HTRB-260423-0800

That is quiet. What do we have in the gavel? Oh, good morning everyone. This is House Tribal Affairs Committee and we will now come to order. The time is 8:03, Thursday, April 23rd, 2026, in Capitol Room 106.

Members present from my left to right are Rep. Schwanke, Rep. Freer, Rep. Carrick, Rep. Underwood, and myself, Vice Chair Storey. Chair Diebert has an excused absence for the day. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business. Please take the time to silence your cell phones for the duration of the meeting.

Thank you for that. I also would like to thank Kale Brown, the Tribal Affairs Secretary, from Records, and Doug Bridges from the Juneau LIO for staffing the committee today. We have two items on the agenda today. First up, we have House Bill 384, definition of victim counseling center, sponsored by Representative Gray, with both invited and public testimony today. Afterwards, we will take up House Bill 307, court-ordered compensatory visitation, sponsored by Representative Schwanke.

This is the first hearing of this bill And there will be invited testimony to help introduce the bill and answer any questions the committee may have. So we are up with Representative Gray, House Bill 384. I know we just heard this bill 2 days ago. At this time, I'd like to invite Representative Gray and his staff back to the table for any opening remarks, and then we will move into invited testimony. Representative Gray, please introduce yourself for the record and proceed with your remarks.

Welcome. Thank you, Vice Chair Story. My name is Andrew Gray. I represent the Umed District, House District 20, uh, in the State House. And thank you so much for hearing our bill again today.

Just as a reminder, it adds two words to statute: or tribal. And what this means is that someone seeking assistance from a domestic violence shelter that is run by a tribal entity would get the same confidentiality protections that that person would get if they sought the same care through a nonprofit or a state-run or a military-run facility. Thank you. Thank you for that. So I will go to invited testimony then.

We have Tammy Cherew, the Executive Director of the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center, who has joined us online this morning. Mrs. Cherew, can you hear us today? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, you sound very good.

Uh, please introduce yourself for the record and begin your testimony. Well, good morning, and I appreciate all the members of the House Tribal Affairs Committee listening to this, and thank you for giving us the time to, uh, provide testimony on the HB 384 definition of victim counseling center under the AS 18.66.250, and up all of the things. My name is Tammy Truett Giroux, and I am the Executive Director for the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center. I've also been an advocate in this state in particular and mostly in rural tribal Alaska for the last 46 years. I have done many things in those years, and I am someone who has held hands with mothers searching for their missing daughters or searching for their missing children.

As a tribal leader who has wiped away the tears of grandmothers now raising grandchildren because violence has shattered their families. And as a mother and a grandmother who lies awake sometimes at night worrying about the safety of my own children and wondering about my grandchildren's future, I serve in many capacities, but that as a mother and grandmother and being an Alaska Native person is one of the most, um, sometimes stressful capacities, I would have to say, especially when we have things that are impeding our ability to protect ourselves, so to speak. You know, as the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center is a non-tribal nonprofit, and we're dedicated to ending violence against our Alaska Native women and children and men that experience it, but through policy advocacy, training, and technical assistance. Every role that I carry has been shaped by that same purpose, generational trauma and the relentless hope for change. So, when I speak of violence against Native women, I'm speaking of our sisters lost, of children orphaned, and of communities hurting.

Today I'm here to express our full support for amending HB 384 to extend victim advocate privilege protection to tribal government agencies. You know, Alaska continues to remain a dangerous state for women, and for our Alaska Native women and girls, our state is deadly. More than 4 in 5 Alaska Native and American women— American Indian women have experienced violence in their lifetimes. Including 56.1% who have experienced sexual violence. And we know that the number is much higher.

Additionally, nearly 40% experienced violence in this— just this past year. Alaska Native women have reported rates of domestic violence up to 10 times higher than the rest of the nation. I think it's important— from 2021 to 2023, law enforcement reported 25,817 incidents of violent crime and 8,575 of those incidents of sexual crimes against victims who are American Indian or Alaska Native females. In response, tribal advocates across Alaska provide life-saving victim services each and every day. They develop safety plans, connect survivors to resources, and provide trauma-informed advocacy.

They're doing work that the Alaska law already recognizes as essential work. Yet Alaska law does not recognize them. And as we know, many of those same advocates working in these conditions have limited resources available to them, much more limited oftentimes than other advocates working in the field. As—. Excuse me— AS 18— yes?

Wait. 66200-250 Provides confidential communications between survivors and victim counselors, but only if those counselors work for private organizations military programs, or local government agencies. Tribal governments which employ advocates doing identical work with identical survivors are excluded. This is a legal gap that directly harms survivors in our communities. In practice, this gap is dangerous for survivors.

Consider a survivor in a tribal community who discloses abuse to a tribal advocate. She shares the details of the violence, the patterns of control, and her safety concerns. Together, they develop a comprehensive safety plan. When she files for a protective order in state court or works with prosecution in a criminal case, the abuser's attorney subpoenas the advocate. Without privilege protection, everything is discoverable.

The safety plan, the details of the abuse, the strategy for leaving— everything is discoverable and lacks legal protections under state law. The abuser gains access to information that directly threatens the survivor's safety. Alaska law could not have was specifically intended to leave out an entire class of victim service providers, but this is a current reality on our tribal— in our tribal— for our tribal advocates. They are facing this each and every day in our state justice systems. In addition, the consequence of not being protected by AS 18.66.250 extends further.

Survivors learn their disclosures to tribal advocates are unprotected and stop seeking help. Advocates knowing their documentation lacks legal protection reduce the thoroughness of their case notes, directly weakening advocacy quality and limiting the support survivors receive. This directly undermines both victim safety and the ability of our tribal advocates to do the work that is absolutely needed for— from survivors. The amendment and improvements found in HB 384 is straightforward, adding two words: or tribal to the definition of victim counseling center found in AS 18.66250. Two words would extend the same protection Alaska already provides to other advocates.

It requires no new appropriations and no new programs. It simply recognizes that tribal governments are sovereign entities deserving equal legal standing as local governments under Alaska law. The amended This amendment will undoubtedly strengthen victim safety. Survivors who trust that their disclosures are protected will seek advocacy. They will develop safety plans and will ask— excuse me— access needed support.

Advocates who can document thoroughly will provide better care and demonstrate the value of their work to policymakers, our justice system, and to overall greater public safety responses. Over the last year, the AKNWRRC has worked extensively to develop the case for this much-needed amendment. We have consulted with tribal leaders, many of whom are here today to provide public testimony, victim advocates, and state officials. We have coordinated our joint efforts with the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, which also fully supports the amendment. Tribal leaders across Alaska have confirmed that their full support for this change.

They are ready. Their survivors and advocates deserve the same protection as others already receive. I urge the committee to support this bill. Tribal advocates deserve the same legal standing and protections as other advocates, and most importantly, survivors in Alaska Native communities deserve legal protection for their advocacy relationships. I really thank you for the time and the consideration this morning.

And thank you for your testimony, and thank you so much for your service for so many years to, um, keeping women and children safe. Do I have any questions from the committee members? Seeing none, thank you again. We next have our final invited testifier is Rick Haskins Garcia, the Director of Law and Policy for the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center. Mr. Haskins Garcia, can you hear us okay?

Yes, I can. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Great. Please put yourself on the record and begin your statement. Yes, um, good morning. My name is Rick Haskins Garcia, Director of Law, Policy, and Tribal Justice for the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center.

