SB 83-TERM. PARENTAL RTS/CINA/DELINQUENCY CASES    CHAIR DYSON announced SB 83 to be up for consideration. 1:34:29 PM STACIE KRALY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL) thanked the committee for the opportunity to present SB 83. SB 83 relates to child protection systems. Specific provisions include a proposal to amend AS 25.23.180 to permit parents to relinquish their parental rights while retaining certain privileges such as ongoing communication and visitation. SB 83 adds language to AS 43.23.005 which allows for children placed temporarily outside of the State of Alaska, but who are in custody through either the Office of Children's Services (OCS) or the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), to maintain their eligibility to receive their Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). 1:36:45 PM CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Kraly if she was referring to Section 2. MS. KRALY answered yes. Sections 3 and 4 of SB 83 provide language to AS 47.10.020, which clarifies the existing law to allow OCS to obtain writ of assistance from the courts in investigating reports of harm in other child related matters. The second component of the section clarifies that the DOL or OCS is not required to obtain authorization from the court prior to initiating an investigation on a report of harm. CHAIR DYSON asked if the clarification involves getting a warrant. MS. KRALY answered yes. 1:38:31 PM MS. KRALY said Sections 5 and 6 would allow the DOL to dispense with some of the evidentiary formalities in a court hearing and would allow the DOL to create an offer of proof to the court that it would be contrary to the welfare of the child to be returned to an absent parent. Section 5 creates a limited evidentiary premise for absent and unlocateable parents. 1:40:10 PM The final provision of SB 83 relates to amending the term of mental health professional to allow an out of state professional to testify on behalf of an Alaskan child who is placed out of state, but who is in state custody. SENATOR OLSON joined the committee at 1:41. 1:41:56 PM SENATOR GREEN asked Ms. Kraly to describe the out of state facilities where children are being placed. MS. KRALY said the placement facilities are out of state residential psychiatric treatment facilities. They are the types of residential secure facilities that do not currently exist in Alaska. SENATOR GREEN mentioned her concern about the acceptability of allowing out of state mental health professionals to testify on behalf of Alaskan children. MS. KRALY said if a child has been at an out of state facility, the professionals at that facility probably know the child best, but under the current law, they cannot testify on behalf of that child in Alaska as an expert witness. 1:43:52 PM SENATOR GREEN said eliminating the requirement of a committee referral might affect the state's ability to independently assess whether or not these children should return to Alaska. She said that she was concerned about deferring this ability to an out of state organization that has an interest in maintaining it's cliental. MS. KRAILY said this statutory change would only relate to those children who are in state custody. The OCS goes through a thorough process to make a determination that a child needs secure residential psychiatric treatment. Then the superior court must approve the placement of that child after it reviews expert testimony on the case. By statute, every 90 days the child must come back before the superior court for an additional review. SENATOR GREEN asked whether a child who leaves Alaska falls under Medicaid after 90 days. MS. KRAILY answered they do. SENATOR GREEN remarked the state put children on Medicaid and children in state custody in the same classification; so it should not make any difference whether a child starts out in state custody and ends up on Medicaid. She asked if this bill would affect children on Medicaid. MS. KRALY answered no. It would require an internal review within the DOL to ensure the child still meets medical necessity to maintain Medicaid payments. SENATOR GREEN remarked that review boards in other states do not have the same committee concept of Alaska and this has created difficulties. She said that she wants to be sure that this bill does not further contribute to these difficulties. MS. KENNAI, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) said SB 83 only refers to children under custody, who consequently have been through a long review process. The bill does not refer to private-pay children at all. 1:49:47 PM SENATOR ELTON asked the jurisdiction of a child placed out of state transfers to the new state if the parent or guardian of the child leaves the state. He noted under the provisions of the Permanent Fund Dividend statutes, one must demonstrate one's intent to return to the State of Alaska and it would be difficult for a parent or guardian who leaves the state to demonstrate their child's intent to return. MS. KENNAI said no, the child is in the custody of the State of Alaska. If a parent moves out of state and the child returns to the State of Alaska, a hearing is held to either reunify the two or to relinquish custody. In either case, the PFD trust follows the child. SENATOR ELTON said it seems that if the state relinquishes custody and there is no one in the state for whom to assign custody, the child may be released to someone outside the state. 