HB 200-ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY  1:07:56 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act establishing procedures related to a petition for adoption of a child in state custody; adding a definition of 'proxy for a formal petition'; amending Rule 6(a), Alaska Adoption Rules; and providing for an effective date." 1:08:23 PM CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS), Department of Health & Social Services, said she was available to testify. 1:08:40 PM STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs Section, Department of Law, said she was available to testify. 1:08:45 PM MS. LAWTON advised that she would present an overview of HB 200, as well as a detailed sectional analysis. The bill was primarily created to help increase the state's compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, enacted in 1978. The Act seeks to ensure that Alaska Native and American Indian children are, whenever possible, kept closest to home and with their family members, she explained. Cases involving foster care are heard in a Child In Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings in the superior court. Although, hearings involving foster children such as adoption, guardianship, and civil custody proceedings, are typically conducted in different courts with different judges outside of the CINA proceedings. This bill creates a "one judge, one family" model, whereby, all proceedings will be conducted under the same judge when a child is a dependent of the State of Alaska. 1:11:00 PM CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the desire to keep a Native child with their family, and asked whether it works differently for non- Native children. MS. LAWTON replied that she intends to speak to that issue later in the presentation. She advised that in developing the "one judge, one family" concept, the division worked closely with the Public Defender's Office, Office of Public Advocacy, and the Alaska Court System. This concept will save time and money for state entities and, more importantly, it will help all children get out of the foster care system faster. This legislation ensures that the proceedings are timely with appropriate judicial determinations made, because multiple judges and courts will not be involved, she said. Another important change in the bill involves Native and non-Native foster care adoption preferences in terms of how it looks to find people short-term or long-term to care for those children. The division looks at immediate family members first, then extend family, and then close family friends who have stepped up. She said that with regard to the Alaska Native children covered under the Indian Child Welfare Act, after the division has exhausted all relatives, the division must also consider whether tribal members associated with the child may be interested. 1:13:05 PM MS. LAWTON explained that this provision, in relation to a federal legal decision, puts a burden upon those people interested in the immediate and permanent placement of an Alaska Native child. She explained that those interested people must file a formal petition with the court for those preferences to be recognized. Currently, when the division looks at the temporary or permanent placement of a child, it reviews those preferences along the way, and continues to evaluate and search for relatives whenever possible, she said. 1:13:44 PM CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that this is strictly with Alaska Native children. MS. LAWTON replied that in both scenarios the division is always looking for relatives and trying to move children in with relatives whenever possible. When discussing Alaska Native children, once the division has exhausted looking for relatives, it also looks to the tribe and other tribal members who may be willing to care for the child. Under current law when the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, a formal petition must be filed to adopt for the adoption placement preferences to be preserved. People not covered under the Act do not have the same burden and requirement to file a petition or proxy to have their preferences preserved to advise they are a relative that should come before the division looks to non-relatives. She explained this bill tries to provide a simpler mechanism, such that those preferences can be acknowledged by the court and recognized. She explained "It doesn't make it be an automatic, you know, proceed to adoption that basically then requires us to do an evaluation and consider their suitability for adoption, long-term, as well as short-term placement." Under the division's current policy and Alaska Statutes, the provision continues to require that the division consider other people that come forward and looking at all of the options. She said, "This really just has us put that on the record for the court and then it would initiate a process moving forward." 