JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW October 15, 1999 2:12 pm WORK SESSION MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman Representative Jeanette James, Vice-chair Representative Mary Kapsner Senator Pete Kelly Senate Georgianna Lincoln MEMBERS ABSENT Representative John Harris COMMITTEE CALENDAR Regulation Review - Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Family and Youth Services and Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division. WITNESS REGISTER Mr. Larry Persily Deputy Commissioner Department of Revenue P.O. Box 110405 Juneau, AK 99811 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSED procedures and regulations. Ms. Barbara Miklos Director Child Support Enforcement Division Department of Revenue 550 W. 7th Ave. Ste. 310 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding child support. Mr. Dallas Cox, Manager Accounting and Paternity Section Child Support Enforcement Division Department of Revenue 550 W. 7th, Suite 310 Anchorage, AK 99501-6699 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on child support issues. Mr. Darrell Watson Operation Manager Child Support Enforcement Division Department of Revenue 550 W. 7th Ave. Ste.310 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on child support issues. Mr. Rick Krueger P.O. Box 5604 Ketchikan, AK 99901 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed his personal experience with CSED. Ms. Dixie Tallman P.O. Box 9025 Ketchikan, AK 99901 POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about adoption procedures of foster children. Ms. Sarah Short Families First Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on child support reform. Ms. Rebecca Snow, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law Civil Division Human Services Section 100 Cushman St. Ste. 400 Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on Bethel Human Services. Mr. Russ Webb, Deputy Commissioner Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110601 Juneau, AK 99811-0601 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on DFYS services. Ms. Theresa Tanoury, Administrator Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110630 Juneau, AK 99811-0630 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on DFYS services. Ms. Linda Beecher Public Defenders Agency Department of Administration 550 W. 8th Ave. Ste. 304 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed disparity among courts regarding court appointed representation. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-07, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review meeting to order at 2:12 p.m. Present were Senator Pete Kelly, Representative Mary Kapsner, Representative Jeanette James, and Chairman Taylor. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked that a representative of the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) give an overview first. MS. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director of CSED, explained that CSED is in the process of a major rewrite of its regulations to clarify its procedures, to make them public, and to ensure that its regulations are applied clearly and consistently. All CSED regulations have a due process focus. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated the purpose of the meeting is to receive and discuss recommendations from state agencies and the public on necessary legislative changes to better accomplish the agencies' missions and to serve the public. MS. MIKLOS referred to a set of questions posed to CSED by Sue Mossgrove, Committee Aide, and noted those questions precipitated such recommendations. She said the first question asked why would a person need medical support. One question asked why CSED services are required in cases in which a parent applies for medical assistance only, particularly when child support has been paid independent of CSED. She explained that federal regulations require CSED to provide services when a person applies for medical assistance unless the applicant requests otherwise. Alaska statute, however, requires that medical assistance be provided as part of a child support order therefore that order must be established before medical assistance can be given. Ms. Miklos suggested a legislative change to allow CSED to give a medical support order without a child support order. MS. MIKLOS noted another question asked of CSED is how it communicates with the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). She explained CSED establishes relations with DFYS when a child is in state custody or when a parent applies for public assistance. Case information gathered by CSED and the Division of Public Assistance (DPA) occurs through automatic interface. Most of the interface between CSED and DFYS is via fax or telephone. CSED and DFYS are working on an automatic interface system; that system does not require any legislative changes. MS. MIKLOS deferred to Darrell Watson, Operations Manager of CSED, to answer the third question about how CSED handles allegations of fraud in public assistance cases. MR. DARRELL WATSON, Operations Manager, CSED, informed committee members that the same process has been used for a while. The hire of several new positions over the last summer prompted CSED to review and revise its process for handling allegations of fraud and to create easier instructions. CSED also updated its new computer system, a three step process. A case worker who receives a report of allegations of welfare fraud obtains the name of the person reporting the offense, the name of the person committing the offense, a case number, and the nature of the fraud and notifies the Welfare Fraud Division of DPA. CSED also can alert them through the computer system. CSED then copies the documentation and sends it to DPA. Number 218 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked whether CSED actually handles fraud investigations. MR. WATSON said CSED does not. Investigations are done by DPA's, fraud section. