CHAIRMAN RIEGER introduced  HB 97  (PARENTAL CARE FOR CHILD IN                
 STATE CUSTODY) as the next order of business.                                 
                                                                               
 ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Department of Health and                  
 Social Services, said the legislation was requested by                        
 department.  In 1991, there was a court decision that reversed                
 a lower court decision and ruled that the state must pay for                  
 the medical costs of a child in state custody even though the                 
 child lives with his or her parents.  Holding the state                       
 responsible for medical costs of children in its custody who                  
 are placed at home would result in less protection for these                  
 children and other children in need of aid.                                   
                                                                               
 The ramifications of this decision may also lead to the state                 
 being held liable for other routine maintenance costs of                      
 children, even to the extent of room and board for children                   
 who are technically in state custody, yet living with their                   
 parents.  Mr. Lindstrom said it had never been the intent nor                 
 the practice of the Division of Family & Youth Services to pay                
 those costs and HB 97 will clarify in statute what has been                   
 the regular practice of the division.                                         
                                                                               
 TAPE 93-37, SIDE B                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 030                                                                    
                                                                               
 SENATOR LEMAN asked why the bill has a retroactive effective                  
 date.  ELMER LINDSTROM answered that the effective date is an                 
 artifact of when the court ruling was made in the original                    
 case.  He added there is a tremendous potential liability to                  
 the state if the bill does not pass, but he is not aware of                   
 any outstanding claims.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 041                                                                    
                                                                               
 SENATOR MILLER moved that HB 97 be passed out of committee                    
 with individual recommendations.  Hearing no objection, it was                
 so ordered.