1:15:16 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked her to explain what would be put on the court record. MS. LAWTON answered that it would basically recognize, for the court, that under that Act there are specific adoption placement preferences that apply, that the court should consider in its final determination. She explained, it is not forcing the court to make a final determination one direction or another, it just reads that "it must at least be considered." [Under current law, a formal Petition to Adopt must be filed in order for the adoption placement preferences to be preserved], and this proxy does that, so [the relatives or members of the Alaska Native child's tribe] are not required to file the formal Petition to Adopt early on. Although, she pointed out, when the division and the court decide who should adopt the child, that person would, ultimately, file the Petition to Adopt because that mechanism is still required. It is just not required early on. She explained the reason to not file the petition early on is because the division may rule a person out, and filing the petition early on would have been for not, because the division had not yet evaluated them, she said. 1:16:13 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether, under current law, a grandparent desiring to adopt the [foster Alaska Native] child would have to file a petition with the division. MS. LAWTON explained that, currently, for a grandparent desiring to adopt their grandchild covered under the Indian Child Welfare Act, they are required to file a formal Petition to Adopt so they can be considered a higher preference than a stranger to their grandchild. Under this legislation, the less formal process of using a proxy for adoption could be used, she explained. 1:17:04 PM CHAIR LEDOUX opined that, under this bill, the grandparents would be allowed a less formal process of using a proxy for adoption. Currently, she asked, what precludes the division from considering the grandparents in the first place, because the grandparents or family members appear to be people the division would want to consider. She further asked why, in the first place, the division needs the bill to do the right thing. MS. LAWTON responded that the division always looks at grandparents and relatives as a placement and a permanent placement, with or without this legislation. The bill is necessary due to a federal law that was changed that basically said in order for [the adoption placement] preferences to be recognized and considered by the court, a formal Petition to Adopt must be filed by the grandparent, family member, or someone in the category of people considered to have preference for adoption of a Native child. She referred to the scenario of the grandmother, and advised that once the case is ready for adoption, in order to ensure that the court recognizes the grandmother is the first preference placement because she is a relative, that information must be on the record. Without that information on the court's record, if a non-related person also wanted to adopt the child then the court would look at them almost equally, as opposed to the consideration that a relative should have a higher preference for consideration, she explained. 1:19:09 PM CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that under federal law they still have to file the petition, correct. MS. LAWTON agreed, and she advised they will eventually have to file the petition, they just don't have to do it early on so those preferences are recognized while moving forward. CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that since this is not changing federal law, why wouldn't the department help the grandmother early on to file this petition. MS. LAWTON opined that it is partly because the division does not know, at that point, whether the grandmother would be the permanent person because it does an evaluation with approval from the court. Oftentimes, several relatives come forward and, as part of the division's process, it evaluates everyone. The division wouldn't want to invest the time, nor have the grandmother invest the time, with a more formal mechanism. The proxy basically says, "as we consider and as we move towards a permanent decision about where the child will go, the court has to recognize that there are preferred placement preferences for this child." The division would then evaluate the relatives to determine which relative is the best long-term plan, the other legal parties then get to weigh in on that, and the court then ultimately has to agree. 1:20:50 PM CHAIR LEDOUX questioned why the division doesn't just do this, why is it taking this legislation to get the division to do something that it wants to do anyway. MS. KRALY responded that the reason for the legislation is to create a system for both the courts, and the Office of Children's Services (OCS), to establish this "placeholder" for a relative or a priority preference placement. The system is that this proxy is issued and it provides a priority of preference if, and when, the case gets to adoption. While there may be merit to Chair LeDoux's statement about doing this informally, she noted, due to the complexities of these cases and the number of individuals involved, the legislation is necessary to create a formal recognition of these issues. In the cases that led to this legislation, the lack of the formal petition created enormous confusion within the system. She noted that members may recall news accounts that when permanency was decided, these family members and grandparents were not allowed to have the permanency placement of their grandchildren. The legislation creates the formal process whereby everyone, including the court system, the tribes, opposing attorneys, and the Office of Children's Services (OCS), all know who is interested in becoming a permanent placement. Technically, she commented, this could be done on an informal basis, but it doesn't create the efficient guarantee of avoiding the complexities that happen when the placeholders are not in effect at the time the case gets to permanency. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the push for the revision to the adoption code is related to the litigation involving the Native Village of Tununak v. State of Alaska, Office of Children's Services, 303 P.3d 431. MS. KRALY agreed. 