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if CSED does any follow up on fraud complaints. MR. WATSON replied CSED has the option to do follow up on fraud complaints and can put in a suspense date to check the status of the case. The fraud section is very good about keeping CSED advised on the status of a case. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what the protocol is, and if that is optional. MR. WATSON said that most case workers are very good about it, depending on their case load. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if case workers contact CSED every time there is an allegation of fraud. MR. WATSON said no, as numerous other workers would be reported to first. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if anyone keeps track of allegations of fraud for an annualized review at the end of the year. MR. WATSON answered that they hadn't in the past, but it is a good idea and could easily be implemented. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if such statistics would provide better communication between departments. MS. MIKLOS said DFYS doesn't have as many issues with fraud. The difficulty with communication with DFYS is when a child is in custody. She further explained how the paternity process is improved in the new regulations. MR. DALLAS COX, manager of the Accounting and Paternity Section, said the process CSED uses for making sure it has the right father is very complex. Normally CSED receives an application from the custodial parent or a third party or a public assistance form which usually provides inadequate information about the father. CSED contacts the named individual to get additional information, and can contact the Division of Motor Vehicles to get a picture of the individual. CSED sends it to the custodial parent for a positive identification. CSED never enters that person's name in the system until it has positive proof of identification. The individual is sent a paternity notice packet with 30 days to respond. He can complete one of three actions: an admission of paternity, a request for paternity testing, or a denial providing supporting evidence. If the packet is ignored, CSED goes through the court system for assistance. He said CSED has new forms and a new administrative process that it will implement soon. Number 347 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained his concern is for situations like the Krueger one in which a mother doesn't make a claim for 17 years and then a person finds out he is a father and owes $30,000 to $50,000 in child support. He asked if there is anything that initiates an earlier triggering and forces an applicant for Aid to Families with Dependent Children to honestly declare who the father is in an earlier time frame. MR. COX replied he didn't know what happened in the Krueger case, but in a lot of cases CSED has tried to find out who the father is but has not had a lot of luck. It could be three to six months before CSED sends out another letter to the custodial parent for more information; the investigation is an on-going process. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what CSED does with a lady who applies for aid and has no idea of who the father is. MR. COX explained they send forms to the applicant asking for as much information as possible. It can be very time consuming. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if some people send CSED on a wild goose chase, and whether there are any limits to what the applicant can say. MR. COX said it happens, but CSED has to get as much information as possible to find out as soon as possible. MS. MIKLOS added that the documents applicants are required to sign are affidavits and people could be charged with falsifying official documents. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if there is protection for a father to not pay until he knows he is actually a father. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR inserted that the answer is no and there is no statute of limitations. MS. MIKLOS said that State collections can only go back 18 years for child support. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how far back a father is responsible when he is never notified. MS. MIKLOS said a Supreme Court decision says they can go back to the time of the birth of the child. CSED regulations allow it to go back only to the date when the mother initially applied for services. Paternity comes up more often in the Public Assistance cases, but in those cases it is retroactive to the date the mother applied for services. This is the point at which they would look for the father. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if she was referring to the date the mother applied for child support assistance or public assistance. Number 454 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER responded if there is any outstanding child support prior to the date of application of services, it is up to the custodial parent to bring private action against the father. MS. MIKLOS said that the State can only go back six years right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if these long-standing cases were brought to light a few years ago when they passed the Welfare Reform Act. MS. MIKLOS said that is a fact and that's what prompted their regulations. CSED has chosen to be conservative because of such situations. CSED also tries to establish paternity for the benefit of the child. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR related the situation of a woman in Palmer who has a debt against her for children who are now in their 30's. He thought the mission of the agency was to get money for children during their minority. MS. MIKLOS said that was correct. The debt does continue after the age of majority because it acts as a deterrent for people who might avoid paying while the children are still minors. CSED does not put the same effort into collections when the child is over the age of majority. