Aging, Children and Youth Committee - Senate & House
Video
Transcript
7 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
0:00
Members, let's go ahead and take our seats. Good to see so many of you here on this beautiful November morning. Let's go ahead and get started so we can conduct our business in a timely manner. Do you have any comments, Senator Hester? I'm good. All right. We are going to have consideration to approve the minutes of September 11th, 2019 meeting. that's Exhibit C in your packets. Do I have a motion? Okay, we have a motion and a second.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. And that passes. Without objection, we are going to move item E to first on our agenda because Director Martin has another meeting in another part of the state and she has to make a long travel today. So Director Martin, if you will come forward and Members, this is Exhibit E1 in your packet, and then we'll also be looking at Exhibit E2. Director Martin, you might introduce
Speaker 6
1:12
And thank you, Representative. I appreciate you taking me out of order. Again, I'm Misha Martin. I'm the Director of Children and Family Services, and I will be presenting the summary of our Garrett's Law referrals. Beginning on page one, I thought I'd begin with explaining the definition of what is Garrett's Law. In the 2005 session, the term neglect was expanded to mean causing of a newborn child to be born with an illegal substance present in the newborn's bodily fluids or bodily substances as a result of a pregnant mother knowingly using an illegal
substance before the birth of a newborn or the health problem as a result of the pregnant mother's use before the birth of illegal substance subsequently in later years as you can see down at page one number two was taken off so garrett's law is now just defined as number one moving on to page two the number of garrett's law report accepted for an investigation has consistently increased since the law's inception 14 years ago during state fiscal year 2019 1,311 Garrett's Law reports received an increase of 2% from previous year. You can see in figure
one at the bottom of page two that steady increase from 2006. Now, while some may attribute that to increase in substance use, there's another factor that must be considered which we cannot prove or show causation, which is that awareness of hospitals and mandatory reporters to then call in or increased testing in certain hospitals because there is not a uniform requirement that all mothers are tested at the time of birth or children. Page 3, looking at characteristics of Garrett's Law Reports,
Act 1176 requires that an annual report be delivered to the legislature, and it must include the four characteristics on the top of page 3, age of the mothers involved in the report, types of illegal substances to which newborns were allegedly exposed, estimated gestational ages of newborn, and any health problems observed in their newborn. So as we go through the report, you will see that we've reported on each of those characteristics. On the bottom of
Speaker 9
3:20
page three, and looking at table one, you can see the age distribution of mothers
Speaker 6
3:25
in Garrett's Law reports. And I would note that the mothers aged 20 to 24 had the most or the highest percentage of those reports for state fiscal year 2019 at 32 percent of the reports related to mothers of that age category 20 to 24. Moving on to page four, table two in the middle of the page shows the types of drugs involved in the Garrett's Law Report. By far, marijuana, including THC and cannabis, was most commonly mentioned and cited at 70 percent of Garrett's
reports for 2019. The second most common cited drug was amphetamines and methamphetamines at 27%. Opioids were the third most commonly cited at 11%, followed by benzodiazepines at 8% and cocaine at 4%. Moving on to page
Speaker 9
4:15
five, among newborns reportedly exposed to substances in utero, 76% did not have any
Speaker 6
4:23
reported health problems. That is higher than previous years.
Approximately 13% required treatment in a NICU. 11% suffered respiratory distress or other respiratory problems. And 6% exhibited drug-related withdrawal symptoms. You can see that in table 4. And I didn't mention table 3, but table 3 shows the full-term numbers versus the premature numbers that I previously mentioned. Moving on to page six, DCFS's responses to Garrett's Law. This next section that I'll go through outlines when we do get a report what subsequently happens and the
percentage by which it does happen. We talk about the percentage of substantiated rates on page seven. You can see that on table five. We had a 94 percent substantiation rate. We also broke that down by area and after last year's presentation of the report we were asked to include the map and and the area so if you'll look at the very back of the report you will find the state map with the areas labeled so if you need to reference as you're looking at the area numbers
and where that specifically is you can look to the back
Speaker 9
5:36
page of the report and you will note that a high percentage was substantiated compared to other types
Speaker 6
5:42
of maltreatment because it's pretty pretty easy to prove if there's a positive drug screen on mother or baby at the time of report then that's substantiated sometimes there are false positives on initial reports and then after a hospital sends to the lab those come back as false positives that would make up for a bulk of the six percent of unsubstantiated reports statewide the rate at which dcfs caseworkers opened a case in
response to substantiated reports was 95 percent so pretty much if there is a true finding we are opening and serving that family and that could be offering substance abuse treatment or other services to try and ensure that that child is safely in the home and that the family we are strengthening that family moving on to page eight looking at table seven table seven shows the percentage of substantiated garrett's law reports that resulted in removing newborns from mother's custody, just over 14% of the newborns statewide were removed during state fiscal year 2019. So
of the two reports, 14% of those babies were placed in foster care. Moving on
Speaker 9
6:48
to page 10, an analysis of the substantiated Garrett's Law report received during state fiscal 2018 revealed that 33% of