1:23:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the state lost the Native Village of Tununak case. MS. KRALY said the state lost the case. 1:23:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what the Native Village of Tununak case held and how these changes to the statute provide the problem does not arise in the future. MS. LAWTON responded that under Native Village of Tununak II v. State of Alaska, 334 P.3d 165, the case was in the Alaska Supreme Court and involved a non-native, non-related foster family seeking to adopt an Alaska Native child. The other party was the child's Alaska Native grandmother. The court was litigating and trying to make a determination about that case, and at the same time the United States Supreme Court was hearing Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), out of South Dakota. In the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the United States Supreme Court was contemplating a non-native, non-relative foster family seeking to adopt the child. The other party was the child's biological father who was seeking to have his parental rights reinstated. He had been active military and when he returned to the United States, unbeknownst to him, his child was up for adoption. The United States Supreme Court basically concluded that in order for the adoption placement preferences, under the Indian Child Welfare Act, to be upheld and recognized, a person had to first file a formal petition to adopt. When that decision was made, the Alaska Supreme Court had no recourse except to rule in Native Village of Tununak II case on behalf of the foster family because they were the only party that had previously filed a Petition to Adopt that was being held in abeyance. The grandmother had not filed a petition nor was she required to file at that point, but they had initiated those proceedings and because they were the only party that had initiated, the Alaska Supreme Court decided the case in favor of the foster family and the child went to them for adoption. 1:25:50 PM MS. LAWTON continued that this provision basically reads that in recognition of the United States Supreme Court's decision, Alaska wanted to create something less burdensome such that they wouldn't have to file a formal petition upfront. She pointed out that close to 60 percent of children in foster care are Alaska Native and half of them end up going to adoptions with non-related extended family members (NREFM). The division sorts out when the child should go, and where the child should go as it works on possible reunification. Relatives come in and go out because interest sometimes waxes and wanes. The [proxy] could serve as a placeholder that there are specific adoption placement preferences the court can't ignore when it gets to the final decision. It does not mean that the court can't consider interested people, but the court must look at that with a little more weight in terms of the people identified. 1:26:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether one of the issues under Native Village of Tununak case was that the grandmother had sent a letter or provided some notice to the Department of Health and Social Services that she was interested, but she had not filed the formal notice. He surmised that this statute change will provide that a person in the grandmother's position could send a letter to the department to protect their ability to go in later and formally seek to adopt because the department would have had notice they were an interested party. MS. LAWTON said he was correct. The grandmother had informed the department orally, and in writing, of her interest, but she hadn't taken the step of filing the formal petition. Ms. Lawton related that the closest court to the grandmother was Bethel, which is an $800 travel ticket away from her home, she didn't do that and she wasn't required to do that. She opined that the court had told her she didn't need to do that, but due to the United States Supreme Court's decision, the Alaska Supreme Court had to say that filing the formal petition is the only thing that matters now. 1:27:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that the department issued regulations allowing for the more formal notice as an interested party, and opined that those regulations have been in place for roughly a year. MS. LAWTON agreed, and she commented that emergency regulations were enacted; however, they only apply to what the department does, it doesn't require the court to change any of their processes or system. Without the support of the legislation the regulations do not have the intended effect, she said. 1:28:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the regulations are working well after a year. MS. LAWTON opined that she was unsure whether the department had seen it tested entirely. Although, she commented, it hasn't heard of any cases where it has not worked. She described the regulations as being enacted backwards because usually the statutes come first. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that this legislation basically puts in place [a statute] where the Native Village of Tununak case won't happen again in Alaska. MS. LAWTON answered, absolutely. 