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if CSED can file liens. MS. MIKLOS said yes, they do collect, but not as aggressively. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if CSED has adequate resources to collect for children from 0-18 years of age. MS. MIKLOS said she didn't think CSED does, and that is why after 18 years, it would be more or less automatic activities. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested changing the law to say collection of amounts owed after a child attains majority requires a civil action that is available for either the child or the custodial parent to pursue. MS. MIKLOS repeated that CSED does not focus on cases of children in their 30's. She asked to know more about the case he is referring to. Number 542 MR. LARRY PERSILY, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, agreed that federal and state regulations need to be parallel and that adequate resources are always a problem. He explained that of the 48,000 CSED cases, about 20 percent are current. CSED has a very small investigative staff whose job it is to locate parents and sources of income. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that whenever the State wants to make stronger laws, the federal government threatens to reduce its funding. MR. PERSILY agreed that the vast amount of the CSED budget (70 percent) is federally funded and the federal government threatens to withhold funds just as it does to other departments. The question is would they carry it through. He said some states, Ohio for one, was fined $15 million for not complying. MS. MIKLOS explained that the federal government requires states to provide services unless someone asks them not to. State law does not even allow someone to opt out of the child support collection. State law could change to allow people to opt out without danger of losing federal funding. TAPE 99-7, SIDE B Number 580 MS. SARAH SHORT, representing Families First, suggested when a mother does not make an attempt to notify a man that he is a father, that CSED allow the father the same amount of time to pay back any arrearage with a retroactive limitation of five years. The mother would have to prove she attempted to notify the father and for every year he did not pay it back, the money would not go to the mother; it would pay part of the State's expenses and possibly go into a trust fund for the child who could access it at the age of 18. She suggested a regulation that would eliminate the interest for those missed years non-payment is through no fault of the father. She felt it is not in the best interest of the child to take away the father's right to drive. MS. SHORT explained in the case of Richard Schaeffer vs. State of Alaska, the State's cost to prosecute Mr. Schaeffer was in excess of the $29,000 owed in child support plus over $30,000 in interest. His daughter is 28 years old and has a family of her own and wrote a letter to CSED saying she felt she is being victimized by CSED because they are now aggressively pursuing her father who is a disabled veteran. This man volunteers to help families in need. It doesn't help anything to take away his business and driver's license. MS. SHORT said the State of Massachusetts is considering a child support card similar to the ATAP account where the money is placed in an account and the custodial parent can use the card to access funds. The use of the card creates a record. Certain percentages of the card can be used for certain purchases. MS. REBECCA SNOW, Supervisor of the Division of Human Services, Department of Law, said she supervises the Bethel Office. One of the questions this committee asked is how probable cause hearings are handled in Bethel. She has held hearings in Bethel and has talked to officers. There is a perception that the judge in Bethel was waiving the probable cause requirement at the initial hearing after taking emergency custody. There is no pre-trial facility in Bethel and the judge makes the decision about whether or not the plaintiff qualifies for a state paid attorney. He asks the people if they want to have a hearing or if they want to wait and talk to their attorney first. Usually they want to talk to their attorney. The probable cause decision is required by AS 47.10.142 for the court to extend temporary custody until the parents can talk to an attorney. They don't generally come back and contest the probable cause hearing. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she knows of a case in which a person who didn't speak English very well asked for an attorney and no provisions were made for her. It would have been appropriate for her to have court appointed counsel. After this didn't happen, she was asked if she waived probable cause, to which she answered she didn't understand. When asked again, she gave the same answer. The magistrate then said to let the record show the mother waived probable cause. This was on the transcript. She suggested they look at this case and perhaps fire the magistrate. Number 462 MS. SNOW said she would be happy to look into it, but she didn't have the power to fire magistrates. Legal terms and statutory requirements are usually beyond the grasp of most people with an average education. She thought that the Bethel system is trying because it has a cultural navigator who is Yupik speaking and can explain the proceedings, the process, and individual's rights. It also hired a new magistrate, using some federal funds, who is a Yupik speaking person. That magistrate is supposed to be handling juvenile delinquency cases, but she does hear some other cases. Of course, then, the court needs to have someone translate for the non-Yupik speaking people. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the magistrates serve at the pleasure of the presiding Superior Court Judge for that district who is Judge Beistline in Fairbanks. Judge Beistline could fire all of those magistrates in one day if the magistrates don't part their hair right. He said you could also address problems to the Judicial Conduct Commission which is different than the commission that appoints judges. MS. SNOW commented that most often probable cause is not contested unless the attorney has a good chance of winning. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said often the parents never get to say anything while DFYS presents its case so the judge often takes DFYS's position. She expressed concern that parents do not try to win the case because they do not believe they can win. Number 350 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he gets frustrated with this process because there is no opportunity for the parties to sit down in front of the judge and freely discuss the case. In a criminal case, probable cause may be a major aspect or, if you're dealing with custody in a civil matter under Title 47, probable cause may be an important threshold. Often probable cause is what brought the group before the judge in the first place, similar to a person being pulled over for a broken tail light and then being arrested for DWI. Depending upon the purpose for which the hearing is being held, the standards can be different. We often get tied up in the legal aspects of making certain that each parties' rights are protected to the point that no one can freely talk about what the family needs at this point in time. VICE-CHAIR JAMES said the future of a child is in jeopardy when you are removing a child from his/her biological parent or taking the parent away from the child. She expressed concern that probable cause does not address that issue. MS. LINDA BEECHER, Public Defenders Agency, said there is wide- spread disparity across the state as to when counsel should be appointed for parents. The court system is looking into the problem and looking at greater uniformity. The parents should turn to the court for a probable cause case. The court should get all the information to the parents, the counsel, and DFYS regarding the case. It is a mistake for the court to proceed when the parents do not have counsel. It is not a DFYS problem as much as it is a court problem. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER agreed wholeheartedly. If the state is going to work in the best interest of the child, the Public Defenders Agency needs to be properly funded, especially in the remote areas. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that neither Wrangell nor Petersburg has a public defender. The state has huge discrepancies demographically, and people don't always get the service they need in the areas that need them. Number 263 SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the cultural navigator position in Bethel, which is only one year old, and asked whether it is working. She also asked whether similar positions should be hired in other parts of Alaska including urban areas, such as Fairbanks, where cultural barriers exist. Individuals need to understand the laws and regulations. She suggested when children are concerned we need to address the issue in a different way. MS. SNOW said she doesn't have a lot of experience with the cultural navigator. She asked why those positions are not more involved with delinquency cases and child protection cases. They need to advise people involved in those cases, especially when English is not their first language. The judge needs to educate people on the legal terms and process so they understand what is going on in the case proceedings. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said the person who uses the cultural navigator does have a high level of familiarity with the legal process. Are they going to be needing extensive training to use the Cultural Navigator System? MS. SNOW explained that social workers do not have legal training, but understand the legal process. They may need Cultural Navigator System (CNS) training. Child Protection has a safeguard because a hearing must be held within 48 hours because of the disruption to the home and family life. Number 157 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he wants to focus on DFYS and why the number of children in custody is increasing. Alaska exceeds most other states. He thought this increase has overloaded DFYS's ability to check on backgrounds and has resulted in some real tragedies. MR. RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), agreed that Alaska's rate of child abuse, neglect, and rape is among the highest in the nation. Reports have increased over the last three years, but this could be due to DHSS's additional capacity to respond. MS. TANOURY agreed. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said DFYS is obviously overburdened and she wondered why it is soliciting (through ads on TV) very questionable and anonymous reports that could encourage false or malicious reporting. MS. TANOURY responded that those ads were from the University of Alaska Anchorage journalism department. DHSS does not publish ads soliciting anonymous reports. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if DHSS has any say in who puts ads in the newspaper or on TV that will affect it. MS. TANOURY replied that DHSS doesn't really have any control over it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR informed members that the committee has copies of the ads, both of which were published by the UAA journalism department. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if DFYS will screen anonymous reports for criminal intent and asked if there are sanctions for making a criminally false report. MS. TANOURY answered that the anonymous reports make up about 8 percent of the total reports that come in. They are similar to calling 911. She explained that some anonymous reports have saved children's lives. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said there are times when a vendetta is involved and someone is using the system. TAPE 99-8, SIDE A REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked what the sanctions are for someone who knowingly makes a false report. Ms. Tanoury stated that the only protection provided is for mandatory reporters under Title 47. One of the problems with prosecuting false reports is trying to persuade mandatory reporters that it is not their job to investigate the situation. This is the job of the investigating social worker. She did not know of anyone who has been prosecuted for filing a false report. Number 060 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what number of complaints handled by DFYS are found to be baseless concerning alleged sexual misconduct or abuse of a child. MS. TANOURY didn't know the percentages but offered to get that information for Chairman Taylor. Number 200 SENATOR LINCOLN was concerned about whether or not the calls made to DFYS are adequately responded to. This is an issue for all the communities of her district. She asked what percent of calls are responded to and what the reason is for so many unfounded reports. Number 273 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked how DFYS defines the word "substantiated". MS. TANOURY responded that the definition is based on a finding from the conclusion of an investigation. A substantiated finding is one where the available facts in the case show that a child suffered harm as a result of abuse and neglect. It is a caseworker determination. There are three outcomes for reports - substantiated, unconfirmed (based on the facts, the worker cannot determine whether there has been harm) and invalid (no facts available). Number 306 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER wanted to know who the case goes to once a determination has been made. MS. TANOURY responded that a case cannot be closed without a supervisors review. The fact finding mission goes beyond the child to doctors, teachers, friends, etc. Number 340 MR. RICK KRUEGER, Ketchikan, relayed to the committee the ongoing problems he has been having with DFYS and CSED. Mr. Krueger is being required to pay AFDC for a debt concerning his daughter, her mother and the mothers other child, who is not related to Mr. Krueger. Mr. Krueger feels he does not have an obligation to pay for the mother and the child that is not his. Number 488 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PERSILY first stated that Mr. Krueger's case had not been handled well, and then said he will ask the Attorney General's office to review the bankruptcy case. He explained the amount a noncustodial parent pays in child support is determined by the order which is based on the noncustodial parent's income. He noted the welfare fraud investigation reports will go to DPA. If welfare fraud is determined, the charges will be removed from the noncustodial parents debt to the state. Number 529 MS. MIKLOS stated that child support payments are based on the ability of the noncustodial parent to pay support. It is rare that CSED gets the full amount of the childrens' grant in child support. Grants will not pay for the custodial parent, just the children for which paternity has been established. Number 529 MS. MIKLOS pointed out that the income for the noncustodial parent is not based on the highest income year. CSED collects income reports for all years and bases their amount on that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Krueger for his suggestions concerning changes in the law so this type of situation could be prevented. MR. KRUEGER suggested that CSED try to find the father as soon as his name is disclosed. He also feels something should be done about arrearage. Tape 99-8, Side B CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested that there should be a one year statute of limitation set after the determination of paternity. This would be a motivating factor for DFYS and CSED. MR. KRUEGER felt this was a good idea. Number 551 SENATOR LINCOLN felt that the finances must be in place before the departments try to locate fathers. She also felt a time limit should be set. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested that there needs to be some incentive for improving the reporting process and some practical solutions need to be found so that the state can determine who the fathers are. Number 510 MS. MIKLOS stated that there is a statute for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. CSED just distributed a video tape to all hospitals and birthing centers encouraging people to voluntarily acknowledge paternity. In one month there were 700 illegitimate births with 500 voluntary acknowledgments of paternity. Number 482 MS. DIXIE TALLMAN, Foster Parent, said she had a foster child for 14+ months until an adopting family was found for the child. The transition went well. The biological father came forward at this point and there was a hearing. The child went to live with her father. The child became very withdrawn and showed no emotion. Ms. Tallman wanted to know why a psychologist is consulted on transition if there is no follow through and why the mental health of a child is not considered. Number 437 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wanted to know if the Tallman family considered adopting their foster child. Ms. Tallman explained they felt that because of their age it would be unfair to the child. MS. TALLMAN felt that DHSS has too much power and that more common sense needs to be used when placing a child. Number 423 MR. LYNN LEVENGOOD, a Fairbanks attorney, made the following comments and brought some recommended changes for the departments concerning the benefit of children. DFYS's non-legal staff can take emergency custody of a child without providing notice to the parents, even though it is required by statute, and they can file the papers in court without an attorney or the AG's office reviewing the papers. This is the most abused statue on the books. This statute should be changed to read that an attorney is required to review the facts and circumstances of every emergency custody case and that the legal requirements are satisfied. People are being overtly threatened by DFYS