Good morning, Chair Dybert and members of the House Tribal Affairs Committee. Thank you for inviting me today to provide testimony in support of House Bill 384. My name is Rick Haskins Garcia and I serve as a Director of Law, Policy, and Tribal Justice for the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center. In that role, my staff and I provide policy advocacy, education, and support on the state, federal, and international levels to our 229 federally recognized tribes, tribal coalitions, and organizational partners. But we also work hand in hand with tribal leaders and tribal justice systems across Alaska on issues of violence, sovereignty, and justice.

In the 10 years since the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center was created, We have had the honor of working with over 70% of all Alaska's federally recognized tribes in one form or another. I want to build on Tammy's testimony by focusing on a particular reality that shapes why this amendment is so important right now. The hard truth is that our tribal survivors and our tribal justice systems are currently in a transition and building period, and during that transition, our survivors depend on Alaska's state court system for justice and accountability. For decades, tribal justice systems in Alaska have been systematically underfunded at both federal and state levels. Tribes have lacked the resources to build comprehensive tribal courts, tribal prosecution offices, and victim advocacy programs.

This is not because tribes lack the capacity or the commitment. It is because the investment was simply never made. However, over the past decade, with significant effort from tribal leaders, some of whom you will hear from today, and organizations like the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center, we have begun to rebuild and strengthen tribal justice systems. We are writing tribal codes, we are training tribal judges and advocates, and we are developing tribal victim services. But this work takes time, it takes resources, it takes partnership.

[Speaker:JULIE] [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] In the meantime, when an Alaska Native woman is assaulted or abused today, she often turns to Alaska's state court systems for protection and justice. She may seek a protective order in district court and work with state prosecutors on criminal charges. She navigates state criminal procedure, and in that process, she works with tribal advocates who help her understand the system, who help her develop safety plans, and help access the resources she needs to survive. This is the partnership that currently exists: tribal advocates helping survivors navigate state justice systems. But when those tribal advocates lack legal protection for their confidential communications, the entire partnership fails.

Tribal advocates who cannot promise confidentiality will create a chilling ripple effect across all Alaska, state and tribal alike. Survivors who have already experienced trauma do not disclose. They simply do not come forward. A woman who has been sexually assaulted will not report if she fears her disclosure to a tribal advocate could be subpoenaed and used against her. A mother fleeing— excuse me— a mother fleeing abuse will not develop a safety plan with a tribal advocate if she knows that plan could be handed over to her abuser's attorney.

The result is silence. No reports, no cases, No justice. The abuser faces no accountability. The survivor faces continued danger. The state court system loses the testimony and evidence it needs to pursue justice.

Advocates themselves experience a profound ethical conflict. An advocate knows her case notes are unprotected. She faces a choice: document thoroughly and risk exposing her client, or document minimally and weaken the case. She cannot promise survivors confidentiality, so the fundamental trust relationship, which is the foundation of all effective advocacy, is broken. She becomes less effective, the survivor receives diminished care, the state court case is weakened.

Everyone loses. I would also like to address a point that has come up in past legislative hearings and discussions, and that is the distinction between Alaska Native Corporations and Alaska Federally Recognized Tribes. In the past, there have been questions and references to Alaska Native Corporations receiving millions of dollars annually. ANCs do receive significant funding and generate economic development and shareholder dividends, but ANCs and tribes are distinct legal entities with distinct missions. ANCs are primarily economic and corporate entities.

Tribes are sovereign governments. The funding that flows to ANC does not flow to tribes. Tribes operate with vastly fewer resources from federal and state government sources, and the result is a profound economic and resource disparity. [Speaker:DAVID] Mm-hmm. [Speaker:MICHAEL] Tribes are building justice systems, victim services, and public safety infrastructure on a fraction of the resources available to other entities.

This amendment, extending victim advocate privilege to tribal government agencies, is a no-cost recognition of the life-saving work tribes are doing with limited resources. This amendment is also about partnership. Alaska's public safety is not the state's responsibility alone. It is not a tribal government's responsibility alone. It is a shared responsibility.

We build safer communities when state and tribal systems work together. We build safer communities when survivors have trust in the advocates who serve them. We build safer communities when tribal advocates have the legal standing to do their work effectively. This amendment supports that partnership. I urge this committee to support HB 384, and when you do, you are not creating a special carve-out for tribes.

You are extending a protection that Alaska law already provides to others. You are recognizing that tribal advocates are doing life-saving and essential work day in and day out. You are supporting the state justice system by ensuring that tribal advocates can help survivors navigate state courts effectively. And finally, you are advancing public safety for all Alaskans, tribal and non-tribal alike. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Haskins Garcia. Do I have any questions from the committee? I, I want to put on the record that Rep. Ruffridge joined us at 8:12 this morning, and I believe you have a question. Rep. Ruffridge. Yes, thank you.

Appreciate the testimony today. I had a question in regards to the relationship between a tribal court and the resources that you were offering. So is there legal protection currently if things went sort of the way that you described at the beginning of your testimony where an offender was tried in a tribal court? Are there protections for information that is shared for that specific route of trial, or, um, or is there a similar issue with privacy there as well?

Thank you for the question. And through the chair to Representative Ruffridge, um, tribes in Alaska are currently in the process of revising their tribal codes and tribal laws, and in many tribes that we're working with across Alaska, we are including a specific victims' rights codes and we're updating their both civil and criminal procedure for those tribes that are looking to exert criminal procedure to make sure that we include the privilege protections that we are talking about today that are lacking in our state court systems. I can't say for certain if all tribes are doing that, but the tribes that we are working with in Alaska, we are urging them to revamp or revise and consider enhanced protection, especially for advocates, for survivors, in their tribal justice systems.

Any follow-up, Representative Fudge? Yeah, potentially. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess maybe I wasn't certain what the answer to that question was. So maybe the answer was maybe sometimes, and it depends on what code they're operating under.

Uh, in which case, um, it feels like the loophole might still exist even if this statute is changed. Is that a correct statement? Mr. Haskins-Garcia. Thank you for the question. Through the Chair to Representative Ruffridge.

Um, I think that may be a fair statement. I can't say for certain what all 229 tribes have currently, but I can say that tribes in Alaska are in the process of revising them. And I think the, I guess, the larger point currently is we are building up Tribal justice systems, and I think we touched on this a little bit in Tuesday's hearings, but currently, until our Tribal justice infrastructure and our Tribal courts are well established in hearing cases, we are relying on our state partners and our state justice systems to prosecute and hear those cases that involve domestic violence and sexual assault. And again, to provide justice and accountability, on behalf of the survivor and on behalf of the offender as well.

Just another follow-up, if I may. Rep. Ruffridge. Thank you. I mean, it— that's— I appreciate that answer. What— that's a very complex, I think, arrangement, especially given the sheer volume of potential codes or courts that you would have to update those codes for.

If this If this statute is changed, and I obviously think that it should be, would that inhibit that process from happening? Because at this point then, what I would see is the incentive to use the state court and the state court alone, because then that is ensuring your privacy. Mr. Haskins-Garcia. Thank you for the question. And again, through the chair to Representative Ruffridge, I think the incentive of, and I can't speak for certain of all Alaska tribes, is to really develop their own tribal justice systems.