1:29:07 PM CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that federal law still requires the petition, so under the Village of Tununak case, the grandmother hadn't filed the petition, but she put the department on notice that she wanted to adopt the child. Under Native Village of Tununak, she asked whether the department went to bat for the grandmother. MS. LAWTON related she was not familiar with the case in the early beginnings and she couldn't speak to why, or why not, the department did not pursue the grandmother earlier in that case. 1:29:56 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there is an exception in federal law that says a person does not have to do the petition early if the state has regulations or a law allowing a placeholder. MS. LAWTON explained that the formal petition will eventually occur, and this legislation is another mechanism, a temporary solution, of preserving those placement preferences until the petition is actually required. She reiterated there could be several family members or other members of the child's tribe coming forward, and as the division sorts out those folks, all but one are not viable options. The folks [not chosen] will never get to the step of filing a Petition to Adopt. This legislation, she explained, would provide for the recognition of where they fall in those placement preferences, and without the use of the proxy they would have been required to file the formal Petition to Adopt in order for the court to recognize and consider them. 1:31:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the Native Village of Tununak case had to do with filing by proxy, or not. He pointed out that the inference made from that case was that Alaska needed to have a law changed to formalize this process. He queried whether without this law there can be an informal placement put in, such as a letter, telephone call, fax, or filling out a form, or whatever. He noted surprise that it is needed where it wasn't a direct corrective action in the lawsuit. MS. LAWTON related that the inference earlier was that if under Native Village of Tununak II the provision for the use of a proxy wasn't in state law, then the grandmother, when she had identified herself to the court as someone interested in placement and adoption, would have preserved her right. When that decision was ultimately decided it wouldn't have mattered who had filed the formal Petition to Adopt because that would have still been considered, but it wouldn't have guaranteed the judge would have ruled in her favor. She offered that she doesn't know all of the facts of weighing the placement options, but she opined that if they don't file the proxy in a case involving a Native child, and later relative A comes forward saying they want the child, and foster family A also wants the child, the court does not have to recognize that there is a higher preference. This child is covered under the Indian Child Welfare Act and this is a relative of the child, the court could almost look at them as equal competing interested parties. Whereby, the division believes it is important for children to be with their families, and if they can't be with their families to keep them within their tribal communities or close to home and, she related, that is what this provision ensures the division do. 1:33:42 PM CHAIR LEDOUX offered a scenario of the grandmother telling the division she wants the child, writes a letter, send an email, and orally puts it in on the division's record. She asked whether it is then the division's responsibility to make certain the grandmother files a petition, and without this law the division won't make sure the grandmother files the petition. 1:34:12 PM MS. LAWTON explained that the division's responsibility would be, after the grandmother identifies her [desire to have the child], the division would [investigate], have a home visit and further conversations with the grandmother to evaluate her ability to take immediate placement. She said, "It's just, you know, call me -- call me a year from now if things don't work out, you know, with the biological mom, but I'm willing to take the child now and permanently, if needed." The division is then required to provide a written report to the court advising what it learned about the grandmother. A court hearing would then take place to evaluate whether anyone has disagreements with this potential placement. Assuming she is suitable and willing to take immediate placement, the division would move forward from that perspective. The petition still would not necessarily need to be formally filed until, and if, reunification fails and the division must actually move to an adoption. 1:35:05 PM CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to why the division doesn't just do that, why a law is necessary to tell the department what to do, and if that is the best practice why hasn't the department been doing it. MS. LAWTON responded that it has been the division's practice, and opined that the law is necessary in order to ensure that the adoption placement preferences are not ignored, or otherwise not considered by the court. She offered that it has nothing to do with the department's efforts to find relatives or evaluate the relatives, it has to do with a judicial determination that, without this legislation or a formal petition, may have family members or other tribal members not given the consideration they are due. 1:35:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether she was saying that the court would ignore a letter that was on file and managed by the division. He further asked the difference between "what we're doing" and information the division receives through whatever means that there is a potential placement out there. He quiered whether the courts would take that into consideration, MS. LAWTON answered that in Native Village of Tununak it was exactly seen that the court didn't take that into consideration even though that request and notification had occurred. Except, by the letter of the law, the grandmother had not filed the formal Petition to Adopt and court said the grandmother's actions were not good enough, she explained. 