Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/11/1994 01:55 PM 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
April 11, 1994
1:55 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Steve Rieger, Chairman
Senator Bert Sharp, Vice-Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jim Duncan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to child visitation rights of grandparents and
other persons who are not the parents of the child."
SENATE BILL NO. 296
"An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens' Review
Panel for Permanency Planning."
SENATE BILL NO. 298
"An Act relating to licensure by the State Medical Board."
SENATE BILL NO. 195
"An Act extending the termination date of the State Physical
Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board; and providing for an
effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 21 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/11/94.
SB 296 - No previous action to record.
SB 298 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
3/9/94.
SB 195 - See Labor & Commerce minutes dated 4/22/93.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Ellis
Prime Sponsor
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 296.
Roberly Waldron, Deputy Commissioner
Services to the Public
Department of Administration
900 W. 5th
Suite 710
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2029
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 296.
Senator Donley
Prime Sponsor
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 21.
Sherrie Goll
Alaska Women's Lobby
P.O. Box 22156
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 21 and suggested deleting
Section 4.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-30, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN RIEGER called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 1:55 p.m. He introduced
SB 296 (EXTEND FOSTER CARE REVIEW PANEL) as the first order of
business before the committee. He pointed out that there is a
house version of SB 296. He stated that he planned to waive the
house version which could be picked up in the next committee.
SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that there was a sponsor statement in the
committee's packet. SB 296 would extend the Foster Care Review
Board which would no longer be in business if this action is not
taken. He noted that there has been bipartisan support and little
controversy over this matter.
ROBERLY WALDRON, Deputy Commissioner at the Department of
Administration, stated that she would be happy for SB 296 to move
forward. She indicated that the Foster Care Review Board has
worked well thus far.
SENATOR ELLIS expressed appreciation for Ms. Waldron's work on
keeping the Independent Foster Care Review process functioning with
limited resources.
SENATOR ELLIS moved SB 296 out of committee with individual
recommendations. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered.
Number 062
CHAIRMAN RIEGER introduced SB 21 (MISC. GRANDPARENT VISITATION
RIGHTS) as the next order of business before the committee.
SENATOR DONLEY explained that Alaska is one of the few states that
does not have a provision giving grandparents standing for asking
the court for visitation rights of their grandchildren. He noted
that the best interest of the child would still be the overriding
factor in this matter.
SHERRIE GOLL, Alaska Women's Lobby, stated that the Alaska Women's
Lobby is neither in support nor opposition to SB 21. She expressed
concern with Section 4 of the bill. She urged the committee to
consider eliminating Section 4. She explained that Sections 3 and
4 address disollutions which are no fault divorces; both parents
have agreed on everything. She noted that several years ago
legislation specified that there would be heightened scrutiny when
children were involved. There would be written agreements which
clarifying the agreements between the two parties and any changes
to the agreement would need to be signed off on by both parties
which is encompassed in AS 25.24.220(g). She pointed out that SB
21 in Section 4 states "Notwithstanding AS 25.24.220(g)" which
would allow the court, only in this situation, to insert
grandparents' visitation rights without both parties agreeing to
that decision.
Ms. Goll said that Senator Donley agreed to the deletion of Section
4, if the court still retained the ability to recommend that a
grandparent could be included in visitation. She explained that if
the judge felt they knew better than the parents regarding whether
or not another party could have visitation rights then the judge
could do as in other aspects of the settlement. The judge could
not grant the disollution because it was not a fair and just
situation which is addressed in Section 3. She pointed out that
Section 3 includes written agreements and that the " court shall
also consider whether the agreement should include visitation by
grandparents and other persons; " which seems adequate. If the
court says that someone should be included in visitation and the
parents cannot reach an agreement to sign off on that
recommendation, then there should be discussion in mediation or
return with a contested divorce. She stated that it should not be
the sole reason a judge could insert something in a disollution
which is at odds with the written agreement and the parties do not
sign off on.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER did not realize that a disollution could take place
if children were involved. SHERRIE GOLL said yes a disollution can
take place when children are involved. The idea was to have
heightened scrutiny when children were involved.
Number 153
SENATOR SHARP asked if page 2, Section 3, paragraph 2 would allow
a judge, even when the spouses had a written agreement, to consider
adding grandparents visitation at the time of the disollution or
divorce without necessitating another court proceeding by the
grandparents. SHERRIE GOLL agreed that Senator Sharp's assessment
was correct. In that instance, if there was a change in their
written agreements then both parties would need to sign off on that
change therefore, there is no need for Section 4.
SENATOR SHARP asked if the judge could invoke visitation rights of
another person if such consideration was brought up by the court
and one or both spouses refused to sign off on that. SHERRIE GOLL
believed that if the spouses refused a change which the courts
thought necessary, the court would say that the disollution was not
an equitable situation. The spouses would have to return when they
had a fair and just disollution.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that he had a draft amendment coming. He
recommended that if the committee felt Section 4 was a problem then
it should be deleted. Then he would work with the drafters to make
sure everything was covered.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to delete Section 4 of SB 21. SENATOR SHARP
objected.
SENATOR SHARP did not believe that the court would be able to order
that if either or both parents did not agree. He expressed concern
that such a situation could develop during this time when animosity
tends to run high between the families. He did not want another
court process and inquired as to how fair the court would be to
amending the agreement to allow grandparents visitation if Section
4 was eliminated. CHAIRMAN RIEGER said that the grandparents would
legally have the same standing as the parents. Without SB 21, the
parents must agree on visitation before the order.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that the grandparents do not have the
same standing because they cannot agree or disagree to the
disollution or its terms. SB 21 gives grandparents standing, the
legal ability to ask for help from the court which currently is not
allowed. He explained that Ms. Goll's concern refers to a mutual
disollution that does not address the concerns of a grandparent.