You know, tribal justice systems are the ultimate expression of sovereignty for any government or a tribal or a court is. It's making your own laws and enforcing them in your own forums. And we know the AFN just released a recidivism report on the incarceration rates of Alaska Native in our state justice systems. And what we know and what tribes in Alaska understand is that our state justice systems and the way that our justice systems address Alaska Native issues is probably not the best fit for Alaska Native defendants that are going through the state criminal justice system. And so tribes are really looking in Alaska currently at how we can increase our tribal codes, how we can build the infrastructure, how we can get our staff trained, but that does take time.

And I want to kind of express that, you know, there was a time in Alaska from ANCSA until federally our tribes were re-recognized in the mid-'90s that our tribes were really in a kind of a loophole. As we know, tribes in Alaska don't have that land base that our lower 48 tribes don't have. There's a lack of economic development. And so our tribes for a period of almost 25 years were left without funding and resources from our federal government. That has changed since 2016.

There has been some little increase of federal funding to support our Alaska tribal justice system since 2016, but it's very few dollars and it's very, very limited. And so oftentimes leaves our tribes to compete for funding, pinning one tribe against the next. And I share all of that because I think it's important to note that when we look at the enhancements or the ability of our tribal courts in Alaska and we compare them to the lower 48, Alaska tribes have always been dispensing justice, but as far as infrastructure and funding from our federal government, that is a relatively new funding to Alaska tribes that's happened within the last 10 years. And that's primarily why you're seeing a lot of the infrastructure and growth of our Alaska tribes, certainly our tribal justice system, and as you can see, we're having increase in our tribal law enforcement systems too in Alaska. [Speaker:MICHAEL_MARSHALL] I have more questions, but I don't want to I don't want to take up all the committee time.

Sorry. Thank you for that. Are there any more questions? I don't see any questions from other committee members, but you're welcome, Representative French, to proceed. So I guess if you take this— and thank you again for your answers— if you take this sort of to the end result, which would be potentially what you would hope to have would be tribal justice systems that are fully functional, then I guess is that would there be a correction system that was attached with each of those as well?

Or how does that end up? There still has to be a shared arrangement of some sort, I would imagine. Or how would you envision that functioning? Mr. Haskins-Garcia. Thank you.

And through the chair, to Representative Ruckridge, I think you're exactly on. Currently in Alaska, There is no tribe that operates their own correctional, long-term correctional facilities. A lot of our tribes have short-term facilities that are able to hold offenders for short periods of time, but if we're looking at a long-term facility, even in our tribal justice systems, for our non-native offenders, if a tribe is approved by the Department of Justice, there is an opportunity to collaborate with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to send convicted defendants down to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. But another aspect of your question, Representative Ruffridge, is the ability for our tribes to collaborate with our Alaska Department of Corrections, and that is a conversation I'm hoping we can have soon because again, like I stated in my conclusion, the public safety for all of Alaska, it's not solely the state government's responsibility. It is not solely a tribal government's responsibility.

It's a shared responsibility between tribes and the state, and the state of Alaska. Thank you. Thank you. And I see that, um, Rep. Gray has some comments. Thank you so much, Vice Chair Story.

I just wanted to say this is a very interesting conversation, but it is definitely straying into what happens to perpetrators, and the purpose of this bill is to protect victims. And I think I just want to bring it back to talking about these victims and making sure that they have the confidentiality protections that they would have if they had sought care in any other facility, rather than a tribally owned one. And if there is some sort of unintentional, unforeseen circumstance, that we incentivize victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to seek care in the state court system until the tribal system is up and running and has the same protections. I don't care because I care about providing what's best for the victims. And so I just wanted to, if possible, sort of redirect the, the questions back to the bill at hand and to protect— get providing victims with the maximum amount of protection that they deserve.

Thank you. Thank you, Rep. Gray, for those comments. I see no further questions. I am now going to open public testimony on House Bill 384.

I am first going to go online this morning, and I see first up online I have Michael Williams. If you could please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony. [Speaker:MICHAEL WILLIAMS] Good morning, and thank you to Chair Deebert and members of the Tribal Affairs Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Chief Mike— Michael Williams. I am community leader who is entrusted with the responsibilities to love, provide for, and care for my family and community.

In addition to my position as chief and tribal judge, I have been a mental health counselor, and have worked with victims of crime on one-on-one basis for the past 30 years. I join you today in strong support of House Bill 384, the definition of victim counseling center. Akiak Native Community is a Yup'ik village that has stood on the banks of the Kuskokwim River for— from since time immemorial. Our village lies 42 air miles northeast of Bethel and is a home to approximately 400 tribal citizens living by the rhythm of the seasons and knowledge passed through the elders and through the strength of the community and has sustained us for thousands of years. Our village stands in support of House Bill 384 for the following Number 1, Alaska has some of the highest rates of violence in the nation.

Over half of the women in Alaska have experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetime. And Alaska consistently ranks amongst the highest in the nation for domestic violence and sexual assault. This means that victim services in Alaska are not optional infrastructure. They are essential to the safety and well-being of our communities. Despite this fact, Alaska Native women continue to face barriers in assessing culturally appropriate local support services.

Number 2, Rural communities in Alaska face unique barriers to safety and reporting. Many communities like Akhiak, uh, are only accessible by boat or plane and are not connected to the Alaska road system. This limits access to law enforcement and urban victim services, often because of the high-nit environment of small communities, privacy and confidentiality are even more important and necessary to survivor safety. Protecting the confidentiality of communications between victims and tribal advocates ensures that survivors— sorry. Survivors are in good hands.

So, I— number 3, tribal communities have equal protection. Tribal advocates are often the first point of contact for victims in rural communities. Sometimes they are the only contact. House Bill 384 recognizes the critical and tribal advocates' play by providing frontline services that are protected in the same way as other victim service providers. In conclusion, House Bill 382 strengthens Native safety and supports the hard work already taking place in our communities.

Supporting the passage of this bill demonstrates that the State of Alaska is a committed partner to tribal communities and recognizes that by strengthening the systems that are already in place to protect our people. We can work together to truly combat the high rates of violence in our state. Uh, hoiana for your time and consideration of House Bill 384 and for your commitment to the safety of all Alaskans. We will continue to work in partnership between the governments and communities that we serve, and it is essential that we work together to address these terrible things that happen in our communities throughout Alaska. Koyaanah.

Koyaanah, and thank you, Chief Williams, for your testimony this morning. We are now going to go on to our next testifier, and I neglected to mention that we'll have about 3 minutes for each member for public testimony. So thank you. And next online, I have Betty Jo Moore. Could you please unmute yourself, identify yourself for the record, and begin your testimony?

Good morning, Chair and members of House Tribal Affairs. My name is Betty Jo Moore. I live in Senator Tobin and Representative Fields' District in Anchorage. I am Alaska Native. I represent myself.

I was born in the Territory of Alaska. I am a mother and a grandmother. I—.

My education and some of my career was as a paralegal and as a tribal judge.

This is very disturbing to me from what I've been hearing because my thoughts are, TIPA is a U.S. federal law. Our Constitution provides all privileges and equal protection of law, which includes the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. 25 U.S.C. 1302, Constitutional Rights. No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall— and it lists— we have rights to equal protection of the law.

Alaska is a very huge, unique state. There are 574 tribes in the United States. And 229 of them are in Alaska with corporations that also say they're tribes. And listening to people, I totally agree that this is a shared responsibility.

