an interview is done by the department in the school, a teacher
must be present. In the Ombudsman's Report, there is a required
agreement between the department and the school regarding how such
incidents would be handled. Then a finding must occur in order to
determine if the teacher would be allowed to be present during the
interview. In the Ombudsman's Report, no such agreement had be
entered into with this pre-school not to mention that they violated
law in the manner in which the interview was done. The person who
came to perform the interview insisted that the teacher not be
present during the interview. That illustrates a tremendous amount
of discretion by a staff member that the department has agreed is
very poorly trained. Are there ways in which the utilization of
video and audio tapes could be encouraged? He reiterated that 70
percent of the cases return the child to the home because of the
inability to prosecute the case. He expressed concern that when a
poor case is developed, the child is returned to the same house
with no protection. He did not believe that all 70 percent were
bad cases. Senator Taylor requested that Ms. Carpeneti review how
the school districts implement Title 47, if the school districts
have agreements with DHSS, and to what degree is it working.
Number 265
DAN LABROSSE informed the committee that he had been a social
worker for Alaska, had been trained by DFYS, and had conducted
these interviews. He stated that the interviews were very
difficult. He specified that he has a masters degree in
counseling, is a specialist in deafness, and he worked mainly with
families with disabled children. Families with disabled children
have a tendency for abuse. Throughout his time as a social worker,
he utilized video cameras whenever possible, especially in sexual
abuse cases. Sexual abuse cases are the hardest in which to obtain
solid evidence. Often the only access to video equipment was
through the police or the military police.
Mr. LaBrosse emphasized that this type of evidence is difficult to
obtain. A trusting relationship must be developed with the child
in a short time period; it is easier to do this in familiar and
comfortable environments such as the home. Some children are non
verbal and require the use of anatomically correct dolls. He noted
that he would observe how a child would react to a teacher's
presence. Mr. LaBrosse suggested that observation rooms with one
way mirrors could be useful. He mentioned that there is research
regarding setting up such rooms. He emphasized that there should
not be any impediments to the access of this information. In
conclusion, Mr. LaBrosse noted that many incidents of child abuse
are not even reported which is frightening.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to how often Mr. LaBrosse experienced
false reports. DAN LABROSSE specified that he was a social worker
for a year and a half and did not remember having a false report.
Mr. LaBrosse noted that he would not take custody of a child unless
he believed that the child was in imminent danger. There are
different degrees of intrusiveness regarding taking custody of the
child. The intrusiveness can range from emergency custody to
placing the child in a foster home. Mr. LaBrosse felt that he was
extremely well trained through the division. Mr. LaBrosse
encouraged making the bill work.
Number 168
MICHELE CALLAHAM, Executive Director of Unalaskans against Sexual
Assault and Family Violence, said that she was an opponent of SB
188 as currently written. She did not believe that videotaping
would resolve the concern regarding the training of a social worker
in order to administer effective and appropriate interviews. Since
this is a training issue, better safeguards in regulation and
policy and procedure should be reviewed. She emphasized that
efforts should be focused in that area. SB 188 is an extreme
measure. Ms. Callaham informed the committee that Unalaska is 800
miles from Anchorage and their social worker is charged with
serving the entire Aleutian Pribolof Region which is isolated,
often with inclement weather. She could not imagine how their
social worker could do her job effectively if the social worker was
constantly concerned about the interview of a child, the
availability of video equipment and a room in which to utilize the
equipment. Ms. Callaham was concerned with Alaska's high child
abuse and sexual abuse rate and the training of the social workers.
Ms. Callaham supported all the comments made by Ms. Lowry.
Number 111
LINDA GAUTHIER, testifying from Homer, informed the committee that
she was representing Guardians of Family Rights. She agreed with
the observation that those in this field do not want this bill.
She emphasized that the policy and procedures in place are not
being followed and there is no accountability. There needs to be
a check an balance that protects the child, the family as well as
the social worker. She indicated that it is easy to lead a child
in such cases. Videotapes do not lie and can be very useful.
GENE OTTENSTROER, Guardians of Family Rights, stressed that a
parent should be notified before an interview occurs. She asserted
that there is child abuse and a lot of it is in the department.
She suggested that cutting the funding to these departments would
decrease the child abuse. Videotaping is necessary and should be
administered by a third party.
TAPE 96-7, SIDE A
PAM GRANT, Stand Together Against Rape, stated that SB 188 was not
in the best interest of the child. Children do not have a high
trust level when speaking only to adults, this trust level must be
developed at their own pace. A child is placed in an uncomfortable
position when the child is interrupted during the disclosure
process in order to videotape the interview. Ms. Grant opposed
SB 188.
Number 039
JENNIFER BOSTICK, testifying from Ketchikan, informed the committee
that she had been abused. She did not believe that SB 188 was
right. It was hard enough to talk to a complete stranger about
what happened and she did not believe she could have disclosed the
information in front of a camera.
DUANE STONE, Officer in the Ketchikan Police Department, said that
he did use video cameras as often as possible, but he attempts to
be as low profile as possible with children. He reiterated concern
that a case could be lost because videotaping was not available.
