HB 36-FOSTER CHILDREN PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT   4:21:37 PM CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 36 "An Act relating to the placement of foster children in psychiatric hospitals; relating to the care of children in state custody placed in residential facilities outside the state; and amending Rule 12.1(b), Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure." 4:21:50 PM CHAIR DUNBAR solicited a motion. 4:21:54 PM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 36, work order 34-LS0358\T, as the working document. 4:22:08 PM CHAIR DUNBAR objected for purposes of discussion. 4:22:20 PM ARIELLE WIGGIN, Staff, Senator Forrest Dunbar, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the summary of changes for HB 36, version N to version T and said: This CS separates one statute into two sections. Originally AS 47.10.087 was the statute that was referred to throughout version N. [AS 47.10.O87], as I came to understand through this process, refers to adult residential psychiatric treatment centers. This CS creates a new section, Section 105, for short term psychiatric care for youth, for clarity. There's a title update. It replaces the first two lines, as terms are updated in this version. Throughout the bill, there's cleanup that removes the term "acute psychiatric treatment center" and replaces it with "hospital that is not a residential treatment center." It adds, "and any other parties" to sections where the child, parent, guardian of child or child's guardian ad litem are listed. [This is] to cover parties that may be engaged in these court cases. Throughout the bill references are removed to two-way video conferencing as that is standard within court process and was unnecessary and can be determined through regulation through court rules. 4:04:56 PM MS. WIGGIN continued with the summary of changes for HB 36: Section 1 is the piece that splits the statute. This removes the word "secure" adds "other parties" and adds a new definition of "acute psych treatment hospital." A new paragraph explains why "secure" was removed, and the new paragraph refers to the change in residential psychiatric treatment center. Section 2 is the new section pulling out "short-term psychiatric care" from [AS 47.10.087], creating [AS 47.10.105]. This was Section 3 in version N. It mostly follows HB 36, version N, with some updates. All the subsection numbers are changed starting with (a). It renumbers all of the following: [Section 2(a) allows the department to place the child into a hospital that is a not a residential psychiatric treatment center.] Section 3, there's a new paragraph 6, replaces "residential facilities" with "psychiatric residential treatment facilities." This was just to help with how this is referred to in other parts of statute. Those are the changes that are made. 4:26:21 PM CHAIR DUNBAR asked for an explanation of why a committee substitute was brought forward. 4:26:26 PM SENATOR CLAMAN replied that the committee substitute (CS) is driven by concerns raised in the Kwinhagak case, which highlighted the lack of timely judicial review when children in state custody were placed in hospitals for psychiatric care. He said to address this, HB 36 clearly separates long-term psychiatric placements, which already require court review, from short-term hospital placements, ensuring that due-process hearings and reviews begin promptly when a child is admitted to a hospital. He stated that the CS also makes statutory cleanups to clarify definitions, particularly removing confusing language around "secure" treatment facilities, and updates terminology to align with how other states define psychiatric residential treatment facilities. These changes improve legal clarity, protect children's due-process rights, and ensure consistent data collection for children placed in out-of-state psychiatric care. 4:31:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW GRAY, District 20, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, gave remarks on HB 36 and stated his belief that the committee substitute meets the Supreme Court's directive in Kwinhagak and expressed strong appreciation for Senator Claman's work on the bill. 4:31:46 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked if there was ever a situation where a child needing only short-term psychiatric care is placed in a long- term facility due to available space, and if so, would that raise due process concerns for what is intended to be a short- term placement, or does that not occur in practice. 4:32:35 PM CHRISSY VOGELEY, Senior Policy Advisor, Department of Family and Community Services, Juneau, Alaska, answered questions on HB 36 and stated that placement in a long-term secure facility always requires a formal process, including review by the Office of Children's Services treatment team, involvement of legal parties, and a court hearing to approve the transition from short-term to long-term care. 4:33:23 PM SENATOR HUGHES restated her question and asked whether short- term cases could be placed in a long-term facility when short- term space is full. 4:34:24 PM MS. VOGELEY replied that she is not aware of short-term cases being placed in long-term facilities, noting that statutes, regulations, and court processes prevent long-term placement without proper approval. 4:35:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY stated that the committee substitute clarifies the statutes by separating long-term residential care from short-term care, reducing confusion and preventing improper placement. 4:35:44 PM SENATOR TOBIN asked why HB 36 uses the term on page 3, line 24, "less restrictive setting" instead of the more common "least restrictive setting," and sought clarification on line 28, regarding who qualifies as "any other party. 4:36:35 PM SENATOR CLAMAN answered that "any other party" refers to existing parties in an ongoing child-in-need-of-aid case, most commonly tribes, and not members of the public. The language was chosen to ensure all recognized parties with standing in the case receive notice. 4:37:54 PM CHAIR DUNBAR repeated the question regarding "least restrictive setting." 4:37:59 PM SENATOR CLAMAN replied that while the goal is generally the least restrictive placement, the term "less restrictive" was likely chosen to emphasize moving children out of hospitals as soon as possible. He suggested reviewing the language further and following up at the next hearing. 4:38:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out that HB 36, line 11, already states the department must promptly seek the least restrictive placement and does not see a substantive difference in the wording. He suggested using consistent language throughout and agrees the issue should be reviewed. 4:39:14 PM SENATOR HUGHES suggested that "less restrictive" may be used when the least restrictive option is unavailable and raises concern about defining "any other party" to avoid including the public. She proposed clarifying the language to specify parties recognized by the court. SENATOR CLAMAN stated he will circle back with Legislative Legal and get an answer. 4:39:47 PM CHAIR DUNBAR suggested holding HB 36 for another hearing to consult with drafters about clarifying the language, noting that "party" typically implies court-recognized standing. He emphasized that the intent is not to allow random individuals to become parties. 4:40:23 PM SENATOR TOBIN noted the importance of public committee discussions for the legal record and asks for judicial perspective on the bill's court-related provisions, particularly given the lack of a judiciary referral. 4:41:06 PM CHAIR DUNBAR noted that HB 36 does not have a fiscal note. 4:41:19 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Juneau, Alaska, answered questions on HB 36. She responded that the legislature can change court rules with a two-thirds vote and noted that the bill's court-related change has minimal impact because courts already routinely appoint attorneys for children placed in psychiatric hospitals. 4:42:57 PM CHAIR DUNBAR noted that this is the first time all three branches of the government are testifying simultaneously. 4:43:15 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked for an explanation to be put on record regarding why there isn't a fiscal note. 4:43:36 PM MS. VOGELEY replied that the bill's fiscal impact is small and believes the Office of the Administrative Director can absorb the costs. 4:44:09 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked who removes the funding from the fiscal note and what the process is. CHAIR DUNBAR replied he was not sure. He asked Ms. Vogeley whether her office submitted a new fiscal note. MS. VOGELEY replied yes. 4:44:33 PM SENATOR TOBIN asked about the potential impact on the court system given the estimate that the court change in HB 36 could trigger approximately 110 additional hearings. 4:44:50 PM MS. MEADE replied that the committee substitute broadens the definition of hospital admissions requiring review, likely resulting in more than the previously estimated 110 additional hearings. However, the court does not assign a fiscal note for this extra work, as it doesn't require new hires, so the bill itself has no immediate fiscal impact. 4:46:00 PM CHAIR DUNBAR removed his objection; found no further objection and SCS HB 36 was adopted as the working document. 4:46:15 PM CHAIR DUNBAR held HB 36 in committee.