In the bottom of House Bill 384, it says AS 47 semicolon. And AF 47-01505, Alaska tribes are required by the state to waive their sovereign immunity from unconsented suit when entering into agreements to receive grant funds that address certain health and social needs. The state requiring tribal waivers is acting in the best interest of the state and the public interest. The public interest and safety is of the utmost importance. And regarding the tribal— the— this year, Alaska received $272 million, which is the first year of 5 years that we'll be receiving this money, and it's going to total $1.3 billion.

The applications were approved, and I mean, the applications were— deadline was March 11th. And I, I see where there is— I've been addressing this equal protection of laws since 2010, 2013. I've written to the Attorney General. Excuse me, Miss Moore. Ida, um, could you please wrap up your comments?

Yes, and I do support HB 384 with amendments. I think that we have to go back and look at the Indian Civil Rights Act and look at what VAWA 2022 says, because within VAWA 2022 We have protection there too, but we have to pull it all together so that anyone who's a victim has equal protection of the laws, including HIPAA. Thank you very much, Ms. Moore, for your testimony. I appreciate it. I'm going to next go to Tracy Charles-Smith.

If you could please unmute yourself, identify yourself for the record and any affiliation, and begin your testimony. To begin your testimony. You have about 3 minutes. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tracy Charles-Smith, and I serve as president of Dot Lake Village.

I am here today to respectfully urge your support for House Bill 384. Dot Lake Village operates a tribal sexual assault response team, behavioral health services, and victim advocacy programs that serve not only our community, but the upper Tanana region. In rural Alaska, these services are often the first and sometimes the only place survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault can turn for help. Our advocates do critical work every day. They help survivors create safety plans.

They connect them to housing, medical care, and legal resources. They sit with them in moments of crisis and help them begin the process of healing. But under current Alaska law, there is a gap that puts that work and, more importantly, the safety of survivors at risk. While advocates working for private organizations, military programs, and local governments are protected, tribal advocates are not. That means the confidential communication between our advocates and survivors survivors can be subpoenaed, discovered, and used in court.

In rural communities like Dot Lake, confidentiality is not just a legal issue, it is a matter of safety and trust. When survivors cannot be assured that their information will remain private, they are less likely to seek help. This creates a chilling effect. Survivors may withhold critical information, they may avoid services altogether, or they may remain in dangerous situations because they do not feel safe coming forward. At the same time, advocates are forced to limit documentation or their approach to their work cautiously.

House Bill 384 addressing this gap was a simple but essential change. This is a narrow and targeted It does not interfere with law enforcement investigations. It does not shield evidence of crimes. It does not create new programs or impose new costs. It simply ensures that tribal advocates and the survivors they serve receive the same confidential— confidentiality protection already recognized under Alaska law.

For Dot Lake, the change is critical. We are actively building our justice systems, expanding victim services. We are working to ensure that survivors can safely engage both tribal and state systems when needed, but none of that works without trust. Confidentiality is what allows survivors to speak honestly. It is what allows advocates to do their job effectively, and ultimately it helps keep people safe.

This bill also recognizes—. Excuse me, Miss, um, excuse me, Miss, um, Charles Smith, could you please wrap up your testimony? Yeah, I just have a couple more sentences. We are already providing these services. We're meeting these— we're asking that two words, or tribal, be added.

This will close the gap and make a meaningful difference for survivors. On behalf of Salt Lake Village, I thank you for your time and consideration. And thank you for your testimony. I would like to note that Rep. Eichide has joined us at 8:44. Welcome, Rep. Eichide.

We have two more testifiers online, and then we will go to the people in the room. So next Next up, I have Briana Angulo. If you could please introduce yourself, unmute yourself, any tribal— any affiliation, and please proceed with your testimony.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Briana Angulo, and I serve as the Manager of Tribal Protective Services for Tamna Chief's Conference. It's located in Fairbanks, Alaska. In this role, I represent our community's work addressing domestic violence and sexual assault. I was born and raised in Alaska, have worked with children and families for over 20 years, and worked specifically in providing direct victim advocacy to Alaska Native people for the last 7 years.

I personally have supported many women, men, and families through the harms of domestic violence, sexual assault, and have walked with those left behind after those— after those loved have gone missing or been murdered. I found it is very comforting and supportive for those who are experiencing the most traumatic experience of their life to have someone from their own culture to help them navigate the challenges after this harm. This is crucial in the process of healing after these events. The ability to maintain legal confidentiality is crucial in maintaining the trust and safety of our people, helping them to navigate the justice system, and supporting ensuring the long-term healing after this criminal victimization. The Tribal Protective Services Program is made up of 6 well-trained indigenous victims advocates who are from this region.

The Tribal Protective Services Program provides direct victim services to our Interior Alaska tribal members who have been victimized. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Conference offers many programs that provide direct victim services, legal services, health services, family services, services and assistance, workforce development, early childhood learning, behavioral health services, and educational support. I'm here to respectfully urge your support for House Bill 384 and for amending the statute to attend— to extend protections to tribal victim advocates. Under current statute, protections are afforded to advocates employed by private organizations, However, tribal governments, despite operating vital advocacy programs and serving survivors every day, are not included. Our tribes employ trained advocates, administer comprehensive programs, and provide culturally grounded support to our people.

Yet Alaska law does not recognize their work in the same way it recognizes those of other entities. This amendment is a simple but meaningful step forward by including our tribal governments The law would acknowledge the crucial role we play in supporting survivors and strengthening public safety in our communities. Ultimately, this is about equity and recognition. It is about affirming that our tribal governments matter, that our advocates matter, and the survivors we serve matter. In many ways, just two words can make a profound difference for our survivors across our communities.

I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you for your time. And thank you for your testimony. I'm next going to go to Sadie Rose Worbelow. If you could please unmute yourself, introduce yourself for the record, any affiliation, and please begin your testimony.

Good morning. My name is Sadie Rose Worbelow. I work as the Law and Policy Specialist for the Native Village of Tetlin, and I'm also an advocate for the Tribe of Anvik. So, I sit on both sides of this work. The law and policy side, and the side where I work a survivor in the eye.

And I am here to urge you to support Amendment 1 to Alaska Statute 1866B50 to protect tribal advocates and survivors. When a survivor comes to me, I will spend months earning their trust. Trust is not given quickly. These are people who have lived through things most of us cannot imagine. As the law stands today, I cannot promise them that I will be able to to keep their vulnerability safe with me.

Alaska Statute 1866.250 already protects these same conversations when they happen at a private nonprofit, a military program, or a local government agency. However, tribal governments are not on that list. That means everything a survivor tells a tribal advocate can be subpoenaed by their abuser's attorney and further victimized by stalking assault, or the victim could ultimately be murdered if the abuser knows sensitive details about the victim. I spend months building that trust. The last thing I ever want to do is betray it against my will and become one more person, one more system that further victimizes someone.

Without this amendment, that is the position I am put in. The two words, "or tribal," would change everything for the survivors in our communities. I respectfully ask for your support. Support in this amendment to provide confidential culturally-centered services to our victims. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. I am now seeing no one else online. I'm now going to go to anyone in the room who wishes to testify. Do I have anyone in the room who would like to testify?

Seeing none, I guess I will Close public testimony. Vice Chair Story? Yes. What, is there further discussion? Sorry, before I—.