that if they don't sign some type of agreement their children will be taken from them. This problem needs to be addressed. Regarding parentage, a statute of limitations is absolutely necessary, and he noted that many states have a two year statute of limitations. The ability to retroactively modify, at the time of the modification of child support enforcement orders, should be limited to the actual date they file the motion and not the notice of their intent to do so. The statute should be altered to preclude the collection of any child support for persons who are no longer a minor. Currently, the statute states that as long as there is a child support order DFYS shall collect. It does not matter how old the child support order is, the department shall collect. DFYS should not be in the collection business. Another problem is that the affidavit that is required for the application of DFYS and CSED services does not require any evidentiary support. Evidentiary support should be required. MR. LEVENGOOD suggested the statute be changed to preclude the collection of any child support for persons who are no longer a minor. If any child support is owed after a child reaches 18 years of age, the cause of action should be a civil action. VICE-CHAIR JAMES asked about the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. MR. LEVENGOOD explained that only produces cooperation when a parent goes to court to try to establish custody in another state. MR. LEVENGOOD made one last suggestion. Any requirement for non- biological parents to pay child support should be removed unless they had adopted the child. MS. JODIE OLMSTEAD, a resident of Fairbanks, said she feels that regularly scheduled meetings on this topic need to occur and that Alaska needs to look at what other states are doing about false allegations of sexual abuse of a minor. According to a DFYS social worker, each allegation of harm requires 80 hours of investigation which puts caseworkers two years behind. She suggested mandatory video recording of all allegations of child abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse of a minor. Videotaping would save the state money and six states are using it. At this time no checks and balances exist within the process because the citizens review panel does not exist. Another concern is that SB 190 contains the word "intentionally." TAPE 99-9, SIDE A MS. OLMSTEAD discussed her own experience dealing with state agencies in regard to a false allegation. She believes she was accused of welfare fraud because she was actively pointing out things that should be changed within the agencies. She requested a fair hearing from ATAP and then received a letter in the mail notifying her that they planned to drop the matter because she did not show up for the hearing. The notification letter was mailed to her the day before the hearing. She felt the only thing a client can do, if the agencies will not use video recording and the citizens review panel is not re-established, is to litigate to get some action. She emphasized that no outlet exists for parents who are unfairly treated to use. VICE-CHAIR JAMES empathized with Ms. Olmstead and stated that she has not given up on the possibility of requiring video recorded interviews with children. She acknowledged that legislators understand her concerns and how she has been wronged. MS. OLMSTEAD said she was discouraged that the 1996 feasibility study relied on statistics from 1992. VICE-CHAIR JAMES commented that any time legislation is passed that makes an action mandatory, exceptions must be included for emergency situations that arise, particularly for rural areas. She noted that in conversations with DFYS employees, she learned they liked the idea because videotaping is an excellent training tool. She pointed out that once an interview is recorded, the issue of confidentiality arises. MS. OLMSTEAD suggested treating the video recording like a court document with a transcript. Regarding the mandate, the social worker could give the videotape to his/her superior for approval, and then have the videotape returned to the social worker who could make it accessible to the parent in question to review. Number 176 SCOTT CALDER, a Fairbanks resident representing himself, said about six years ago he met Jodi Olmstead. He found it difficult to understand Ms. Olmstead's belief that he was probably trusting the agency people he was working with too much and that similar problems had been occurring for over a decade. Having had no experience with what he now believes are fundamentally corrupt state agencies, he continued to try to work with the agencies to help his child who had been pepper-sprayed, handcuffed and taken to the Fairbanks Youth Facility in April of 1993. It was only after about four years of watching his child be tortured, he is fully prepared to endorse Ms. Olmstead's beliefs. MR. CALDER pointed out that SLA 117, enacted in 1990, created a citizen review panel which has never been established. He also referred to an excerpt from PL 96-272 which is referenced in SLA 117. Page 2 of the excerpt addresses case plans, case review systems and plan approval. Case plan review is only occurring inside the agencies in Alaska that clients are complaining about. MR. CALDER asserted that the State of Alaska is moving backward because Section 42 of HB 375, which passed in 1998, sets out that no duty of standard of care for services to children and their families is created in the legislation. MR. CALDER added that Representative Dyson wrote a memo to all Alaska legislators on how to handle phone calls regarding referrals to DFYS. Mr. Calder stated that the problem must be big if legislators must advise and coach each other on how to deal with DFYS and parents. He asserted that it is time to listen to the people who have been complaining, and that he and others have boxes full of information that establish a paper trail explaining the problems that have occurred. He pointed out that the complainants cannot