1:36:49 PM CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that if this legislation had been the law and the grandmother still hadn't filed a formal Petition to Adopt, that would not have been good enough either. MS. LAWTON responded that if the grandmother didn't file the formal Petition to Adopt and the division didn't have the proxy provision, and a family member came forward at some other later date, the court would not have to recognize the adoption placement preferences. For example, if the child was residing with a non-related extended family member (NREFM), the court could look at them equally, weigh the pros and cons, and make a determination as to who would best meet the child's needs and not give consideration to a relationship with the child, per se. 1:37:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER surmised that the state lost the Native Village of Tununak lawsuit and the state is attempting to fix that. He referred to the committee packets and offered that they include information in which First Alaskans, AFN, and many tribes and Native Corporations show support for the state's proposal to fix it. He then voiced support because he is comfortable where the bill is going with this issue. 1:38:29 PM The committee took a short at ease. 1:38:42 PM CHAIR LEDOUX listed the names of witnesses available to answer questions, and hearing no requests opened public testimony. 1:39:49 PM AMANDA MacADO, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, offered the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association's support of the legislation. After listening to the confusing discussion, she stated the Child In Need of Aid (CINA) process can be a long and confusing process for communities and villages across Alaska. These are formalities that many Native individuals do not understand. Allowing these families to express their interest in the CINA proceedings, not having to wait until the permanency goal where the parents have already terminated their rights and wait until probate, gives them an opportunity to have time to prepare, time to have a full understanding of what will happen and what will take place, rather than waiting until the end. She explained, once it goes to the point of permanency and adoption, it is similar to a race and not easy for someone out in the village, who does not understand the process and possibly the families don't speak English, this gives them more time. It also gives ECHO workers more time to help the families understand the process and have their voices heard. The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association supports this bill 100 percent and the committee would be doing a great service to not only Alaska's children but to their extended families by approving this bill. 1:42:22 PM CRISTY WILLER, Chief Operating Officer, Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC), said she serves as Chief Operation Officer for the Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) and it offers strong support for HB 200. This bill provides an important correction to the Alaska Supreme Court decision in the Native Village of Tununak case. Within CITC's child welfare services there is a broad continuum of care, from intensive in-home case management to supervised visitation. It is especially proud of the work within its Father's Journey Program where 90 percent of the parents have increased contact with their children within 90 days. She advised the CITC works closely with OCS and with families for these results. House Bill 200 removes barriers for Alaska Native families who want to adopt these children who are connected to them by family or tribal membership. The legislation makes the process realistic and understandable, and remove obstacles that have resulted in children unnecessarily being disconnected from their families. Unfortunately, she noted, currently well over 40 percent of Alaska Native children are adopted annually by non-Native non-family members. The bill will increase the number of Alaska Native children to reach permanency with their family culture and traditions, and will reduce litigation based on lack of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. This bill seeks to eliminate procedural barriers in the adoption process for children in custody and Alaska Native families can be considered for adoption through the CINA proceedings rather than through an entirely different proceeding held in probate court. As a result, children in an out-of-home placement would reach permanency more quickly, lessening the burden on the Alaska Office of Children's Services (OCS). She thanked the committee for its support in keeping Alaska's children with their families and in their own home communities. 1:45:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether the current ratio is disproportionate in terms of Native and non-Native children in foster care. Statistics, she stated, there is a disproportionate number of Native children and this legislation is a way to move children into tribes and this is way to move to a more proportionate number. MS. WILLER opined the ratio is approximately 60 percent of Alaska Native children, and this bill would allow that permanency to be achieved more quickly and reduce the inequality. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that the legislation is geared toward better placement and better opportunities for the disproportionate population to find permanent homes. MS. WILLER agreed. 