HB 64-SURRENDER OF INFANTS; INF. SAFETY DEVICE  1:01:36 PM CHAIR GRAY announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 64, "An Act relating to the surrender of infants; and providing for an effective date." 1:01:49 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:01 p.m. to 1:03 p.m. 1:03:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE FRANK TOMASZEWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 64. He read the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: In 2008 Alaska enacted its safe surrender law to ensure that surrendered infants receive immediate care for their safety and provide legal protection for the relinquishing parent, thereby reduce potential infant death due to illegal abandonment. Our current safe surrender law requires a parent to directly relinquish an infant to another individual. Infant safety devices protect both relinquishing parents and infants. Infant safety devices allow a parent to surrender an infant anonymously through a climate-controlled device at a designated facility. Currently, twenty-two states authorize infant safety devices. House Bill 64 would authorize the use of infant safety devices as an additional method of infant relinquishment under the safe surrender laws. These devices would safely hold an infant with an automatic lock and constant video surveillance while immediately alerting appropriate personnel of the surrender. Infant safety devices would be placed in conspicuous areas with appropriate signage as determined by the Department of Family and Community Services (DFCS). An infant safety device may be located at hospital, emergency department, freestanding birth center, office of a private physician, rural health clinic, municipal police department, state trooper post, fire department, or other facility designated by the DFCS commissioner. The ability to relinquish an infant to a safe location rather than an individual allows additional anonymity for the relinquishing parent while still ensuring that surrendered infants receive immediate medical care. 1:05:56 PM DAVID GOFF, Staff, Representative Frank Tomaszewski, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tomaszewski, prime sponsor, read the sectional analysis for HB 64 [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1 Amends the child abandonment statute (AS 47.10.013(c)) to make a parent immune from prosecution if they safely leave the infant in a safety device that is fiscally affixed to allowable public agency facility. Section 2 Amends the child abandonment statute (AS 47.10.013(d)) to conform to Section 1 abandonment for the person to whom an infant is safely surrendered. Section 3 Amends the child abandonment statute (AS47.10.013(e)) to include designated facility as a receiver of a safely abandoned infant. Section 4 Adds a new subsection to the child abandonment statute to require receiving facilities to immediately notify the nearest peace officer, community health aide, physician, or hospital employee. Adds a new subsection to specify what an infant safety device must be equipped with and where it must be located. Section 5 Provides an effective date of July 1, 2026. 1:07:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the bill is voluntary or if the Department of Health (DOH) would "assign entities." REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI stated that the bill gives the commissioner the discretion to make those designations. 1:08:51 PM CHAIR GRAY asked whether the bill sponsor or his staff had visited one of these [infant safety devices] "baby boxes." REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI said no, he had never seen or been placed in a baby box. 1:09:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE shared her understanding that the Safe Surrender of Infants Act allows parents to relinquish an infant who is less than 21 days old, and asked whether the same parameters apply in HB 64. MR. GOFF confirmed that the bill would follow the same 21-day rule. He explained that once the baby box door is opened, it sounds a silent alarm in the fire station, hospital, emergency room, or healthcare facility; after the baby is placed in the basinet, the door locks upon closure and a second alarm is sounded. If no one responds, local dispatch is notified to take custody of the child. 1:13:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to confirm that HB 64 would allow any mother to surrender an infant under three weeks old anonymously without judgment and the state would provide for that child. MR. GOFF responded affirmatively. 1:13:47 PM CHAIR GRAY sought to confirm that any person, not just the mother, could surrender the child. In addition, he asked about constant surveillance, and whether a six-month-old baby being placed in the box would eliminate the adult's right to anonymity. REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI shared his understanding that existing laws prevent the submission of a child by someone other than the parent. MR. GOFF clarified that the camera providing 24-hour surveillance is inside the box to ensure the safety of a child, not to capture the identity of the person relinquishing the child. REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI added that cameras are everywhere, so anonymity is subject to interpretation. CHAIR GRAY pointed out that anonymity in smaller communities is unlikely. REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI anticipated that the boxes would be placed in larger hub communities, not the small communities. 1:18:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD asked whether baby boxes are linked to a reduction in abandonments. MR. GOFF did not know the answer. He reported that 54 babies had been submitted to baby boxes across the U.S. 1:22:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID asked how many infants had been relinquished under the Safe Surrender of Infants Act. MR. GOFF responded that the numbers are not clear, but he was aware of three babies that had been abandoned in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referenced a letter from Chief Schrage at the Anchorage Fire Department [included in the committee packet] that testified to recent incidents of abandoned newborns in Anchorage under the Safe Haven Law and spoke in support of HB 64. 