afford to hire an attorney. VICE-CHAIR JAMES stated that she has been involved in government family and youth service agencies and with foster parents in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, and has found the same problems in all three states, as well as nationwide. Her evaluation comes from her belief that the people who are being mistreated under the system are in the minority, and that the public attitude toward this issue is that saving a few children is more important than "trashing" a few families. She noted it is difficult to get testimony from the department, the public and legislators, who are trying to protect the people in their districts. The problem is systemic and she is not sure what the solution is. She pointed out that the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit found DFYS to be understaffed. As a result, more positions have been funded in that agency in the last few years. She empathized with Mr. Calder's frustration and pledged to do what she can to improve the situation, however she cautioned that the Legislature is faced with having to cut the budget further. She added that her constituents want the DFYS budget cut. Number 318 MR. CALDER commented that he thinks a path has been cleared so that more people can be served better, but the problem needs to be identified correctly which requires speaking the truth out loud, and demanding action and results. He said people never believed it could happen and do not know what to call it. He noted the big problem is that direct harm is delivered at an exorbitant expense to citizens of the state by state government. He suggested enacting stronger statutory criminal penalties for crimes committed against citizens by government agencies or agents. He maintained that anyone, other than a state employee, who committed such acts would be considered criminal. He concluded that the only way we can get beyond the problems is if people are honest about what has occurred. Number 399 GARY MAXWELL made the following comments via teleconference. The two issues on today's committee calendar are very complex areas of law and should be heard separately. Second, he finds it frustrating to sit at a meeting for four hours only to find when he is finally able to speak, most participants have left. He thanked Mr. Krueger for testifying about the dysfunctional operations of CSED. He pointed out that sexual abuse charges and reports of harm filed during divorce cases are found to be false about 90 percent of the time. Those reports are filed to strengthen one's position in custody battles. MR. MAXWELL said that CSED has six years in which to establish paternity and to collect AFDC debt. He alleged that CSED employees were under a mandate by management to sit on the AFDC cases for about three or four years and then start to work them at which time the arrearage amount has increased substantially. CSED creates "deadbeat" dads through its own inefficiency. He recommended that Civil Rule 90.3 be codified in statute so that the public can have some input into its contents. He suggested that CSED try to be user friendly instead of operating with "bullet-proof" glass. VICE CHAIR JAMES agreed that the state should not yield to threats of reduced federal funding for child support enforcement as much as it does. She also expressed concern that many people leave their jobs as soon as their wages are about to be garnished for child support payments. Those employees would not be able to survive with the remainder of the paycheck and no provision is made for that. She said she has thought about providing a period of amnesty in which people could come forward and state their financial positions and negotiate a payment plan. SENATOR LINCOLN thanked participants for waiting to testify. She referred to the advertisement published in the Anchorage and Fairbanks newspapers on October 11 that contains a DFYS phone number for reporting child abuse and expressed concern that although she wants to encourage people to support child abuse, she wondered whether DFYS can respond to the increased number of calls. She asked how DFYS coordinated the advertisement with the University of Alaska and the Advertising Federation of Alaska. RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services, said that to his understanding, DHSS had no knowledge of the ads before they were published. He speculated that the authors of the ad were trying to do a good thing by encouraging people to report child abuse and neglect. Regarding the impact to DFYS, he did not know that the ad has caused a significant increase in reports, but he cautioned that many confounding factors beyond the ad could make measuring the impact of the ads difficult. He said DFYS could determine what reports came in on the days immediately following the publication of the ads. SENATOR LINCOLN asked Deputy Commissioner Webb to also find out the number of people who called but could not be referred to an intake worker. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WEBB clarified with Senator Lincoln that she would like to know whether DFYS encountered an increase in the number of reports filed during the days immediately following the days the advertisement was published, and the number of calls that had to be deferred until a caseworker was available. SENATOR LINCOLN also asked that he provide the number of calls at each office. She also asked whether his permission was needed to put the 800 phone number in the advertisement. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WEBB replied it is a matter of public record so anyone can publish it. SENATOR LINCOLN asked whether Deputy Commissioner Webb would have sanctioned its use if he was asked. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WEBB said DHSS would not object to information being made public about a service it wants the public to understand. There being no further business to come before the committee, VICE CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m.