Well, I was going to ask Rep. Gray if he wanted to come up, and then I can take a brief at ease. Okay. Uh, Rep. Gray, um, any closing remarks that you would like to make today? Madam Chair, I just had a couple of questions still for the bill sponsor, if that's okay. Yes, that is fine.

For me. Oh, thank you. And thank you for those who testified. I think this is an issue that certainly I had given— I'm just learning about. So I have a couple of questions specifically in regards to the statute where this is intending to go, which is entitled Confidential Communications.

Uh, it starts with compulsory disclosure of communications that are prohibited, and it lists a whole bunch of things in here, but specifically it talks mostly about, um, a counselor and a victim may not be compelled. Nowhere in this section, uh, which is Title 18, uh, 66, starting at 200 and going through the end to the definition sections with which this is seeking to amend, does it actually mention Victim Counseling Center as being included in the compulsory disclosure of communications prohibited? So I think my concern at the moment is, um, how does this actually— how does this change the, the action, um, because the only thing that's connected is that the victim counselor definition in number 6 is connected to a victim counseling center. Um, that's the only— that's the only thing I seem to see. How does this help?

Rep. Gray. Thank you, uh, Vice Chair Story. I will refer to my Staff Attorney Dylan Hitchcock Lopez. Mr. Good morning. For the record, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, staff to Rep. Gray and the House Judiciary Committee.

Through the chair to Representative Ruffridge, you're spot on, Representative. So that's precisely how it does it. So if you look at the entire— this entire chapter hinges on communications with victim counselors, but victim counselors are defined as employees of victim counseling centers. And so by changing the definition of the victim counseling center to include or tribal, that flows through the whole chapter. So it's— you've, you've identified the operative provision.

Okay, so I think the follow-up question then, so a victim counselor does not— there's not a specific type of license that a person has to have to become a counselor. You are essentially a counselor if you are employed by a counseling center. Mr. Hitchcock Lopez, uh, if we look at the definition in Section 6 of 1866-250, uh, defines a victim counselor as an employee or supervised volunteer of a victim counseling center that provides counseling to victims and who has undergone a minimum of 40 hours of training in domestic violence or sexual assault crisis intervention, victim support treatment, and related areas. Or whose duties include victim counseling.

So that would be correct.

Okay. Um, yeah, thank you, Representative Story. I guess, um, typically I would, I would expect there to be some sort of, um, other areas of counseling we have specific, like it's like a job type or it's, you know, run through like the Department of Licensing or something. Is this the only definition of a counselor that we have, is this specific one? Mr. Hitchcock-Lopez.

Through the Chair to Representative Ruffridge, and this may be a question also we could get either Mr. Hastings-Garcia or I think also Ms. Brenda Stanfield is available in the room to speak to some of the specific duties, so I would defer to them. They have more familiarity on the ground with how it works in practice. I do believe as a matter of law, though, that is correct. This is for purposes of confidentiality protections, and I think that that's also important to understand here, is that this chapter deals with the confidentiality of communications with victim counselors as defined in this chapter. Sector.

It doesn't, you know, relate to— there are, I imagine, Ms. Stanville could probably unpack for us a lot of different roles within different organizations that some are more technical, some are, you know, akin to helping guide somebody through, you know, what resources are available to them in the context and help them through navigating the system. Advocacy, I think, takes on a lot of forms. Again, Ms. Stanfield would be more appropriate for unpacking that, but in terms of when those communications are confidential, this would be the definition that applies. So, and I think it's important, though, to distinguish this from a technical definition of a, you know, a counselor or therapist in the licensing context. This chapter is not meant to govern all of that.

It's simply meant to hold certain kinds of communication in confidence. Understood. I think that makes sense. And one just follow-up question. Follow-up.

Madam Chair, thank you. So I guess I— is there examples currently of sort of this confidentiality being broken? Based off the testimony, it seems the answer to that is yes, but I'm wondering how that is allowable if the definition of victim counseling center is currently just defined as a private organization that employs these individuals who counsel victims, how, how are— how is that not already against the law? Um, it sounds like, like, for example, the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center is a private organization. Mr. Hitchcock Lopez, thank you.

Through the chair again, Dilteshok Lopez, staff to Rep. Gray. Through the chair to Representative Ruffridge. So I think that Mr. Haskins Garcia spoke to this, and again, Mr. Haskins Garcia and Ms. Stanfield, I think, could talk about specific examples, but where the asymmetry is happening is that you are correct that if a nonprofit entity that may be affiliated with a tribal organization would get the protections. However, a tribal government that wants to have— to do— provide these services directly would arguably not get those protections. And, you know, speaking a little bit as an attorney here who's worked somewhat in this space, but, you know, the statute specifically calls out local government.

It excludes other— it excludes tribal government. And so, you know, if— I think an attorney who is representing perhaps a perpetrator of domestic violence in the criminal space, it would actually be incumbent upon them to test the limits of this statute. I think that that is what we're finding has happened, because there is an arguable argument, or a colorable argument, that those protections are not— those communications would not be included because this body explicitly excluded those words. Now, as we sit here today, we think that that was an oversight. We want to correct that.

But that would be the argument on the ground, and I think it would be something that I certainly would test as an attorney. I think that, again, Mr. Haskins Garcia could speak to how often that has, in fact, happened. Running, but it certainly, as we heard in testimony on Tuesday, I think again today, it is prohibiting tribal governments from entering into the kind of MOUs to begin offering these services because there's a concern about it. So it's at least having a chilling effect. [Speaker:MR. HART] Well, that makes a lot more sense.

And just a comment to wrap that up. I was making the assumption that potentially, for example, the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center was being asked to divulge private information, and it felt to me that this law currently covers that. And I think the answer to that is yes, it does, but it's prohibiting further operations from potentially a tribal government. That makes sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Rep. Gray, did you want to make a comment? Yes. And then I see Rep. Schwanke has a question. Thank you.

Through Vice Chair Story to Representative Ruffridge, So this statute was originally written about 30 years ago, and about 15 years ago, we learned that there was a loophole with the military, and the military running any sort of domestic violence or sexual assault counseling services. And so we amended the statute to include military organizations 15 years ago. So I think as time has gone by, these loopholes have exposed themselves, and adding "or tribal" is just closing the loophole again. Thank you for that. Rep. Schwanke.

Thank you. Through the chair, I'm not sure who best to direct my question to, but in researching this issue, I, I recognized— I learned that there were very specific confidentiality agreements that are signed between the counseling centers and AST to pretty much ensure full confidentiality through this process. And my question is Um, and it kind of came up in public testimony, but when it comes to tribal government, who would the agreement cover? Would it cover all employees of tribal government, the first person contacted, or would it very specifically need to be an isolated service unit within tribal government? Mr. Hitchcock Lopez.

Again, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, staff to Rep. Gray. Through the Chair to Representative Schwanke. And we may also want to call in Mr. Hastings-Garcia on this one as well. But I think that I can take the first stab. If we look at the structure of the statute, right, there's the definition in 1866.255 is where we've added language.

But if we look below that, there's 3 subsections: A, B, and C. Those set the parameters for what kind of organization can be providing services and obtain the confidentiality. So it has to be— it has to have the primary purpose of providing direct services for victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. It cannot be affiliated with a law enforcement agency or a prosecutor's office, and it can't be under contract with the state to provide services under Title 47. And so if we think about this by analogy to the military context, which I think is a helpful one because we have it, we know that if you go to close to our district, right, there's J-Bear, has a very large police force. That is a military organization, the military police.

