HB 116-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT  [Contains discussion of HB 105] 1:04:56 PM CHAIR CLAMAN 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." CHAIR CLAMAN recalled to the committee that the bill had been previously introduced during the Thirtieth and the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislatures. 1:05:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHOHNOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, explained that HB 116 would accomplish three main objectives: close a loophole pertaining to sexual abuse of a minor; update terminology that defines and references the definition of juvenile justice facilities and staff; and codify the Division of Juvenile Justice's (DJJ) best practices. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ paraphrased from the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation included]: In 2013, Daniel Carey, staff at a Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facility, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl he had previously supervised at work. The State of Alaska sought conviction of Mr. Carey for sexual abuse of a minor. However, the court found that DJJ staff are not explicitly listed as being in a "position of authority" under AS 11.41.470(5). Mr. Carey was acquitted in 2017 due to this finding. HB 116 closes this loophole. If such inappropriate behavior were to occur again with youth in their custody, DJJ staff could be prosecuted for the offense of sexual abuse of a minor. In addition, HB 116 updates terminology in state statute referring to facilities operated by DJJ and clarifies the authorities and responsibilities of DJJ staff. HB 116 does not substantively change DJJ operations. The updated definitions, clarifications, and codified best practices will: ? provide clarity for law enforcement; ? give the division the authority needed to oversee juvenile cases in court, and; ? close a loophole for sexual abuse of a minor in the 2nd degree as exhibited by the Carey case in 2017. HB 116 enhances DJJ's ability to operate with clear policies and regulations and, codifies best practices, and strengthens protections against the sexual abuse youth in their custody to ensure safe and secure treatment of juveniles in Alaska. 1:07:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that HB 116 would update language that describes the division's facilities, which, in current statute, has been determined to be outdated, inaccurate, or obsolete. She added that the passage of HB 116 would result in codification of best practices within the division that had been determined not to reflect the authority nor the standard operations of the division. She explained that HB 116 would add division staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, would clarify that probation officers would have the authority to file amended petitions on behalf of youth. She added that the bill would add language to permit DJJ to disclose confidential information related to an offense. She offered that HB 116 would permit the division to better complete its mission. 1:08:47 PM MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime sponsor of HB 116, directed attention to the presentation included in the committee packet entitled "HB 116 PowerPoint Presentation 4.12.2021". She explained that slide 2 listed the definitions in Section 6 of the bill that would clarify that division staff are in a position of authority of a minor and referred to the acquittal that was referenced by the bill's sponsor. She explained that slides 3 [and 4] illustrate a list of definitions that would be changed or repealed with the passage of HB 116, and [slide 5] illustrates additional definitions that would be amended by HB 116. She explained the reason for the change of definition from "youth counselors" to "juvenile probation officers" was because the former position title had not been in use since 2003. She added that Section 3 of the bill would repeal the definition for juvenile probation officers and stated that, currently, it inaccurately defines the position and limits the officers to only those in custody between the ages of 18 and 19. She added that a new definition in Section 26 would expand the age range up to 21 years, reflecting current practices. 1:11:45 PM MS. HOLLAND directed attention back to slide 4 in the presentation which illustrated the repeal of several outdated definitions as listed for added accuracy and consistency throughout the statute. She directed attention to slide 5, highlighting the change in Section 30 of HB 116 to amend the definition of "minor" to more accurately reflect the age of individuals in custody of the division that may exceed the age of 18. She explained that the definition of "juvenile detention facility" is currently limiting a facility to separate quarters in a city jail, and that some communities do not have adequate sight and sound separation of facilities as federally required between adult and youth detention areas. 1:13:45 PM MS. HOLLAND explained that the new definitions depicted on slide 6 were a change from "institutions" to "facilities" and that the division had advocated to the change of definition to more accurately reflect the facilities which they operate. She noted that Section 31 of the bill would create a new definition for "Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area" to more accurately reflect various communities that do not maintain adequate juvenile facilities. She highlighted Section 26 of the bill, which would create a new definition for "juvenile probation officers" for which one does not currently exist. She drew attention to slide 7, which depicts the alignment of statute with the best practices within the division. She said Section 5clarifies that employees if juvenile treatment institutions and juvenile probation officers qualify as legal guardians for those youth committed into their custody. She added that Sections 16 and 18 would provide officers with authority to file amended and supplemental petitions. She noted that Sections 24 and 25 would clarify that the authority to arrest and detain minors would rest with juvenile, not adult, probation officers. 1:16:38 PM MS. HOLLAND referenced slide 8, which illustrated that Section 27 would add "secure residential psychiatric treatment centers" to the list of facilities from which, when a juvenile is released, victims would receive notification, adding that current statute limits the notification requirements to only the release of those in DJJ facilities. She noted that Section 28 would correct language authorizing the department to disclose confidential information in cases that have been adjudicated. She noted that Section 40 would add juvenile probation officers, DJJ office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. Section 41 would repeal revocation of juvenile driver licenses for offenses involving a controlled substance that were handled informally by the division; the proposed legislation would not provide that youth driver licenses cannot be revoked, rather, the division would address the matters in the district courts. 