1:46:31 PM MELANIE FREDERICKS, Community Member, Association of Village Council Presidents, offered support for HB 200 because currently Alaska Native families, in her region, encounter many challenges and barriers throughout the life of a Child In Need of Aid (CINA) case. The barriers can include language because often English is the region's second language. These barriers cause complications and confusion such that paperwork is often discouraging and confusing, and they often do not receive the help or undivided attention they need because advocates and social workers may not reside in their communities. Relatives, especially those living in rural communities, often feel intimidated and confused with the court system which could potentially deter family members from moving forward with issues such as the formal Petition for Adoption. In passing this legislation the State of Alaska would ensure removal of one of these many barriers for families and children in her region to gain permanency, and the opportunity to take care of one of their relative children, she said. 1:48:41 PM ANDREW BEAVER, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Kwigillngok, said they strongly support HB 200 because it makes it easier for families to work with OCS and also lets the court know that the Native Village of Kwigillngok is willing and able to take care of its families in their village. He expressed there shouldn't be complicated paperwork when everyone is already aware that a family member is willing to adopt their own relative. He described this bill as "making a lot of sense" and noted it can prevent a lot of grief for children and families. He thanked the legislature for honoring the Native Village of Kwigillngok's volunteer child protection team with an Alaskan sealed certificate on March 26, 2010, signed by the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, Bob Heron and Senator Lynn Hoffman as prime sponsors, and 57 other co-sponsors. He expressed appreciation for recognizing the child protection team. 1:50:54 PM MELANIE BAHNKE, CEO, KAWEAK Incorporated, advised that English is her second language and she would prefer giving her testimony in Yupik simply so the committee could get a sense of what the court system can feel like from the other end of the spectrum. She remarked that Child In Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings and the court system may as well all be held in Chinese. She echoed support for the legislation and stressed that Chair LeDoux hit the nail on its head when she asked why people can't just do the right thing in the first place without requiring a law. She expressed her wish that people and systems would automatically do the right thing, but they don't always. The current Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Office of Children's Services administration has been good to work with from her end of the tribal partner's perspective, but administrations come and go, people come and go, judges come and go, and that is why things need to be put into regulation, and placed into law. "You represent 20 percent of the overall population in the state" she said, and yet its children represent 60 percent of children in OCS custody, and half of its children are adopted out to non-Native people. She implored the committee to do the right thing in the first place and enact this law. She reiterated barriers such as language and the court system, and offered that the OCS system can be intimidating, confusing, and a total power imbalance. Even she as a highly educated person, she said, she can be intimidated by the process. The legislature should be looking to reduce barriers wherever possible for her people to take responsibility and take care of their own people. MS. BAHNKE referred to the question asking why the legislation only applied to Alaska Native children, and commented that if this bill would be killed because it only addresses Alaska Native children, then she urged the committee to look at expanding the scope. The State of Alaska claims authority over children's matters, court matters, and it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, which includes compliance with federal laws. In this case, the Department of Health and Social Services is earnestly working to reduce barriers for Native people to adopt Native children, and she asked that the committee do the right thing and pass this bill. 1:54:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER remarked that Ms. Bahnke is a good friend [of his]. She is also the CEO of his regional Native nonprofit representing Little Diomede Island. He described Little Diomede as small, with no roads, no railroad, no airplanes, and the only transportation is by helicopter. Therefore, the challenges for someone living on the small island include the possibility that two weeks may pass before someone can leave the island, there are telephones but working face-to-face is more effective, especially when it comes to a situation like this where adoption is involved, and not understanding the legal system. He said the bill is good because distance is an issue and added that there are many more challenges. 1:56:14 PM CHAIR LEDOUX expressed to Ms. Bahnke that she was not thinking the bill should die because it may only apply to Alaska Native children, she was thinking that the idea of family reunification and reunifying with other relatives should be applied along the gamut for all children. MS. BAHNKE related that she had that sense from Chair LeDoux, she just didn't want "perfect be the enemy good." She suggested that possibly this could be considered a starting point and then see how things develop. 