They do not get confidentiality protections under this statute because— just because they are a military organization, because they are a law enforcement agency. However, if J-Bear has a specific victim counseling center that falls under this definition, then they would get those. And this— so the confidentiality statutes are structured to keep these kinds of entities separate, to ensure that communications that are supposed to be confidential are maintained as confidential without infringing on the rights of the accused to obtain discovery that they're entitled to under other provisions of law. So for the specific terms of the agreements, I would refer to Mr. Hastings Garcia. But in terms of— again, I think by analogy to the context where we know this is already happening under statute, helps really to elucidate that a little bit for us.

Follow-up. Follow-up. Thank you for that. Perhaps the question is better directed to Mr. Haskins-Garcia. I, I'm picturing some of our very small villages, think less than 40 people, some less than 20 people.

Some of the tribal governments are very small, and I want to make sure that we're that I'm fully understanding what this change would do to law in terms of who specifically has that confidentiality circle. Is it every person within a small— tribal government would have to have a very specific setup unit is my understanding, but some of the public testimony kind of blurred the line in terms of if someone may be a tribal administrator or someone might be the chief of the village. I want to know if those individual people would automatically be covered by the agreement or whether or not we are very specifically talking about somebody that is associated with a counseling organization underneath of the tribal government. Yes, Mr. Hitchcock Lopez, and then we can go to Mr. Garcia if he— or Mr. Haskins Garcia if he has anything he'd like to add. Through the chair to Representative Schwanke, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez again.

To Rep. Gray. So, and I do think we should get Mr. Hassan Garcia to talk about the specifics here, but I do just, again, want to remind us of the structure of the statute, because I do think it's helpful. So, again, everything flows through the definitions in this chapter. So a victim counselor is an employee or supervised volunteer of a victim counseling center that provides counseling to victims. And so, again, in the definitions, the definitions do not contemplate that, you know, admin staff of the tribal organization who are not doing victim counseling work would be covered by the confidentiality.

It does— that's specifically called out in the statute. Again, I think for the on the— maybe on the ground perspective, it would be an appropriate time to talk to Mr. Haskins Garcia. Thank you for those comments. Mr. Haskins Garcia, could you please unmute yourself and identify yourself for the record and please help us understand the answer to this question? Yes, thank you.

For the record, Rick Haskins Garcia. And through the Chair to the representative, I think you're exactly spot on. And what Mr. Dylan Hitchcock provided, we are not looking to change any of the requirements found under AS 1866-250. So those training requirements would still apply to victim counselors in our tribal governments. And to answer your question, I can't imagine that all tribal counselors or all employees have satisfied that 40-hour requirement, much less work in what would be considered a victim counseling center within a tribal government.

So it would be limited to those folks that are working with domestic violence and sexual assault survivors in an advocacy position with the tribal government that has satisfied those training requirements as well. Thank you for that. Ah, thank you for that. I'm going to take a brief at ease.

We are back on record. Um, I, um, would like to move this bill today, and if I could have a motion. Rep. Frere. Uh, thank you, Vice Chair Story. I move, uh, that we report House Bill 3-84 work order 34-LS1617/n with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note out of Tribal Affairs.

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER HART] I'm going to object, but very briefly to just say, and I'm going to regret this statement, I know, but I appreciate what seems to be a very elegant solution, and I cannot believe that Representative Gray did this on his own. You had to have it. It's very eloquent. Two words and it does a whole lot. I appreciate it, and I remove my objection.

I will not object. Just a comment. Yes, Rep. Carrot. I just really want to thank the public testifiers for sharing today.

There was some pretty hard-hitting testimony on this subject, and I think when Rep. Gray brought this bill forward at our last hearing, I was shocked that this is a loophole in current law. So I thank him and the advocates for for finding it, and I'm glad we can close it. So I remove my objection too. Thank you. Any more comments?

Okay, so the objection has been removed, and so seeing no objection, this bill has passed this committee. So let's see, let's see. I cannot find the— excuse me for a second. I think we should take a brief at ease to sign the paperwork. Yeah, I'm back on the record, and I'd like to take a brief at ease to sign the necessary paperwork.

Thank you, Rep Gray. Thank you, Mr. Tak López, and, um, here, brief at ease.

We are back on record. We are going to now move on to House Bill 307, Court-Ordered Compensatory Visitation. Hb 307, a bill of education sponsored by Rep. Schwanke. Rep. Schwanke, good to see you at the table with your staff. Please put yourself on record and proceed with your introduction for House Bill 307.

Yeah, thank you. Good morning, Chair Storey and committee. Representative Schwanke for the record. I want to thank you all for hearing HB 307 this morning. This is a custody bill that we refer to as time taken, time back.

Later. We can walk through the sponsor statement and then the slides quickly, if that is the will of the committee.

Yes, that sounds very good. Okay. HB 307 addresses a very difficult reality of custody battles in the state of Alaska, uh, simply the issue of weaponizing the Office of Child Services against another parent or guardian for the specific purpose of withholding visitation. HB 307 recognizes the critical importance of each parent and guardian in the lives of children. The eventual goal of this bill is to ensure accountability, ensuring that only valid, legitimate claims of harm or neglect are made to the state.

While the courts currently have the ability to issue makeup visitation time in this, um, in certain circumstances, this bill actually requires compensatory visitation visitation issued to— in the event that withholding a visitation is found to have no basis. So we'll turn to the slides here. We'll run through this fairly quickly.

The specifics of HB 307, um, as already stated, child custody. This bill was brought to us by a constituent that has gone through this very situation and has had some very difficult, um, personal circumstances and alienation from his children. His request was straightforward: please help restore parents' right to receive makeup time with their children when it is unfairly taken away. This bill creates a legal mechanism for restoring that parental or guardian visitation when court-ordered time is lost due to an unsubstantiated claim in time of investigation made by a guardian, um, or a parent of an activity that would fall under children in need of aid. These claims are generally harm or neglect.

Current law outlines awards of permanent and temporary child custody with mandated periods of visitation. When a claim of harm or neglect is made against the other parent or guardian, oftentimes visitation is denied while OCS carries out an investigation. This could be a matter of days or weeks. If OCS finds a claim to be unsubstantiated and the accusing parent or guardian fails to establish other good cause for the denial of court-ordered visitation, this bill would ensure the accused parent compensatory visitation time. In FY25, OCS completed 6,739 investigations involving 8,814 children.

Of these investigations, these complaints or allegations made, 77.7% were determined to be unsubstantiated. This is 6,848 children that may have lost out on visitation time with a parent or legal guardian.

It's important to note that Alaska custody law already allows a court to issue makeup time on a case-by-case basis. This bill would simply create the legal framework for mandatory time taken, time back. The bill ensures that makeup time be of the same type and duration as the lost time and that it occur within a 2-year window.

This bill is very clear judicial guardrails. It's not a blank check for visitation. The court will retain the right to impose reasonable conditions on the compensatory visitation, always with the best interest of the child in mind.

If adopted, the bill would be forward-looking and apply only to custody cases Following the date July 1st, 2026. We do have a— we have two invited testifiers here this morning, but we can walk through the sectional analysis if that is of the will of the committee. Aye, yes, please. If you could walk through the sectional analysis, that would be great, and then we will go to invited testifiers. All right.