1:18:09 PM MS. HOLLAND drew attention to slide 9, which summarized the three key changes that would occur under HB 116: closing a loophole regarding the sexual abuse of minors; updating terms and definitions pertaining to DJJ facilities and staff; and codifying best practices to improve the division's ability to complete its mission. 1:18:58 PM TRACEY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services, stated that HB 116 would address long identified and newly emerging statutory issues related to juvenile justice. She stated that HB 116 had been submitted at the request of the division. She reiterated that previous versions of the bill had been submitted and it is similar in content to House Bill 133, which passed out of committee during the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature. She explained that the statutes had been drafted approximately 20 years prior, when the division had been created as a separate division within the department. She offered that, while most of the bill contains conforming language, the definitions have a direct impact on the operations of the division and the duties and authority of its staff. 1:21:25 PM CHAIR CLAMAN stated that during a hearing on HB 105, matters related to the sight and sound [separation] requirements had been discussed, and he asked whether there exists overlap between the two proposed bills, and how the committee should proceed should any overlap exist. 1:22:04 PM MATT DAVIDSON, Social Service Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services, confirmed that there exists overlap in a couple of Sections in both bills, but that the language is not in conflict. He stated that [HB 116] was conceived in response to changes in federal law pertaining to holding minors in custody. He added that HB 105 did not mirror the changes proposed in HB 116 intentionally. He suggested that the bills were not in conflict; however, the division would monitor the progression of both bills and attend to any issues that may arise and work with the legislature in order to align both bills. He added that the term "juvenile detention home" would remain in statute should HB 105 pass. 1:23:31 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the provisions in HB 105 appeared in HB 116. 1:23:47 PM MR. DAVIDSON answered that the changes proposed in HB 116 do not appear in HB 105. He added that HB 105 corrects alignment with federal laws. 1:24:26 PM CHAIR CLAMAN stated his understanding to be that the bills pertained to one another topically but that both bills would effect separate, but related, outcomes. 1:24:37 PM MR. DAVIDSON stated his agreement with Chair Claman's statement. 1:25:02 PM CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Section 41 pertaining to driver license revocation involving substance abuse charges delegated by the district courts, and asked whether it was the intention to direct these cases to district court, rather than superior court. 1:25:57 PM MR. DAVIDSON offered background information related to misconduct involving controlled substances among minors and effects of past legislation on the ability for DJJ to advocate for revocation of a minor's driver license. 1:28:03 PM CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that his question pertained more to the jurisdiction of juvenile delinquents between superior court and district court. He asked how juvenile delinquency is within district court jurisdiction now, and what effect on jurisdiction HB 116 would have on defendants under the age of 18, if passed. 1:28:47 PM MR. DAVIDSON answered that drug offenses would not be within the jurisdiction of district court for minors, but that underage drinking offenses were currently under the jurisdiction of district court. He added that the district court has the privilege of requesting revocation of driver licenses under another title. 1:29:35 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether juveniles were treated as non- juveniles in the cases of underage drinking, in that they were identified in [district] court [records]. 1:29:48 PM MR. DAVIDSON stated that in 2016, there passed legislation that made those cases not available in CourtView. He referred Chair Claman to Ms. Meade to provide additional information on that legislation. 1:30:12 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Meade to offer clarification on juvenile jurisdiction pertinent to cases of underage drinking. 1:30:23 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, stated that under Title 47, juveniles charged with minor consuming are not treated as a juvenile, they are treated as an adult. She drew a comparison to the offense as akin to a traffic ticket, which goes to district court, not superior court. She said the district court does not revoke driver licenses for minor consuming; but rather the defendant, if convicted, is imposed with a fine. She added that the court may revoke driver licenses for possession of a controlled substance or the illegal use or possession of a firearm. She confirmed the chairman's earlier statement that some of those charges would be within the jurisdiction of the superior court as correct. 1:31:49 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the charges of possession of a controlled substance or the illegal possession or use of a firearm could be brought in district court. 1:32:16 PM MS. MEADE stated her belief that those charges would be in the jurisdiction of superior court, not district court. 1:32:26 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether HB 116 would change what types of charges could be brought in juvenile court. 1:32:47 PM MS. MEADE offered her understanding that the proposed bill would not affect jurisdiction of charges related to controlled substances for minors. 1:33:02 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the bill, if passed, would pertain only to minor consumption of alcohol. 1:33:19 PM MR. DAVIDSON stated that HB 116 would not make any changes to jurisdiction. He offered that the referral of any controlled substance or weapons charges to the division would be in the jurisdiction of superior court, and that HB 116 would address the matter of driver's license revocation in cases involving minor consumption. 1:34:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referring to Sections 24 and 25, asked to what extent HB 116 would change the ability for adult probation officers to aid in the arrest of minors. 1:34:46 PM MS. DOMPELING answered that Department of Corrections adult probation officers do not have the authority to intervene on juvenile arrests that have been referred to the Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Juvenile Justice. 1:35:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for confirmation that the bill would not have any impact on the authority of adult probation officers. 