SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE April 11, 1994 1:55 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Steve Rieger, Chairman Senator Bert Sharp, Vice-Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Mike Miller Senator Johnny Ellis Senator Judy Salo MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Jim Duncan COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 21 "An Act relating to child visitation rights of grandparents and other persons who are not the parents of the child." SENATE BILL NO. 296 "An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning." SENATE BILL NO. 298 "An Act relating to licensure by the State Medical Board." SENATE BILL NO. 195 "An Act extending the termination date of the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board; and providing for an effective date." PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 21 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/11/94. SB 296 - No previous action to record. SB 298 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated 3/9/94. SB 195 - See Labor & Commerce minutes dated 4/22/93. WITNESS REGISTER Senator Ellis Prime Sponsor State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 296. Roberly Waldron, Deputy Commissioner Services to the Public Department of Administration 900 W. 5th Suite 710 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2029 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 296. Senator Donley Prime Sponsor State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 21. Sherrie Goll Alaska Women's Lobby P.O. Box 22156 Juneau, Alaska 99802 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 21 and suggested deleting Section 4. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-30, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN RIEGER called the Senate Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee to order at 1:55 p.m. He introduced SB 296 (EXTEND FOSTER CARE REVIEW PANEL) as the first order of business before the committee. He pointed out that there is a house version of SB 296. He stated that he planned to waive the house version which could be picked up in the next committee. SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that there was a sponsor statement in the committee's packet. SB 296 would extend the Foster Care Review Board which would no longer be in business if this action is not taken. He noted that there has been bipartisan support and little controversy over this matter. ROBERLY WALDRON, Deputy Commissioner at the Department of Administration, stated that she would be happy for SB 296 to move forward. She indicated that the Foster Care Review Board has worked well thus far. SENATOR ELLIS expressed appreciation for Ms. Waldron's work on keeping the Independent Foster Care Review process functioning with limited resources. SENATOR ELLIS moved SB 296 out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. Number 062 CHAIRMAN RIEGER introduced SB 21 (MISC. GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS) as the next order of business before the committee. SENATOR DONLEY explained that Alaska is one of the few states that does not have a provision giving grandparents standing for asking the court for visitation rights of their grandchildren. He noted that the best interest of the child would still be the overriding factor in this matter. SHERRIE GOLL, Alaska Women's Lobby, stated that the Alaska Women's Lobby is neither in support nor opposition to SB 21. She expressed concern with Section 4 of the bill. She urged the committee to consider eliminating Section 4. She explained that Sections 3 and 4 address disollutions which are no fault divorces; both parents have agreed on everything. She noted that several years ago legislation specified that there would be heightened scrutiny when children were involved. There would be written agreements which clarifying the agreements between the two parties and any changes to the agreement would need to be signed off on by both parties which is encompassed in AS 25.24.220(g). She pointed out that SB 21 in Section 4 states "Notwithstanding AS 25.24.220(g)" which would allow the court, only in this situation, to insert grandparents' visitation rights without both parties agreeing to that decision. Ms. Goll said that Senator Donley agreed to the deletion of Section 4, if the court still retained the ability to recommend that a grandparent could be included in visitation. She explained that if the judge felt they knew better than the parents regarding whether or not another party could have visitation rights then the judge could do as in other aspects of the settlement. The judge could not grant the disollution because it was not a fair and just situation which is addressed in Section 3. She pointed out that Section 3 includes written agreements and that the " court shall also consider whether the agreement should include visitation by grandparents and other persons; " which seems adequate. If the court says that someone should be included in visitation and the parents cannot reach an agreement to sign off on that recommendation, then there should be discussion in mediation or return with a contested divorce. She stated that it should not be the sole reason a judge could insert something in a disollution which is at odds with the written agreement and the parties do not sign off on. CHAIRMAN RIEGER did not realize that a disollution could take place if children were involved. SHERRIE GOLL said yes a disollution can take place when children are involved. The idea was to have heightened scrutiny when children were involved. Number 153 SENATOR SHARP asked if page 2, Section 3, paragraph 2 would allow a judge, even when the spouses had a written agreement, to consider adding grandparents visitation at the time of the disollution or divorce without necessitating another court proceeding by the grandparents. SHERRIE GOLL agreed that Senator Sharp's assessment was correct. In that instance, if there was a change in their written agreements then both parties would need to sign off on that change therefore, there is no need for Section 4. SENATOR SHARP asked if the judge could invoke visitation rights of another person if such consideration was brought up by the court and one or both spouses refused to sign off on that. SHERRIE GOLL believed that if the spouses refused a change which the courts thought necessary, the court would say that the disollution was not an equitable situation. The spouses would have to return when they had a fair and just disollution. SENATOR DONLEY stated that he had a draft amendment coming. He recommended that if the committee felt Section 4 was a problem then it should be deleted. Then he would work with the drafters to make sure everything was covered. SENATOR ELLIS moved to delete Section 4 of SB 21. SENATOR SHARP objected. SENATOR SHARP did not believe that the court would be able to order that if either or both parents did not agree. He expressed concern that such a situation could develop during this time when animosity tends to run high between the families. He did not want another court process and inquired as to how fair the court would be to amending the agreement to allow grandparents visitation if Section 4 was eliminated. CHAIRMAN RIEGER said that the grandparents would legally have the same