For the record, Tyler Slater, staff to Representative Schwanke. So Section 1 of the bill would amend AS 2520 to add a new section, AS 2520.113, compensatory visitation, which outlines the allowance and requirements for compensatory visitation. Section 2 amends the uncodified law of the state of Alaska by adding a new section, applicability, and then Section 3 is the effective effective date, which would be July 1st, 2026.

Thank you for that, Mr. Slater. We will now move on to invited testimony. We are joined online by Mr. Lincoln Brubaker, the Deputy Director of RobertGarza.us. Mr. Brubaker, can you hear us?

Yes, I can. Please proceed with your testimony and welcome. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman, members of the Tribal Affairs Committee. I appreciate your time this morning to be here in favor of House Bill 307.

My name is Lincoln Brubaker. I'm a father of 3 beautiful daughters. I'm also an international family law advocate. In the time that I spent the last 5 years navigating the family law and custody these scenarios in my own life. I also spent the last 4 years as a coach and a guide to 200+ parents navigating this exact same condition, and many were very extreme cases of that produce severe trauma.

One of the, uh, immediate loopholes and a serious loophole that we've found within the family law system is where a parent can block a court-ordered holiday time by just making an allegation. At the point that happens, the, the child welfare professionals will step in and investigate the allegation, and on a precaution, many times if not always, will terminate the accused parent's and the child's custody time. This creates a very serious issue, as many legal professionals and family law professionals will tell us that it only takes 30 days for a child to be negatively impacted and being separated. What House Bill 307 will do is it will create a very safe, good legislative reform that will place solid guardrails in place with no intended— no unintended consequences involved. It will simply restore time once a parent was proven to be a safe parent again.

This is a serious issue. However, it's very important to us that it never ever has an unintended consequence, and for that reason, it does not ever restore time if there was anything other than a safe discovery of this particular parent. This bill has been accepted and passed into law in Texas, Utah, North Dakota. North Dakota actually chose to do double the time back. They had made a determination to somewhat penalizes.

However, this bill doesn't have any fiscal impacts, and it does not have any— carry any penalties other than the positive reinforcement of a child's time that they deserve with an obviously safe person. It can initially create a little bit of extra work for the family law systems in learning and understanding it, but really the impact of the time required there is greatly offset as once parents realize that they can no longer holiday hijack a Christmas or spring break or Thanksgiving, that they will in fact lose that time for their next Christmas. They will quickly— this will quickly disincentivize and will ultimately restore resources to the— to all, all organizations, all investigative entities will have resources installed and or reinstated in a way that they can actually focus on the important cases, which are the ones that we care about, of keeping children safe, the real situations. So ultimately, House Bill 307 fixes a very severe loophole, as we heard, many, many cases finding— being found unsubstantiated, and it restores children's time, which is so important because professionals and data has shown us for many years that a child that doesn't have good access to both good parents is at high risk for many different things, but specifically depression, drug and alcohol use, teen pregnancies, even sadly in some cases, as we know and we've seen, all the way to suicide. So I strongly implore that the tribal committee would see this House Bill 307 as a very strong legislative effort.

We appreciate your time to hear about this situation. I'm glad to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Uh, thank you for your testimony, Mr. Brubaker. Does anyone have questions at this time?

I see none. We will move on to our next invited testifier. We have Christina Isabel.

Miss Isabel, if you could please come, state your name and affiliation for the record, and proceed with your testimony. Welcome. This morning. I'd like to note that we also have Nancy Mead in the room, available for any questions. She's our legal counsel here.

Ms. Isabelle, please welcome again and please introduce yourself for the record. Good morning, Chair Storey and committee members and Representative Schwanke. Hello, my name is Christina Isabelle. I'm a third-generation Alaskan and a mother mother to two precious daughters. I'm here today in support of HB 307, Time Taken Time Back.

This bill is a meaningful step toward protecting Alaska's children by discouraging dishonest tactics and false allegations within the family law system. It works to restore and protect the custodial time every child deserves with a loving, fit, willing, and able parent. I've spent 12 years in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, at Anchorage court system, and I've spent over $500,000 fighting to remain in my daughter's lives. I retained two nationally recognized parental alienation experts, obtained at my own cost, whose forensic report confirmed severe parental alienation against me, a targeted parent, as well as against my family and friends. There's no history of neglect or abuse by myself or those close to me.

Those experts were not allowed to testify in my hearing, and that forensic report was not allowed to be admitted as it was too detrimental to to the opposing party. I'm here to testify for all the men and women afraid to speak up for fear of retaliation in their ongoing custody battles. I stand before you today asking for your support of this bill. Alaska families are in urgent need of meaningful family law reform to protect our most vulnerable, our children. Serious injustices are occurring under outdated laws that allow parents to exploit loopholes, prolong litigation, and create instability that causes long-lasting harm to families.

Families are the cornerstone of our communities. Protecting children must be our highest priority. When a child is separated from a safe, loving parent, it creates lasting trauma, especially in a state with limited resources to address these impacts before they escalate. Children who lose meaningful relationships with the parent often experience increased anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, self-esteem, and behavioral challenges. If left unaddressed, these struggles can lead to difficulty forming healthy relationships, self-harm, substance abuse, violence, and involvement in crime.

Children should not be burdened with adult conflicts they are not equipped to handle. Although custodial interference is addressed in Alaska Statute Chapter 11, Title 41, Section 320 and 330, these are not enforced. Parents are frequently told this is a civil matter and must return to civil court. Currently filing to enforce a 50/50 custody order can take up to a year and a half, if not longer, in Alaska. During that time, children may be cut off from a parent, allowing alienation and coercive control to take hold.

That prolonged separation often becomes the change in circumstance used to justify modifying custody, effectively erasing half of a child's identity and relationship. HB 307 seeks to prevent this harm early before it becomes permanent. This issue is deeply personal to me.

I've been without custody of my daughter for 698 days. I've missed birthdays, holidays, school events, sports, and everyday moments. Can never be returned. It should not happen, but it does across the United States. Millions of parents are affected by similar circumstances.

Every child in a custody case is vulnerable to this outcome. By supporting HB 307, you take a critical step toward protecting parent-child relationships, strengthening families, and affirming that children benefit from having both parents actively involved in their lives whenever it is safe and appropriate. Please support HB HB 307 and help protect Alaska's children and families. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony this morning.

Do we have any questions for the testifier?

Again, thank you.

So, um, right now we are back to any discussion on the bill at this time. Any questions?

Rep. Ruffridge, I see you going for your mic. Yeah, thank you, Representative Story.

So I guess, well, the first question is just, I think, a basic one, which is if we legally mandate family time lost, it doesn't feel like there is anything within this bill that sort of prevents exactly what we just heard in testimony, um, from continuing? Uh, that would still be an issue that would be ongoing if it's— if there is actions being taken that are sort of, I guess, punitive in nature or attempting to hurt another party in a, in a visitation case. I mean, what in this bill sort of prevents that from happening? Happening. I guess nothing.

Is that a correct statement? Through the chair. Yeah. Through the chair, Representative Ruffridge. Rebecca Schwanke.

