HB 116-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT  3:03:43 PM CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and to juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile probation officers by the Department of Health and Social Services; relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to sexual assault in the third degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date." 3:04:16 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ introduced HB 116, as prime sponsor. She said HB 116 would do three things: close a loophole for sexual abuse of minors; update definitions that reference the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities and staff; and codify best practices. She explained that the loophole was found in 2017 when a DJJ staff member was acquitted after sustaining an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor who had previously been under his supervision. The bill would close the loophole by adding DJJ staff to the list of individuals in a position of authority over DJJ youth. She related that the bulk of HB 116 would update the outdated, inaccurate, and obsolete terminology used to describe DJJ facilities in current statute and would update statute to reflect the authorities and responsibilities of the division more accurately. She advised that these portions of the bill would not substantively modify the way DJJ operates but would improve DJJ's ability to complete its mission and would codify best practices to ensure safe and secure treatment of juveniles in Alaska. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ further conveyed that HB 116 would codify best practices at the division and clarify the division's authority. She said these changes would resolve issues that have come to light over time or simply reflect the standard operations at the division. For example, HB 116 would add DJJ staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect. This is something that DJJ staff already does, she continued, but the bill would codify this in statute to ensure that DJJ probation officers have the authority to file amended petitions. The bill would correct language authorizing the department to disclose confidential information related to the offense when a minor has received an adjudication rather than the offense the minor was alleged to have committed. In summary, she stated, HB 116 would improve DJJ's ability to complete its mission by codifying best practices, ensuring juveniles are safe and secure, and closing the loophole regarding sexual abuse of a minor supervised by DJJ staff. 3:07:00 PM MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime sponsor of HB 116, provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "HB 116: Division of Juvenile Justice Clean-Up Bill." She began with slide 2 titled, "1. Closes a loophole for sexual abuse of minors," which read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]: ? Daniel Carey case in 2017 DJJ staff sustained an inappropriate sexual relationship with a juvenile under DJJ supervision. Carey was acquitted because a judge found that sexual abuse of a minor statute does not explicitly list DJJ staff as "being in a position of authority" over DJJ youth. ? Section 6 Clarifies that DJJ staff are in a position of authority over minors in their custody. MS. HOLLAND moved to slide 3, "2. Updates Definitions," which read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]: ? Repeals Youth Counselors Juvenile Detention Home Youth Detention Facility Correctional School Juvenile Work Camp Juvenile Probation Officers Correctional School ? Amends Juvenile Detention Facility Minor ? New Definitions Juvenile Treatment Facility Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area Juvenile Probation Officers MS. HOLLAND spoke to slide 4, "Repeals," which read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]: ?"Youth Counselors," Section 26 The position of "Youth Counselors" has not existed within DJJ since 2003. The duties described under this section do not apply to facility staff but to probation officers. ? "Juvenile Probation Officers," Section 3 Inaccurate definition limiting to officers with individuals 18 or 19 years of age in their custody Corrected with new definition in Section 26. ? "Juvenile Detention Home," "Youth Detention Facility," "Correctional School," "An Institution" and "Juvenile Work Camp," Sections 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 32 and 34 All are repealed and replaced with "juvenile detention facility" and "juvenile treatment facility" for accuracy and consistency. 3:09:34 PM MS. HOLLAND proceeded to slide 5, "Amended Definitions," which read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]: ? "Minor," Section 30 Amends the definition of minor to include a person who was under 18 at the time they committed an offense and is subject to the jurisdiction of DJJ. If a minor commits an offense then turns 18 after, they will remain in DJJ's custody. ? "Juvenile Detention Facility," Sections 29 and 37 Corrects the definition to be a secure facility for the detention of delinquent minors under DJJ custody. The current definition limits it to separate quarters within a city jail, some communities do not have such a jail suitable for juveniles and use other facilities. MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 6, "New Definitions," which read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]: ? "Juvenile Treatment Facility," Section 31 Current statute refers to "juvenile treatment institutions", however DJJ has expressed that this terminology is not reflective of the facilities they currently operate. ? "Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area," Section 31 DJJ has been operating with a list of temporary secure holding areas in various communities throughout the state. ? "Juvenile Probation Officers," Section 26 There is no accurate definition for "juvenile probation officers" under current statute. Section 24 repeals the definition for "youth counselors" and replaces it with an updated definition for "juvenile probation officers", affording them powers of a probation officer and describing their duties. MS. HOLLAND turned to slide 7, "3. Codified Best Practices," which read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]: ? Section 5: Clarifies that employees of juvenile treatment institutions and juvenile and adult probation officers qualify as legal guardians. ? Sections 16 and 18: Provides juvenile probation officers with the authority to file amended and supplemental petitions, and clarifies that for juveniles this duty falls upon juvenile probation officers, not adult probation officers. ? Sections 24-25: Clarifies that the authority to arrest and detain minors rests with juvenile, not adult, probation officers. 