1:23:59 PM CHAIR GRAY asked what other states with baby boxes are doing with regard to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). MR. GOFF imagined that those states would be doing everything they could to work with those agencies. 1:25:18 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:25 p.m. 1:25:51 PM CHAIR GRAY opened public testimony on HB 64. 1:26:24 PM LORI BRUCE, representing self, stated that she has studied safe haven laws for over ten years and led an open letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) that called for federal oversight of these devices. The letter was signed by 100 clinicians and child welfare experts because of the growing awareness of the harms and unintended consequences of baby boxes. She said under present conditions, she strongly recommends against the use of these boxes because they decrease the likelihood of crisis intervention and increase unecessary family separation. They also violate ICWA and are not regulated by any government authority. She reported that three deaths have been associated with boxes over the past year. Additionally, context terms disallow providers from altering the signs on the boxes that could inform at-risk parents of family preservation and other options, which ties the hands of the first responders by withholding legal options from at-risk families. She said there's nothing that would stop an older baby or toddler from being left in a box. She added that there are many better ways to help these families. 1:30:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID asked Ms. Bruce where she resides. MS. BRUCE said she currently resides in Connecticut. 1:30:45 PM NOELLE OZIMEK, representing self, informed the committee that she is the former director of research and development at the National Safe Haven Alliance and a reproductive biologist currently based at Harvard Medical School. In running the safe haven crisis hotline, she said she worked with many providers, law enforcement officers, and parents looking to surrender their children and came to the belief that baby boxes are not the best way to end infant abandonment. When people come into hospitals to surrender it provides the opportunity to intervene and provide resources for parents and children. Baby boxes diminish this opportunity, she said, and increases the liability for all those involved if child is harmed or dies. She stated that a box failure could kill an infant and the current boxes are designed poorly. She reiterated her belief that the people who panic and abandon infants should be provided with better options. 1:35:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked how to regulate the inspection of baby boxes to ensure their function. MS. OZIMEK replied it's a difficult question to answer because the boxes are patented in the U.S. by one provider, so that company would need to be very involved in the testing process. She suggested that an alternative route to be explored is baby drawers, which would be more open to regulation and testing by states or institutions. 1:36:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD asked whether anyone has been charged with a crime after surrendering their baby. MS. OZIMEK said she has seen many cases of law enforcement following people home and involving child protective agencies. REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD asked which state this occurred in. MS. OZIMEK answered all across the U.S. 1:37:52 PM CHAIR GRAY announced that public testimony would be left open on HB 64. 1:38:08 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:38 p.m. 1:38:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI, in response to public testimony, opined that he would rather have a panicked parent leave their baby in a warm box instead of outside on the side of the road. He clarified that Alaska already has safe surrender laws, so parents would not be charged with a crime for using the baby box. He said the bill is intended to help struggling parents. 1:40:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked whether there are ways to provide resources to parents in a panicked crisis situation, so they don't default to abandoning their child. REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI agreed that providing parents with additional information or a number to call on the box would be a good idea. 1:41:29 PM CHAIR GRAY asked whether a crime could be charged in the case of severe drug exposure. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP shared his understanding that as long as no physical injury had occurred to the child prior to surrender, no crime would be charged. 1:43:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked to hear from DOH. She shared her understanding that the bill would enhance safe surrender laws and is intended to provide resources that improve the safety of both mother and child not charge them with a crime. She suggested that other organizations could provide baby boxes for infants in compliance with state law, and further clarified that there is a process and resources available for surrendering a child who is older than 21 days. 1:46:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE MINA noted that trafficking and ICWA are important points of discussion. CHAIR GRAY asked whether safe haven laws allow parents to surrender drug-exposed infants in person. 1:48:35 PM CARLA ERICKSON, Chief Assistant Attorney, Department of Law (DOL), said that would be grounds for a child in need of aide (CINA) petition in a civil case, but she was unsure how it would be handled on the criminal side. REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked how the safe surrender law impacts ICWA if an Alaska Native mother were giving her baby up. MS. ERICKSON stated that ICWA requires the state to make efforts to notify the Indian child's Tribe and allow them to participate in the CINA petition. She said she's not familiar with any cases in which the state was not aware of the identity of the parents, which in turn allowed them to identify the child's Tribe. 1:50:14 PM CHAIR GRAY announced that HB 64 was held over.