Rep. Schwanke here for the record. I would agree that there is— there are additional items that we could add to the bill if we want to go there to strengthen the teeth in discouraging false accounts. What we've seen in other states, however, though, that just taking this initial simple step of ensuring that when you do make a false allegation for a specific purpose to control a child or children in the custody situation for a longer period of time than your own court-ordered period, that replacing that last time is enough of a deterrent that it would discourage those types of false accounts. And so hearing about the actual number that OCS has dealt with, unsubstantiated claims, it, it does beg the question of why individuals are making these types of claims. I would understand that— I believe that Alaska would have the same result that has been seen in other states, that once you put a mechanism like this into law, that it specifically will go towards encouraging accountability and not making additional false reports.

So, yeah, thank you. Um, I guess I just have another couple questions, if I may follow up. Uh, one, one I think additional for the bill sponsor, and then potentially one for, um, maybe a representative from the Department of Law, just to ask about what that—. We do have Nancy Mead here, General Counsel. Um, so on, on page 2 of the bill, um, it talks about— there's a specific line starting on line 8, and it It says that the department, or I guess the court, shall impose reasonable conditions necessary to protect the best interests of the child, and this is under the ordering of an additional visitation to compensate the person for visitation that didn't occur.

What is the— I guess, what is the impetus behind that language? What is that implying should happen? [Speaker:MS. BURCH] Thank you, through the Chair. Rep. Schwanke for the record.

Thank you, Rep. Ruffridge, for the question. Um, that particular line is just to ensure that the courts have the flexibility necessary to, um, account for very difficult and, and individual-specific situations for families. Alaska has an awful lot of seasonal workers. We have an awful lot of, um, long-distance relationships, and sometimes maybe the exact exact amount of time and the exact replacement of time lost doesn't work.

So it allows that flexibility for the courts. Okay. Thank you. And Madam Chair, I just have one additional question for, I think, Nancy Mead, if she's available. Yes.

Thank you for that. Ms. Mead, could you please approach the dais and introduce yourself for the record? And I don't know if you heard Rep. Ruffridge's question, but he could restate that for you. Or I guess he hasn't stated it yet. [Speaker:REP. RUFFRIDGE] I have not, yeah.

Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. [Speaker:MS. MEADE] Welcome. For the record, Nancy Meade, General Counsel for the Alaska Court System. [Speaker:REP. RUFFRIDGE] Yeah, thank you, Ms. Meade, for being here today.

I guess the question I have, I mean, it's sort of referenced in your fiscal note a little bit, but How, how would this— how would you envision this being enforced? Because it seems to indicate that the court would force it on, on some degree. Would that, would that have to come before the court in a civil matter to sort of remand this visitation back to some other department to enforce? How would that, how would that go? Miss Mead, through the chair to Representative Ruffridge, uh, let me clarify, uh, First of all, the court system had a zero fiscal note.

Yes. This has very little to do with any department, not the Department of Law, very little to do with OCS except the extent that they would be receiving somebody's allegation that there might be a child in need of aid that they investigate and then they decide it is unsubstantiated. This would arise 100% of the time and where this is in statute is in the child custody case. So when there's a custody matter, there is an ongoing court case. Very often, sadly, those cases remain open and active until the child is 18.

Things are happening all the time in those cases, whether somebody comes in and wants a modification of child support, or there is robust litigation for modifications of child support orders, or I'm sorry, child custody orders. Support being money, custody being time spent with your child. So people come back all the time and say they have to allege a change in circumstances and the court would modify its order. So as I read this bill, it contemplates there being an order in place, say it was entered last year for 50/50 custody, or one parent gets Monday through Friday and is responsible for schooling, the other parent parent gets every weekend, whatever the situation may be. Shared custody is the default, 50/50 is the default in this state.

So as I understand the bill, the— somebody would come to the court and say, "We need a modification. My partner, ex-partner, is under investigation by the Office of Children's Services." That is usually grounds to say, the child can't be with that person if there's an allegation of something untoward happening. And so the court would say, okay, well, you don't get the next 4 weekends because it's going to take a month for OCS to be investigating. And then what this bill would contemplate then is another hearing, which happens in these cases, to say, uh, the party would come back and say, hey, it was unsubstantiated, I lost 4 weekends. I want my time back.

And that's when this bill would come into play. So nothing to do— it's all private citizens, no state agency involvement at all.

Uh, yeah, so, um, I think the— I think you're touching on maybe my— the, the basis for the question. These are already— when this happens, this is already coming in front of the court in some way, shape, or form, I would— it sounds like. Is that an accurate statement? Through the chair to Representative Roughridge, it can, yes. As I say, a party can come in and say there's a changed circumstance.

There's a statute all about when you can get modification of your child custody order. This would be like a different kind of modification that The difference here is the party would come in and the statute would say that this must be changed. So already, yes, people can come in and say, "That was unfair. I lost a couple of weeks. Judge, will you give me back some time?" And that can and does sometimes happen.

This bill would be more forceful.

It would be mandatory, and I've talked to the sponsor's office about some potential tweaks to make it a little bit more workable, but I mean, it would be something the court could handle with those additional tweaks. Okay, thank you. And I just— one final follow-up. Follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So in the instance of this circumstance happening, we'll just have it be a hypothetical circumstance, uh, in order for the language of HB 307 to take effect, uh, an action by the court would be required and would need to be sought after by a plaintiff of some sort in that case for an open docket of some sort. Uh, to the chair, to Rep. Ruffridge, uh, not to be overly technical, but the case closes and then gets reopened if somebody wants a change to the existing order, but that mechanism exists. So say the father was accused of some sort of allegation concerning child neglect or abu— or abuse, lost visitation from that father could come back after a month and say, based on this statute, I am entitled, Judge, to have makeup time in some way, shape, or form, and there would need to be a hearing to establish how that might take place. I do think the court would have to take into account best interest of the child, which is the center of all of our custody determinations. So again, maybe a little wording change could ensure that that happens.

Thank you. I have a question, Rep— I mean, Ms. Mead. The statistics, and maybe it is for the sponsor, that Rep. Schwanke cited at the beginning about there being 8,814 cases, and I guess I'm assuming those were cases that parents had against another parent for abuse or neglect, and then a majority of those, 77%, were unsubstantiated. Is—. What is— where does the court keep track of those statistics?

To the chair, these are not the court's statistics, I do not believe that those statistics are in— are all for child custody cases. It does happen in some custody cases that a parent accuses the other parent or goes to OCS with an accusation. I'll defer to the sponsor who cited those statistics, but it doesn't happen 8,000 times. Those are different. Thank you.

Yeah, through the sponsor, I must have misunderstood that. Rep. Schwanke, could you explain, please? Yeah, thank you, Chair Storey. So those numbers were very specifically provided by DFCS within their fiscal note summary, and those— I would agree with Ms. Mead that those are probably annual statistics of investigations that OCS responds to. So the specific numbers of those that involve custody cases.

I don't have that number in front of me. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Are there any more questions from committee members? I see none.

Thank you again. Rep. Schwanke, do you have any final comments? No. Through the chair, I just want to say thank you for hearing the bill this morning, and we look forward to hearing it again and seeing if we we can't further improve it if it needs improvement. Thank you.

We will hold this bill for further consideration.

Thank you again to the bill sponsors today for their presentations. This completes our agenda for our House Tribal Affairs Committee meeting today. For committee members, Chair Dybert's office will be in contact with everyone next week for the next week's schedule, probably later this afternoon. Good afternoon. The time is now 9:37, and this meeting is now adjourned.