Often the foresight or knowledge that a disclosure is coming in
order to prepare to videotape the disclosure is not present.
Ketchikan does have a facility to utilize concealed cameras for
interviewing children. Videotaping is not practical in all cases,
especially in cases of neglect. DFYS often makes trips to the home
of such a reported case and discovers that it is not valid.
Storing a tape of that for evidence purposes for two to three years
would seem ludicrous. Officer Stone believed that videotaping
should be done whenever possible, but mandatory videotaping is of
great concern. He discussed the concern about technical
difficulties being a reason for not proceeding with a case.
CHAIRMAN GREEN recognized that there were three people in Anchorage
who are affiliated with Women In Safe Homes (WISH). She requested
that one person act as a spokesperson for the group due to the lack
of time remaining.
Number 128
KRISTI HERRMAN, Women In Safe Homes, stated that SB 188 is not
intended to protect children but rather punish DFYS for some
perceived inefficiency. If there are problems with the training
aspect of DFYS, that could be addressed in other forums. Requiring
that children be videotaped and not adults or perpetrators merely
sustains the misconception that children are inherently
unbelievable.
DAN MORRIS, Chief of the Kenai Police Department, opposed SB 188.
The bill requires a trained investigator. Kenai does not have the
luxury of sending all of its investigators to that training. In
sexual abuse cases, videotaping is always strived towards but it is
not always possible to videotape every interview. Chief Morris
reiterated the difficulty in stopping a spontaneous interview that
could happen in any number of places, from a squad car to school.
The child is traumatized further when the interview is stopped in
order to move to a place where the videotaping could occur. Chief
Morris agreed with Senator Salo in that there is nothing
salvageable in SB 188. The issues can be addressed through
regulation, policies, procedures and training as Ms. Callaham
mentioned.
BRENDA WIEFFERING, Executive Director of the Kenai-Soldotana
Women's Resource and Crisis Center, opposed SB 188. The bill does
not provide for the spontaneous disclosure of abuse. Disclosure
would be inhibited when the interview is stopped in order to set up
video equipment. Videotaping children is intimidating and
victimizing, especially repeatedly. Furthermore, the videotaping
would not eliminate court testimony which is also very traumatic.
If the concern is in the interviewing techniques, such as using
leading statements, then training is the cure not videotaping the
victim. Ms. Wieffering felt that as long as the potential for
child abuse remained, adults should be willing to undergo the
scrutiny not the child victim. Requiring that all interviews be
videotaped is not realistic and would interfere with effective
prosecution which leaves children in further danger.
Number 201
WALT BONNER, Chief of the Soldotna Police Department, opposed
SB 188 as it is currently written. SB 188 is too broad and
therefore the likelihood of losing cases because of the lack of
equipment. Often these cases are reported during the night to a
dispatch center and a patrol officer is dispatched to the home.
Videotaping that initial probable cause interview is not practical.
He agreed that the formal interview should be videotaped, but
videotaping every interview is impractical.
HARRY NEHAUS, Guardians of Family Rights, supported SB 188. He
posed the following question: what is traumatic? Is traumatic a
few moments in front of a camera where the child may be intimidated
or is traumatic a separation from the family. Most children are
not shy in front of a camera, but if they are then the camera could
be placed in an office with something draped over it.
GENE ALTIG, representing himself, informed the committee that he
was also a member of the Guardians of Family Rights and a member of
the Mormon church. Mr. Altig supported SB 188. Video cameras are
everywhere and weigh very little. For example, without videotaping
in the Rodney King case no one would have known that Mr. King had
stopped resisting arrest while the police did not notice. Often
counselors involved in emotional issues such as child abuse and
molestation, allow their journalism to get carried away. Mr. Altig
suggested that a desk could be utilized to serve as security for
the child and anchor the child for videotaping.
Number 277
JODY DELANEY noted that the uniforms of Alaska's officers have
videotapes. There is no check and balance. She informed the
committee that her family was destroyed due to the lack of checks
and balances. The school is not set up nor is it qualified to do
social service work and these people do not want to be a part of
the social service system. She informed everyone that Alaska leads
the nation with 60 percent of reported cases being false. Alaska
also has the highest rate of sexual abuse. If that 60 percent is
eliminated, then the case load is decreased and more time is left
for the other cases. In conclusion, Ms. Delaney said that the
children are not against this.
SENATOR MILLER acknowledged that there is work yet to be done on
the bill, but the lack of the department's attempts to work through
the problems is frustrating. He stated that this bill would be
moving through the process and it would be to their advantage to
come forth to work out a solution.
SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that if 60 to 70 percent of all of the
criminal cases in any other areas were lost, would we feel
comfortable returning that percentage back to society? Perhaps,
mandating videotaping may not be the solution. Senator Taylor
agreed with observations of difficulty in the implementation of the
bill, but something more than leading the nation in the number of
cases dismissed is necessary. That problem needs to be addressed.
He encouraged all concerned about the legislation to come forward
with information to increase good prosecutions and protection for
the children.
CHAIRMAN GREEN invited anyone interested to send suggestions,
amendments, or deletions to the committee. The bill was held.
Anyone who did not testify was welcomed to submit their testimony
for the record. There being no further business before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|