Speaker 6
6:55
the children who were removed from their homes, and I'm sorry, I should have said 19 removed from their homes returned home are discharged to relatives within 12 months lower than the rate observed for the previous year which is 37 so of the 14 who were removed and placed in
foster care 33 of those eventually were either returned to their home or placed with a relative you can see a good summary on the page of 10 and 11 most of those i've already gone over but i'm happy to answer additional questions. There are some breakdowns that I did not cover, but I'm happy to answer additional questions. Director Martin, thank you
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
7:33
for this good report. Do you feel like there's anything that the legislature needs to do to change Garrett's law to make it stronger or to eliminate any sections, any changes at all in the upcoming session? No recommendations
Speaker 9
7:47
at this point as to the definition of Garrett's Law. This is
Speaker 6
7:51
our most vulnerable population, so we do feel like these children need to be served and make sure that the families are strengthened. There is a group of stakeholders really looking and discussing about consistently serving these families. So we can only serve who's reported to the hotline, but you may need to take a closer look at are we consistently,
Speaker 9
8:09
are we catching all the babies that need to be caught by the hotline? representative mayberry
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
8:18
thank you madam chair i'm just curious on page four where you list the marijuana now that we have medical marijuana will that ever be broken down into two different categories so if you'll note back
Speaker 6
8:34
on the definition and there's been a lot of discussion there was also a previous law that I have to discuss, which is the CARA law passed in the last session. So if a baby were to test positive for marijuana and the reporter called in and said that it was
legal use of marijuana, it would not be captured as Garrett's law any longer. So therefore it would not be neglect because there was a legal prescription, but it would be caught under our new CARA law where we go out and assess the family and create a plan of safe care. Now, in talking with some health care professionals, they feel like they're not going to be able to know whether it's illegal or legal use at the time when they get a positive screen. So if it's not indicated at the time that the call is made, it would continue to be captured as a Garrett's Law marijuana use.
But we won't probably be, if it's legal use, it will not be Garrett's Law, but it will be captured by the hotline for a safety assessment or plan of safe care. this report will only talk about illegal marijuana use at the time of birth seeing no
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
9:48
other questions thank you so much and we will move to the oh sorry had another
one uh representative birch thank you thank you sir
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
9:58
at one time and i'm asking if this is still the case moms who had children removed under garrett's law were not placed into the registry it was not an automatic true finding one is that still the case and two for at least that 14 percent last year for which they were actually removed was there additional something that ultimately caused these families to be in that database or in that true finding arena where there was something else
Speaker 9
10:26
yeah as to your first question you're correct mothers who have a true finding for only garrett's law are exempt from
Speaker 6
10:32
the central registry. Even if the baby is subsequently removed, unless there's an additional allegation, they are not placed on the registry for Garrett's Law. And as you know, the central registry is completely separate from foster care and what happens with that foster care case. Senator Bond? Thank you. No? Okay. Representative
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
10:50
Birch, did you have a follow-up? Okay. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other
questions, we're going to move on. Did you
have another report or was that all included in this
Speaker 6
11:08
one? The second report is just the data behind the Garrett's Law Report so you can see
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
11:14
additional breakdown of information. Okay. Thank you so much. Safe travels. All right. Our
next report is from the Standards for Community Mental Health Centers and Clinics and the Accreditation Policy for Community Mental Health Centers and Clinics, which is Exhibition D in your handouts.
So if you will introduce yourselves to the committee, and
Speaker 34
11:46
we will proceed. Jay Hill, Division Director for Aging and Adult Behavioral
Speaker 35
11:53
Health Services with DHS. Patricia Gann, Deputy Director, Division of Aging
Speaker 36
11:58
and Behavioral Health Services. Matt Golden, Attorney, Office of Chief
Speaker 34
12:04
Counsel at DHS. Thank you, Madam Chair. DHS and our division is proposing to repeal two existing rules that relate to community mental health centers that were adopted in 1990 and 1996. At that time,
if you recall, funding for community mental health centers was designated through our appropriations bill in special language. And that special language included a requirement for our division to adopt minimum standards of performance. In 2017, that process changed. As we stand today, community mental health centers are now procured through following state procurement laws rather than being designated in special language. As a result, in our contracts,
We now include all of those performance standards for monitoring by our division, and as I said, you will find those in our contracts. The expectations are now contained there. We feel the rule is no longer necessary as they have been replaced by these minimum standards, and we are seeking to repeal these rules today.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
13:16
Members, do you have any questions? Senator Bond, do you have a question or do you just look puzzled? Okay. Okay, I'm not seeing any questions. We do need a motion to review this rule. Okay. Representative Evans, we need a second. Representative Petty. All right, so all in favor, say aye.