standing as the parents. Without SB 21, the parents must agree on visitation before the order. SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that the grandparents do not have the same standing because they cannot agree or disagree to the disollution or its terms. SB 21 gives grandparents standing, the legal ability to ask for help from the court which currently is not allowed. He explained that Ms. Goll's concern refers to a mutual disollution that does not address the concerns of a grandparent. If the grandparent comes to the court, what power would the court have in such situations. He stated that Ms. Goll's position was that the court should say that there is not a proper disollution, while keeping the best interest of the child in mind. Without a proper disollution, the parties must either return with a proper disollution or go through a formal proceeding. He indicated that was different from SB 21, Section 4 would allow the court to agree to a disollution and add grandparent visitation to the disollution. He said that Ms. Goll was suggesting that such court authority should be eliminated while maintaining the authority to reject the disollution when it does not address the grandparents visitation, if that is in the best interest of the child. Number 243 SENATOR SHARP said that only helps if the grandparents are in the vicinity when and where the disollution occurs. In many instances, the grandparents are not in the same area and this becomes an issue later. Section 4 seems to allow grandparents the ability to petition the court to re-open the disollution which would be eliminated if Section 4 is deleted. SHERRIE GOLL pointed out that anger would more likely happen during a divorce than a mutual disollution. A disollutionment hearing is very brief which is why the law specifies heightened scrutiny when children are involved. She felt that in a disollution where one spouse objects to the visitation from another individual, it would be best for the judge to send the parties to work it out or not work it out. This process could bring further information to the proceedings regarding the objection. She did not believe that Section 4 would allow something to happen after the disollution. Section 4 addresses when the decree of disollution is being ordered, while Section 3 gives grandparents the same standing in disollutions and divorces to come back later. SENATOR SHARP felt that Section 4 did allow grandparents to petition after the disollution which could offer additional information that was not present at the time of disollution. Senator Sharp removed his objection. SENATOR SALO agreed that Section 4 should be removed. She expressed concern that during a disollution not enough time may be spent determining the best interest of the child. She pointed out that in a disollution there would be minimal information regarding the best interest of the child. The people involved rather than the judge would be more likely to have the necessary information to determine the best interest of the child. SENATOR LEMAN objected to the removal of Section 4. Upon a hand vote on the amendment to remove Section 4 of SB 21, Senators Rieger, Ellis and Salo voted "Yea" while Senators Sharp, Leman and Miller voted "Nay." The motion failed. SENATOR ELLIS moved SB 21 out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 327 CHAIRMAN RIEGER introduced SB 195 (PHYSICAL/OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY BOARDS EXT.) as the next order of business before the committee. SENATOR MILLER moved to adopt the Lauterbach CS, version 8-LS1023\E in lieu of the original bill. Hearing no objection, the CS was adopted. CHAIRMAN RIEGER informed the committee that a problem had arisen in physical therapy licensing. A person was denied licensure, although, the hearing officer and the board felt the person was well qualified. This was due to a statutory restriction requiring that an applicant must have received professional instruction from schools approved by the Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the American Medical Association or the American Physical Therapy Association. He explained that even if the board felt that an applicant with different professional instruction was acceptable, the board still could not approve that applicant. SENATOR MILLER moved CSSB 195 (HES) out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 351 CHAIRMAN RIEGER introduced SB 298 (LICENSING OF PHYSICIANS) as the e last order of business before the committee. He pointed out that this bill had been requested by members of the State Medical Board. CHAIRMAN RIEGER moved to adopt Amendment 1. AMENDMENT 1  Page 1, lines 5-6: Delete " the board's designated representative " Insert " by a licensed physician designated for that purpose by the board " SENATOR ELLIS objected for purposes of discussion. He inquired as to whose concerns Amendment 1 addressed; Dr. Rowan or the State Medical Board. SENATOR LEMAN explained that Amendment 1 clarifies that the individual designated by the board would be a licensed physician which was the board's intent. Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIRMAN RIEGER moved to adopt Amendment 2. AMENDMENT 2  Page 1, line 1, after " Board ": Insert " and temporary permits for certain optometrists " Page 2, after line 2: Insert a new bill section to read: " *Sec. 3. AS 08.72 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 08.72.172. PERMIT FOR LOCUM TENENS PRACTICE. (a) A member of the board may issue a temporary permit to a nonresident optometrist for the purpose of assisting or substituting for an optometrist licensed under this chapter. The office employing an optometrist with a permit under this section must be an established practice, as determined under regulations adopted by the board, and be owned by a licensed optometrist whose practice is full time. (b) A permit issued under this section is valid for 60 consecutive days and may be renewed up to three times within a 12-month period if circumstances warrant. Permits issued under this section are not valid for more than 240 consecutive days of practice within a 12-month period. (c) A person who applies for a permit under this section shall pay the required fee and furnish proof of (1) meeting the requirements of AS 08.72.140; and (2) holding a valid license to practice optometry issued by a state or territory of the United States or by a province or territory of Canada. (d) Within 10 days after a permit has been issued under this section, the board member shall forward to the department a report of the issuance of the permit." SENATOR MILLER objected for purposes of discussion. CHAIRMAN RIEGER explained that Amendment 2 would allow optometrists to have temporary permits similar to what exists for physicians. SENATOR MILLER removed his objection. Hearing no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. SENATOR MILLER moved SB 298 as amended out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN RIEGER reminded the committee that there would be a hearing of confirmation resumes unless an in person hearing was requested. The deadline is tomorrow at 12:00 p.m. A discussion regarding the seats being filled on the State Board of Education ensued. There was a request to have the State Board of Education confirmations on teleconference. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.