1:57:15 PM NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Alaska Federation of Natives, said there is a lot of support for the bill within the Alaska Native community and the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). The AFN has been heavily involved in the bill since it originated since AFN drafted it in close partnership with OCS and the governor's office, she explained. She said she echoes Chair LeDoux's words relating to people just doing the right thing and said that, unfortunately, for all the reasons previously identified, that doesn't happen and this legislation is necessary to protect the right thing. 1:59:09 PM KATHERINE MOSES, Tribal Administrator, Asa'carsarmiut Tribal Council, was not available and Lorraine Mung spoke on her behalf. Ms. Mung advised that they live in Mountain Village, and support HB 200 for the same reasons previously mentioned, and many people in villages, communities, and cities throughout the state agree. She asked the committee to understand the importance of the legislation to Native families, and to not make the process complicated for a family care for their own relatives in situations where good family members are ready to adopt. 2:00:35 PM EVELYN PETERSON, Echo Worker, Asa'carsarmiut Tribal Council, said she lives in Mountain Village. She said she agrees with Ms. Mung's reasons for supporting this legislation, and asked that the bill pass. 2:01:35 PM DAPHNE JOE, Asa'carsarmiut Tribe, said she lives in Mountain Village and fully supports HB 200. She pointed out that too many of their tribal members have been adopted out of their families, when there are families that want to take them in. This legislation will make it easier for family members to let the court know they are willing to raise their relatives, or children, by changing it to only one judge following the case. She remarked that that will save a lot of time and importantly keep children close to their families, communities, and culture. 2:02:46 PM ELIZABETH STEVENS, Echo Worker, Napaiap Tribal Court, said she works with the Association of Village Council Presidents (Avcp) in Bethel and with OCS workers. She stated she supports HB 200, and if this bill passes it will be easier for members. 2:04:13 PM DON SHIRCEL, Director, Client Development, Tanana Chiefs Conference, offered strong support for HB 200. He said that as a social worker who spent the last 33 years working for the Tanana Chiefs Conference and working closely with OCS, he recognizes the practical implications and significant contributions this bill could make toward improving the Office of Children's Services, and the court system. He opined that HB 200 makes possible a common sense approach that could easily fix a problem, potentially save time, effort and money by consolidating and streamlining court processes. Most importantly, he said, it could provide more children traumatized by abuse, a safe, healthy, nurturing and permanent home that is fully connected to their family, community and culture. This legislation could significantly help the state comply with the spirit, intent, and letter of the law regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act by ensuring that a relative willing to adopt a family member will always have their voice heard. He commented, it is one of those bills that just makes sense for all of Alaska's children who won't have to wade through another court process to have a permanent home. The bill also makes sense for all of Alaska's families that are ready, able, and willing to provide a home right now. He asked that the committee actively support the passage of this bill this session. 2:06:22 PM DARLENE PETE, Tribal Administrator, said she fully supports the bill because too many of her tribal members have been adopted out of their families and communities when they have family willing to take them in. She related that it is heartbreaking that many children have been adopted out and are sometimes nowhere to be found by other family members. This bill would make it easier for a family member to let the court know they are willing to raise their relative by changing it to one judge following the case. Money will be saved, and most importantly, it will keep their children close to their family, community, and their culture, she said. 2:07:59 PM APRIL FERGUSON, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, said that she has served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel to the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and she chairs the AFN litigation and legislative committee. Hard work has gone into this bill by a number of experts having experience in all areas of the state. She noted that every process needs periodic review and this bill contains a number of corrective fixes that will help streamline the process in moving forward, and save the state money. The foster care system in this state is in desperate trouble and the state must utilize all of its resources to do the best for the children. She asked that the House Judiciary Standing Committee become a champion for this cause, and she asked that the committee support the bill. 2:10:14 PM ELIZABETH MEDICINE CROW, President/CEO, First Alaskans Institute, said she supports this bill and for the past twelve years, First Alaskans Institute has had the honor, privilege, and responsibility in helping develop its community's leadership. The First Alaskans Institute has touched the lives of over 8,000 children, young people, youth, and young adults from across the state. Throughout this time, it has seen its young people seek to strengthen families or already have a deep cultural connection to who they are through relationships with their families and communities. These young people have an inherent ability and capacity to lead their people and contribute to Alaska. She related that, "At the root, of the root, of the root of this bill" is common sense, practical application, and experience of all Alaskans to place children in families and communities within their culture, where they have the best chance of thriving." She said that all people of Alaska have that responsibility. The First Alaskan Institute thanks the sponsors of this bill in supporting and fighting for children's rights, she said. 2:12:22 PM MELVIN EGOAK said he fully supports HB 200. He said he has seen too many tribal members adopted out even though families advised OCS and the court, that families are willing and able to "take care of our family right here in our villages." He related, paperwork shouldn't be necessary when everyone is already aware that the family members are willing to adopt their own relative. This bill can relieve families of heartbreak, please pass this bill, he asked. 