Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foster Care Psychiatric Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor urges 7-day judicial review for foster children in psychiatric facilities as advocates press for safeguards
Summary
Rep. Gray introduced HB 36 to require judicial review within seven calendar days for foster children placed in short-term psychiatric hospitals, require counsel for the child, report on out-of-state placements and create a treatment-foster license; advocates supported the change while some witnesses warned the added 'treatment foster' provision needs statutory guardrails.
Representative Gray, the prime sponsor, told the Senate Finance Committee HB 36 "closes a gap in Alaska law" by shortening the timeline for reviewing foster children placed in short-term psychiatric facilities and requiring that "these children's cases need to be reviewed within 7 calendar days." He said the change responds to court rulings and long stays that have left some foster youth in hospital settings longer than necessary.
Amanda Mativier, director of Facing Foster Care Alaska and someone with lived experience in the foster system, testified in support and described harms she says foster youth have reported in hospital placements, including "unnecessary mental health diagnoses, physical restraint, chemical restraint, and seclusion." She cited a Department of Justice investigation and said earlier judicial review could reduce both trauma and state costs by avoiding lengthy stays that shift payment from Medicaid to the state's general fund.
Barbara Malczyk, a member of the board of Facing Foster Care Alaska and a former guardian ad litem, told the committee the bill "requires appointment of an attorney" and immediate notification within 24 hours of placement so parties can seek less restrictive settings; she described seven days as a compromise that still permits stabilization and coordination among involved entities.
Kelly Richardson of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights urged caution, saying Version C of HB 36 "dramatically complicated the original" bill by adding a new treatment-foster-care model and "lacks needed safeguards and oversight," citing concerns about diagnosis, medication oversight, treatment planning and family involvement that she said should be written into statute rather than left entirely to regulation.
Chrissy Vogeli, senior policy advisor with the Department of Family and Community Services, responded that Alaska currently lacks a defined treatment-foster-care license and that a regulated license would align Medicaid requirements, licensing standards and provider training; she said assessments would be done by licensed medical professionals, agencies would train foster parents, and the program would typically limit treatment homes to four children with specialized needs.
Committee staff presented two fiscal notes tied to HB 36 that assigned zero net fiscal impact for DFCS and the judicial branch; the trial courts' note estimated roughly 110 additional hearings per year and said the branch could absorb them with existing resources. The chair said the committee would "set this bill aside for further consideration at a later time."