3:12:30 PM MS. HOLLAND continued with slide 8, "3. Codified Best Practices," which read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]: ? Section 27: Adds "secure residential psychiatric treatment centers" to the list of facilities from which, when a juvenile is released, victims will receive notification. ? Section 28: Corrects language authorizing the department to disclose confidential information related to an adjudicated offense, rather than the offense the minor was "alleged to have committed." ? Section 40: Adds juvenile probation officers, DJJ office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. ? Section 41: Repeals revocation of juvenile driver licenses for offenses involving a controlled substance that were handled informally by the division. MS. HOLLAND concluded with slide 9, "In Summary, HB 116:" which read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]: 1. Closes a loophole of the sexual abuse of minors 2. Updates terms and definitions pertaining to DJJ facilities and staff 3. Codifies best practices to improve the division's ability to complete their mission 3:16:20 PM CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY commented that she doesn't see a need for the sectional analysis because the committee saw this bill last year. She asked whether she is correct in understanding that the bill's purpose is largely to clean up outdated language. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ confirmed that the bulk of HB 116 is a routine statutory cleanup. She said the bill passed the House last year and probably would have made it "across the finish line" had it not been for COVID-19 forcing the legislature to recess six or seven weeks ahead of schedule. 3:17:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA drew attention to slide 8 which states that Section 41 would repeal revocation of juvenile driver's licenses for offenses involving a controlled substance that were handled informally by the division. He asked whether current law mandates the penalty of juveniles losing their driver's licenses should an instance described in the section occur. 3:18:48 PM TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), responded that several years ago there were two sections within the division's statutes that required the mandatory revocation of a license for certain types of offenses under Title 28. She explained that one of these sections was for those youth who had been formally adjudicated through the Superior Court for those charges and the other referenced youth whose cases were adjusted informally through DJJ. Adjudicated offenses have gone through the Superior Court and the youth have been provided with due process, whereas informally adjusted cases are instances where the youth doesn't have an attorney and agreements are worked out between youth parents and victims. About six years ago, she recounted, the piece which required the mandatory revocation for adjudicated offenses was repealed from DJJ's statutes, but inadvertently left the section of statute for informally adjusted cases, thereby mandating DJJ to take a harsher stance for informally adjusted cases than for adjudicated cases. There are still sections under Title 28 that allow the court to revoke for those adjudicated cases, Ms. Dompeling said, it just took it out of DJJ's responsibility to do so. She highlighted the importance of ensuring that similar penalties or sanctions for youth are applied to informally adjusted cases as to formally adjudicated cases. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA requested confirmation that a process will remain in statute in adjudicated cases where a judge could decide to revoke a driver's license as a penalty for an offense. MS. DOMPELING answered, "That is correct, it's only for those offenses that are listed out under Title 28," which pertain to drugs and weapons. 3:22:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether more severe substance- related issues, such as driving under the influence (DUI), would be considered by the court. MS. DOMPELING deferred to Ms. Nancy Mead of the Alaska Court System to answer the question. 3:22:56 PM NANCY MEAD, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, answered that the court does not revoke driver's licenses for cases of minors consuming alcohol. She said that in about 2016 or 2017 those offenses began being treated as "straight violations" like a traffic ticket, no matter how many a minor may receive; so, for minor consuming alcohol straight violations the court may not revoke the driver's license. Under AS Title 28, she continued, the court has the ability to revoke driver's licenses for minors in possession of drugs or for other violations of AS 11.41, the "drug statutes," as well as for minors in possession of weapons or minors misusing weapons. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that Ms. Mead clearly described current statute. However, she explained, HB 116 attempts to create parity by clarifying that there not be a stricter enforcement penalty for "less serious" cases that are informally resolved outside of the court system and cases that go through the formal court system. 3:24:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether a juvenile youth could have one or more DUI [offenses] and the court would not be able to revoke that youth's license even though that is an [offense] that could result in someone's death. MS. MEAD responded that HB 116 would not affect DUI laws. The laws about DUI, she explained, are wholly separated from the laws for minors consuming alcohol. Prior to October 2016, a minor consuming alcohol on a park bench could have his or her license revoked, and because revoking a license is considered a quasi-criminal proceeding that minor was entitled to a jury trial and a defense attorney. Driving under the influence is a wholly separate statute, she continued, which has mandatory license revocations no matter the age of the individual involved. This bill would not touch DUI whatsoever, nor would it touch minor consuming alcohol. Ms. Mead related that a few years ago a standard was in place that allowed for minors consuming alcohol to be given lower types of penalties in courts, meaning that these minors' licenses couldn't be taken away. She said the repealers in HB 116 would create a symmetry to allow for minors who are prosecuted through DJJ to not have their licenses revoked either. She noted that minors prosecuted through DJJ usually means the minor behaved less egregiously. REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered clarification that HB 116 would only impact minors who had engaged in poor behavior that was not related to a vehicle. MS. MEAD agreed. 