1:53:05 PM MS. KENNAI acknowledged that although it could happen, it would only happen rarely. In any event a permanent fund dividend in trust for that child would go wherever that child goes. CHAIR DYSON asked if Section 2 is subject to a best interest finding by the court. MS. KRALY answered yes. It is also subject to a determination by the foster or adoptive parent. CHAIR DYSON referred to the last sentence of Section 1 and asked Ms. Kraly to clarify what the language means. MS. KRALY said it means that a parent's failure to utilize a certain privilege is not sufficient to invalidate his relinquishment. 1:55:53 PM CHAIR DYSON said he reads it to say the relinquishment may not be withdrawn or invalidated. MS. KRALY advised she would look at it again. SENATOR GREEN asked, "In the decision making of best interest, do you open yourself to determinations, appeals, and lawsuits from a parent who is not pleased with the court's best interest findings?" MS. KRALY admitted it was always a possibility and added the parent has a right to appeal a decision by the court. The current status of the law says you can have no conditional relinquishments. She noted that there are not very many appeals for relinquishment rulings. 1:59:17 PM SCOTT CALDER, Fairbanks resident, stated his concern that the term relinquishment is used in such a way that it makes the process seem voluntary despite other language in the bill which indicates that it is not always voluntary. He said that the language of the bill conflicts with the 4th amendment rights of children and parents since it allows seizure without due process. He suggested replacing the term "reasonable search" with "diligent search" on page 2, section 5, lines 7 to 10. He suggested including an explicit definition of the word "diligent" in the bill. 2:04:49 PM CHAIR DYSON asked whether the term "diligent" is a term of art in the legal field. MS. KRALY answered it is not. The premise through which the department can establish proceeding against an absent parent through the court rules is very prescribed. There are due process requirements for those kinds of proceedings. We have to provide notice to parents and relatives. If we are looking for a termination prescription we have to file a petition with the court. We make extraordinary efforts to find parents and if we can't find them, then per the Civil Rules, we must conduct a diligent inquiry. We file an affidavit with the court and ask the court for permission to provide service by publication, which is authorized under Civil Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure rules. If the parent is still not found after publication, we provide the court with an affidavit of diligent inquiry to establish that the parent is not locatable. This would include an affidavit from the social worker involved in the case, a department paralegal, a department attorney, who will indicate that they have worked with child enforcement, the state troopers, the department of corrections, the local police, et cetera. We have to present all of that to the court before the court will agree that the parent is unlocateable. It's not a term of art, but a reasonable search is not just a social worker saying, "Well, we can't find them", or an attorney standing up and saying, "We can't find them" We have to go through a very thorough process through the civil rules to establish that. 2:07:13 PM CHAIR DYSON asked whether that was established in Alaska court rules. MS. KRALY answered it was established in the Child In Need of Aid (CINA) and Civil Rules. MR. CALDER agreed with the aforementioned explanation and asked if there could be some reference made to it in SB 83. CHAIR DYSON advised he would send a note with SB 83 so that the Judiciary Committee could consider it. 2:08:57 PM BETTY ROLLINS, Fairbanks resident, testified in agreement with Mr. Calder. She expressed concern with Section 1 and asked if it negated case law that says the child shall become a stranger to the biological family. She shared Senator Dyson's hesitation over the last section because it has no teeth. She disagreed with the assertion in section 4 saying the court would order an investigation, since she has never seen a court order any type of investigation. 2:10:06 PM SENATOR WILKEN moved SB 83 out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There being no objections, the motion carried.