2:13:42 PM ELIZABETH HENSLEY, General Counsel, Maniilaq Association, said the Maniilaq Association is a consortium of the twelve tribes of Northwest Alaska. She related that she is preparing to take the children, in the emergent school, ice fishing this week, and while fishing, will speak their native language. The fish will then be taken back to the classroom, cut up, viewed under a microscope to identify various parts of the fish, and then cooked and eaten. She said that what she described is some of what Kotzebue children do at home, and these children would not receive that education any place else. She requested the passage of HB 200, and keep children home in their communities across the state so they can be enriched in the beautiful cultures thriving throughout Alaska. She noted that she comes from a family wherein her aunties and uncles were raised in four different communities, she did not know them growing up, and she does not know their children. She asked that the process of adopting their children be as simple as possible, to help keep children at home, and save the state money. 2:17:36 PM LORINDA WESTIN O'BRIAN pointed to the importance of HB 200, and related it is all about [children] knowing who they are, and grown adopted people want to know where their family is located. Although, she remarked, some children will never know, [where their family is located] due to sealed records. She acknowledge that information may seem separate, but it is relevant to a person knowing who they are. Clearly, this legislation is in line and connects to the federal intent of the Indian Child Welfare Act, keeping children with their families and communities, and keeping those children connected to their heritage. 2:19:41 PM MARY TUNUCHUK, Chefornak Tribal Council, said she is "all in" for HB 200, and echoes the support from prior witnesses. She asked the committee to understand the importance of HB 200 to Alaska's families and not making it complicated for a family to take care of its own relatives. There are situations, she said, where good family members are ready to adopt in order that the child is not misplaced outside their village, and raised not knowing their blood line. CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining no one further wished to testify, closed public testimony. 2:21:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Ms. Lawton to walk the committee through the 60 percent - 40 percent population, and discuss the difficulty of finding adoption for Alaska Native foster children. 2:22:34 PM MS. LAWTON responded that currently there are just under 3,000 children in foster care, and of that amount, approximately 55 percent are Alaska Native. She referred to difficulties to adoption that this bill will help improve, and noted that sometimes, due to workloads and other reasons, OCS struggles to identify all of the family members in the beginning. There is federal and state law and policy governing how much family searching is taken on, and at which point it continues to search. Although, she said, as the case moves along, often family members come forward late in the game, and sometimes parents are not always willing to tell OCS all of their family members in the beginning, which can cause delays. Sometimes, she pointed out, given the historical context the Alaska Native population has experienced in Alaska, and around the country, there is some caution and concern about "jumping on board" to work with OCS. Particularly, she said, when OCS asks a relative to be in a position where they may see that as "they're kind of being an agent of the state," because if they are caring for the child, OCS will tell them what the rules are in terms of contact with relatives. She described that as a difficult place for a relative to be in when working with the state, working with the authority that comes from working with OCS, and the historical distrust. She opined that sometimes relatives are nervous about stepping forward early, and OCS believes the bill will help because it allows its colleagues in tribal child welfare to have earnest conversations with relatives and advise that this is their opportunity. Also, the Office of Children's Services (OCS) will explain that they can't wait until they see that reunification fails, because that is when the state gets into terrible situations where the children have become attached, and the foster families have fallen in love with them. This bill not only requires that the party is interested in permanent placement, but it also requires that they are willing to take immediate placement. She related that that will help to promote earlier decision making to get people on board with families within their tribal communities earlier. 2:25:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 200, Version 29- GH1262/H, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 200(HSS) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.