If the grandparent comes to the court, what power would the court
have in such situations. He stated that Ms. Goll's position was
that the court should say that there is not a proper disollution,
while keeping the best interest of the child in mind. Without a
proper disollution, the parties must either return with a proper
disollution or go through a formal proceeding. He indicated that
was different from SB 21, Section 4 would allow the court to agree
to a disollution and add grandparent visitation to the disollution.
He said that Ms. Goll was suggesting that such court authority
should be eliminated while maintaining the authority to reject the
disollution when it does not address the grandparents visitation,
if that is in the best interest of the child.
Number 243
SENATOR SHARP said that only helps if the grandparents are in the
vicinity when and where the disollution occurs. In many instances,
the grandparents are not in the same area and this becomes an issue
later. Section 4 seems to allow grandparents the ability to
petition the court to re-open the disollution which would be
eliminated if Section 4 is deleted.
SHERRIE GOLL pointed out that anger would more likely happen during
a divorce than a mutual disollution. A disollutionment hearing is
very brief which is why the law specifies heightened scrutiny when
children are involved. She felt that in a disollution where one
spouse objects to the visitation from another individual, it would
be best for the judge to send the parties to work it out or not
work it out. This process could bring further information to the
proceedings regarding the objection. She did not believe that
Section 4 would allow something to happen after the disollution.
Section 4 addresses when the decree of disollution is being
ordered, while Section 3 gives grandparents the same standing in
disollutions and divorces to come back later.
SENATOR SHARP felt that Section 4 did allow grandparents to
petition after the disollution which could offer additional
information that was not present at the time of disollution.
Senator Sharp removed his objection.
SENATOR SALO agreed that Section 4 should be removed. She
expressed concern that during a disollution not enough time may be
spent determining the best interest of the child. She pointed out
that in a disollution there would be minimal information regarding
the best interest of the child. The people involved rather than
the judge would be more likely to have the necessary information to
determine the best interest of the child.
SENATOR LEMAN objected to the removal of Section 4.
Upon a hand vote on the amendment to remove Section 4 of SB 21,
Senators Rieger, Ellis and Salo voted "Yea" while Senators Sharp,
Leman and Miller voted "Nay." The motion failed.
SENATOR ELLIS moved SB 21 out of committee with individual
recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 327
CHAIRMAN RIEGER introduced SB 195 (PHYSICAL/OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
BOARDS EXT.) as the next order of business before the committee.
SENATOR MILLER moved to adopt the Lauterbach CS, version 8-LS1023\E
in lieu of the original bill. Hearing no objection, the CS was
adopted.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER informed the committee that a problem had arisen in
physical therapy licensing. A person was denied licensure,
although, the hearing officer and the board felt the person was
well qualified. This was due to a statutory restriction requiring
that an applicant must have received professional instruction from
schools approved by the Council on Medical Education and Hospitals
of the American Medical Association or the American Physical
Therapy Association. He explained that even if the board felt that
an applicant with different professional instruction was
acceptable, the board still could not approve that applicant.
SENATOR MILLER moved CSSB 195 (HES) out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 351
CHAIRMAN RIEGER introduced SB 298 (LICENSING OF PHYSICIANS) as the e
last order of business before the committee. He pointed out that
this bill had been requested by members of the State Medical Board.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER moved to adopt Amendment 1.
AMENDMENT 1
Page 1, lines 5-6:
Delete " the board's designated representative "
Insert " by a licensed physician designated for that purpose by
the board "
SENATOR ELLIS objected for purposes of discussion. He inquired as
to whose concerns Amendment 1 addressed; Dr. Rowan or the State
Medical Board.
SENATOR LEMAN explained that Amendment 1 clarifies that the
individual designated by the board would be a licensed physician
which was the board's intent.
Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER moved to adopt Amendment 2.
AMENDMENT 2
Page 1, line 1, after " Board ":
Insert " and temporary permits for certain optometrists "
Page 2, after line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
" *Sec. 3. AS 08.72 is amended by adding a new section to read:
Sec. 08.72.172. PERMIT FOR LOCUM TENENS PRACTICE. (a) A
member of the board may issue a temporary permit to a
nonresident optometrist for the purpose of assisting or
substituting for an optometrist licensed under this chapter.
The office employing an optometrist with a permit under this
section must be an established practice, as determined under
regulations adopted by the board, and be owned by a licensed
optometrist whose practice is full time.
(b) A permit issued under this section is valid for 60
consecutive days and may be renewed up to three times within
a 12-month period if circumstances warrant. Permits issued
under this section are not valid for more than 240 consecutive
days of practice within a 12-month period.
(c) A person who applies for a permit under this section
shall pay the required fee and furnish proof of
(1) meeting the requirements of AS 08.72.140; and
(2) holding a valid license to practice optometry
issued by a state or territory of the United States or by a
province or territory of Canada.
(d) Within 10 days after a permit has been issued under
this section, the board member shall forward to the department
a report of the issuance of the permit."
SENATOR MILLER objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER explained that Amendment 2 would allow optometrists
to have temporary permits similar to what exists for physicians.
SENATOR MILLER removed his objection.
Hearing no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved SB 298 as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN RIEGER reminded the committee that there would be a
hearing of confirmation resumes unless an in person hearing was
requested. The deadline is tomorrow at 12:00 p.m. A discussion
regarding the seats being filled on the State Board of Education
ensued. There was a request to have the State Board of Education
confirmations on teleconference.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|