1:35:25 PM MS. DOMPLING confirmed this as correct. 1:35:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 28 and asked who has access to the confidential information currently in statute, and how the passage of HB 116 would change that. 1:36:04 PM MR. DAVIDSON cited the existing statute 47.12.135(c) and pointed out a lack of alignment with Sections (a), (b), and (c). He offered that the proposed language would align the language to the timing of when information could be released to the public; specifically, the information can be publicly released after adjudication. He added that the proposed language would allow for the matter that was adjudicated - the defendant's conviction - to be released to the public, not the original charge or allegations filed in the first petition. 1:37:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked to whom the division would be authorized to release information prior to adjudication with the passage of HB 116. 1:38:17 PM MS. DOMPELING stated that the bill would provide that information only be released to an inquiring entity for a specific juvenile after adjudication. 1:39:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario wherein a child is alleged to have committed an offense, and he asked whether a parent or guardian would be allowed access to the information of the allegations deemed confidential. 1:39:36 PM MS. DOMPELING explained that, in the example described by Representative Eastman, a parent or guardian would be a party to the hearing and would have access, but not individual representation, at the actions and hearings pertaining to the allegations. She added that a parent or guardian would have access to confidential information such as probable cause. 1:40:50 PM MS. HOLLAND added that HB 116 would not change what information would or will be disclosed; rather, it would clarify who could receive such information. 1:41:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether confidential information would be allowed to be released to anyone who is not party to such charges, prior to adjudication. 1:42:09 PM MR. DAVIDSON explained that those who are party to a case, such as the victim, parents, and attorneys, will have access to confidential information throughout the case. He added that there exist provisions that allow the division to share confidential information with entities such as insurance companies and other law enforcement agencies for continuing investigations. He noted that juveniles in the system will often receive referrals for services prior to or in lieu of adjudication, and that some confidential information could be shared with service agencies involved with the juvenile as part of his/her delinquency proceeding. 1:43:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that HB 105 was currently under consideration by the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee and encouraged that any overlapping language between HB 105 and HB 116 be taken into consideration early in the process for consistency and conformity. 1:44:15 PM CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the order of referral of the bills had resulted in the House Judiciary Standing Committee hearing HB 105 prior to that of the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee. He suggested that the committee compare HB 105 and HB 116 to confirm the division staff's claims that the language in both bills is not in conflict. 1:45:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE opined that the sponsor's intent would be to create consistency among definitions and encouraged the committee to scrutinize each bill for consistency. She expressed her concern of the bill having taken so long to gain passage, and she asked the sponsor to provide some history on the bill. 1:46:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed her belief that the bill would have passed in the prior legislative session. She added that a companion bill had been taken into consideration by the Senate. She offered that there exist other legislative priorities that may take precedence, and that the passage of this bill is subject to those priorities. She added that HB 116 is a long and complex bill. 1:47:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 30 of the sectional analysis [included in the committee packet] regarding the definition of a minor. He asked how broad in scope the change in definition of a minor would be under HB 116 and what other statutes the change of definition might affect. 1:48:37 PM MS. DOMPELING responded by offering some historical background. She said previously if a minor committed a crime and the crime was not discovered until after the individual turned 18, the division did not have jurisdiction. There occurred a change in statute to enable jurisdiction to petition an individual - especially in serious cases such as those involving restitution - in such cases where the individual is over the age of 18 and the offense was committed prior to his/her eighteenth birthday. She expressed her opinion that under HB 116, the change of definition would apply only to the specific chapter under statute. 1:50:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his understanding that an individual under the age of 18 is traditionally referred to as a minor and asked whether anyone had evaluated the impacts within the chapter that a change to the definition of "minor" would bring [should HB 116 pass]. 1:51:04 PM MR. DAVIDSON stated that the change of definition would be a change to the delinquency statute. He said he could not speak to the impacts that a change of definition would have on other statutes but expressed that it was not intended that the definitions of other statutes would be impacted. 1:53:11 PM CHAIR CLAMAN offered that, due to the language in the bill changing the definition in Title 4, chapter 12, which deals with delinquent minors, the change would only apply to the definitions contained therein. 1:53:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ, in response to Representative Vance's earlier question regarding a previous version of the bill, clarified that it had been passed by the House and, prior to adjournment, the bill had been heard and passed out of the Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee and had been referred to Senate Judiciary Standing Committee as the last committee of referral. 1:54:23 PM MR. DAVIDSON offered to provide to the committee a comparative analysis between HB 116 and HB 105. 1:55:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER, as co-chair of the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee requested that the division's comparative analysis be provided to that committee for its consideration of HB 105. 1:55:49 PM CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 116. After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public testimony. 1:56:15 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 116 was held over.