3:27:38 PM MS. DOMPELING provided testimony in support of HB 116. She explained the bill was introduced at the division's request to address long identified and newly emerging statutory issues related to juvenile justice. She noted that this legislation passed from the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee [in 2020]. She said the original statutes, AS 47.12, were passed when DJJ became its own division approximately 20 years ago, and the proposed updates to definitions and statutes mirror the efforts to improve the success of the youth who are engaged in the juvenile justice system through best practice and innovative approaches to address youth delinquency. These definitions, she added, have a real impact on the work of the division's staff and on youth safety, the most dramatic change being the criminal case against the former DJJ employee who was acquitted of sexual abuse due to the lack of an updated definition of DJJ staff in position of authority. 3:30:02 PM CO-CHAIR SNYDER opened public testimony on HB 116. After ascertaining that no one wished to testify, she closed public testimony. 3:30:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about Mr. Matt Davidson's role in HB 116. 3:30:39 PM MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), stated he has worked with the sponsor over the last three legislatures to develop this legislation, and therefore he is familiar with the bill's provisions and why individual components are termed the way they are. REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about the term "legal guardian" found on page 2 of HB 116. MR. DAVIDSON replied that Section 5 is the definition of "legal guardian" for the crimes related to sexual abuse of a minor. He explained that when developing the bill, a look was taken at the current definitions in statute that referred to juvenile justice facilities operated by DJJ; terms were sprinkled throughout statute that were very similar terms to the department's facilities. So, throughout the bill where those statutes are touched, an attempt is made to provide specificity as to which facilities and staff are being talked about. Section 5 is the definition of the crime of engaging in sexual contact or sexual relations with a minor who is under the custody or supervision of DHSS, he noted, so that relates to youth in facilities operated by the department as well as the division. The Office of Children's Services (OCS), he continued, places children in treatment institutions, and because these children are under state custody while placed in treatment institutions operated by nonprofits and other agencies, this same provision, the same offenses, apply to staff of those facilities as well as to department staff. 3:33:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that in his 30 years of experience there is a separation of legal guardian being that of a parent or someone who is a custodial guardian and a ward of the court. He said it appears that wards of the court are being referred to in this situation rather than legal guardians because these individuals have been placed in institutions by the court or court systems. MR. DAVIDSON answered that the terms would have the same meaning in this specific statute. He said it is not creating the definition of a legal guardian that was existing in the sexual abuse of a minor statute, rather it is just updating the terms relating to those positions that qualify as legal guardians. In Division of Juvenile Justice statute and in OCS child protection statute, the term legal guardian or legal custody are used and sometimes interchangeably, and ward of the court is probably similar to that or could be replacing that, but in this case in statute the term is legal guardian. 3:35:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that AS 13.06.050 defines a legal guardian and doesn't include all these categories. He said it seems AS 47 is expanding on that or using the exact same terminology but in a different way, making it confusing. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that the section of law being addressed by HB 116 applies to the Division of Juvenile Justice only and another category of employees is being added to which this applies. She said it already applies to group homes and youth facilities, and the bill would add employees of treatment institutions and juvenile probation officers. [Current] law is probation officers, and HB 116 clarifies it means both adult and juvenile probation officers, which would close the loophole that was identified in the 2017 case. 3:37:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA observed Section 41 would repeal multiple statutes. He asked whether all these statutes deal with the same subject of juvenile justice. MS. HOLLAND pointed out that AS 47.12.990 and AS 47.14.990 in Section 41 relate to repealed definitions, which includes detention homes and juvenile work camp. She said AS 28.15.176 and AS 47.12.060 are the revocations related to the driver's license. Responding further to Representative Kurka, she said anything ending in 990 is a definition, and AS 28.15.176 and AS 47.121.060 are the revocations related to the driver's license. 3:40:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY noted that the bill's intent is to clean up different language pieces. He suggested alternate wording regarding "legal guardian." CO-CHAIR SNYDER stated that the definition within a statute is exceptionally important because there is a limited range of vocabulary. MS. HOLLAND noted that Title 11 relates to the sexual abuse of a minor and page 2, lines 30-31, apply "when those persons are exercising custodial control over a minor or other person". She said that if additional clarification is needed to that definition, it would be appropriate to ask the division. MR. DAVIDSON explained that when drafting the bill, the attempt was not to fix everything but rather to ensure that the loopholes in criminal statute were fixed to relate to actions by DJJ staff and to update terms that referred to DJJ staff. He allowed there might be misalignments elsewhere in statute that weren't considered as part of this bill and offered to talk about that with Representative McCarty. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ suggested there are probably many parts of statute that intersect but pointed out that when drafting the bill, the intent was not necessarily to be expansive and apply to every section of law that could relate to children. Rather, the intent was to focus on the specific elements related to the Division of Juvenile Justice in the definitions and solve the problems that are on the books. She encouraged Representative McCarty to talk with Mr. Davidson about the sections of law that were chosen. She noted that last year the House unanimously passed the legislation, and she would like to protect that progress and get this done this year because the division has been waiting a long time to have this done. [CO-CHAIR SNYDER held over HB 116.]