HB 97: PARENTAL CARE FOR CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY Number 344 CHAIR TOOHEY brought HB 97 to the table. DIANNE OLSEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE HUMAN SERVICES SECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified from Anchorage, making herself available to answer questions on HB 97. She referred to SB 396, from the 1992 legislative session, which was drafted in response to the Alaska Supreme Court decision on the case In re E.A.O. That court decision indicated that the statute as constructed required the Department of Health and Social Services to retain responsibility to provide food, shelter, education and medical care for children it had removed from abusive homes and assumed legal custody of, even after they were returned to the family. Ms. Olsen said that some attorneys in Anchorage representing parents have argued not only that the department is responsible for children's medical care, but also for first and last months' rent for housing, and for counseling not approved by the department. She said the department had not contemplated assuming such responsibility and felt HB 97 might correct the situation. Number 375 REP. VEZEY asked why HB 97 includes language restricting the state from assuming responsibility for granting a child permission to enlist in the armed services. MS. OLSEN said she could not answer, but the enlistment language had been in the statute for years. Number 388 CHAIR TOOHEY noted that a bill similar to HB 97, introduced by the House HESS Committee, passed both houses of the legislature without opposition in 1992, but died in the closing days of the session. She said the sponsors of the bill last year felt there was a danger that, if children were not placed back with their families, the high cost of caring for children might discourage the state from assuming care for them. REP. BUNDE asked whether HB 97 should not carry a negative fiscal note, given that it might save the state the potential medical, educational and housing costs. He also asked whether such potential bills were accounted for in the department's budget. MS. OLSEN answered that In re E.A.O involved a child whose medical bills exceeded $100,000. She said she did not know whether, following the 1991 Supreme Court decision, the department had to pay such costs. She said she thought the department had waited until after the decision to see about budgeting for such costs in hopes that last year's bill would pass. She said a negative fiscal not was not appropriate. Number 418 DEBORAH WING, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, testified in support of HB 97. REP. PETE KOTT asked for an example of a case in which, under current practice, the department would remove a child from his home, then return him. MS. WING said it could happen that the Department of Health and Social Services could determine a child was in an unsafe home and remove him. But after helping rectify the problems in the home, the department could return the child to the parents' physical custody, while still retaining legal custody. REP. KOTT asked if the department might ever remove a child from one parent but later return him to a different parent, if the parents were divorced or separated, or even joined with other partners who might then be considered step- parents. MS. WING answered that there is a potential for a child to be returned to a different home than the one from which he was removed. (Rep. Gail Phillips arrived at 3:36 p.m.) Number 446 REP. GARY DAVIS asked what responsibility the state would have for informing the parents of any medical problems their child might develop while in state custody. MS. WING answered that if a removed child is found to have medical problems, then the department will (unintelligible) the parents upon the child's return to the home, as appropriate. She said the question would remain as to the duration of the department's financial responsibility for medical care of the child while he was living in his parent's home, "until the department got out of a case plan with the child and family." REP. G. DAVIS noted that parents might be surprised by a child's potentially expensive medical condition upon his return. MS. OLSEN said that was correct. CHAIR TOOHEY asked for and received clarification from Rep. Davis on his question. Number 486 MS. WING added that if a child under state custody was found to have medical problems, then the state would notify the parents upon the child's return. But because the state would not have fully dismissed its custody of the child, it would retain responsibility for the costs of medical treatment even after return to the home. REP. KOTT asked where the statute indicates that the state would assume financial responsibility. He said that creates a dangerous situation in which parents might unload children with severe medical problems into state custody. MS. WING agreed with Rep. Kott. She said the state is now responsible for children in both their physical and legal custody, but HB 97 pertains to children in the state's legal custody but in their parents' physical custody. Number 505 REP. B. DAVIS expressed confusion about Ms. Wing's answers. She asked whether parents might be allowed to pay some of the costs of medical care for children even if the children are in the state's legal custody. MS. WING answered yes. REP. B. DAVIS stated that the Department of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) is required to plan a way to return to parental custody any child for which it assumes legal custody. She added that the parents are not kept ignorant of a child's medical condition while the child is under state custody. She said the bill clarifies the fact that after a child returns to physical custody of the parents, the state would be relieved of responsibility for medical bills. Number 537 REP. OLBERG asked again why HB 97 restricts the state from delegating authority to grant a child permission to enlist in the military. MS. WING said she would have to find the answer later. REP. VEZEY said he understood the bill to mean that the authority to grant permission to marry or enlist could not be delegated by the department. Number 554 CHAIR TOOHEY said she read HB 97 to mean that the department could not grant a child under its custody permission to enlist; only the parents had that power to grant such permission. REP. VEZEY said he interpreted HB 97 to read that parents whose children had been removed into state custody forfeited the authority to grant permission for military enlistment, which is required of 17-year-olds. However, he acknowledged he may have read the bill incorrectly. REP. BUNDE said it is likely the state does not want the power over a child's enlistment; that power must remain with the parents. CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no further questions, closed testimony on HB 97. REP. B. DAVIS moved that the bill be passed with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. Number 566 CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no objections, declared HB 97 PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. She announced the teleconferenced portion of the meeting was concluded.