Aye. And this rule is reviewed. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next on our agenda, we have the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division Quarterly Report, which will be April through June of this year, Exhibit F. And we have Major Jeff Drew with us and Debbie Roark. And Ms. Roark, is this your last meeting with us before your retirement?
This will be my last meeting. Members, let's
Speaker 47
14:31
all give her a hand and wish her well. Thank you very much. Well, that pretty much stole
Speaker 47
14:37
here for her. Don't do that. Don't do that. I was listed to do the report, but Ms. Roark is going to be doing it. As mentioned, she's going to be retiring at the end of December after many, many years of service on this committee with our agency. And she's done so many things.
She's been instrumental in so many new laws coming through involving the Malatreatment Act. Also, she's in God knows how many groups making sure we're protecting the children of Arkansas. Like I mentioned, she'll be leaving at the end of December. Mr. Gary Gleason, who's seated behind me, he'll be the new administrator. At the beginning of the year. Mr. Gleason, would you stand up so we can all
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
15:13
see you? Thank you and welcome. So as you see, me and
Speaker 47
15:18
Gary are not going to be the most attractive people to look at.
So yeah, I'm going to get a real good look at Debbie before she leaves. I'll get
Speaker 50
15:28
out the window and let her go with her quarterly report. That was nice. Thank you very much. If you will, turn to page two on the quarterly report. This is a very simple report that we do every quarter. I'm just giving you some statistics on how the Crimes Against Children Division is operating. We did investigate 15, this is the quarterly report for April through June of 2019. We did investigate 1,533 reports during this quarter.
Those are the most severe abuse cases in the state of Arkansas. On page three, you will see that we had a 34% substantiation rate on those cases. Page four and five is a breakdown of cases assigned by county. So we break that down so you can see your counties that are involved in child abuse and how many cases are coming in to the counties that you serve. On page seven, we have a breakdown by mandated reporter.
And we are just so proud of that number because we've seen a growth in that number over the years because this legislature has run laws to mandate more people to report child abuse. And so we're very proud that we've got such a large group that lists all the mandated reporters in the state and how many reports were called in by those mandated reporters. On page 11, well, let me go page 9 and 10. Page 9 and 10 is the severe allegations by the age of child.
So you can see on this breakdown that these are the allegation types of severe abuse in the state and what age of child it is affecting on
Speaker 52
17:14
this report. So that's page 9 and 10. On page 11, we have allegations broken down
Speaker 50
17:24
by the months, April, May, and June, how many allegations that we actually investigated in those 1,533 reports that we did.
So you'll see the types of allegations and how many cases we had. Sexual contact is always the highest, and that runs true to form throughout every month of every year. Um, page 12 through 28, um, the legislature had asked us, this committee had asked us to break our allegations down by relationship to the offender, to the victim. And so these, um, these pages show you what type of allegation.
So we've got on, on page 12, you see bone fracture. There was 38 in the relationship of the, of the offenders to the victim children. on
Speaker 52
18:18
pages, um, and that skips through to page, through page 28. And then the last
Speaker 50
18:24
section, um, is the prosecutor. We have a, starting on page 30, we have a list of the prosecutors in the state. Um, we do refer our cases, the true findings to the prosecutors in the state for
prosecution. The Arkansas judicial districts are split up on page 32. And then the report on page, 33 through 36 shows how many of our cases were referred to the prosecutor in each judicial district and how many charges were filed on those cases that we referred. And I'm willing to take any questions that you may have.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:09
Senator Hammer. Thank you, ma'am. Chair, appreciate your years of service. And before you get out of here, after your retirement, on page 7, are there any areas that we need to consider adding to the list of mandated reporters? I mean, it's a pretty inclusive list. Just curious if there's anybody in your years of experience that you think we need to take a look at adding to that list on page
Speaker 59
19:38
7 that's not there now. I think we have covered the gamut on anybody pretty much.
Speaker 50
19:42
I would love to see everybody in this state as a mandate reporter, but I think we've covered the gamut on everybody that has kid contact out there that would be working with children on a daily basis or at least be around children. So I think we've got a really, really good list right now. And right off the top of my head, I think we're pretty inclusive. All right.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:05
Madam Chair, can I have one more? Thank you. On page 12, when it talks about the breakdown of the identified relationship,
there seems to be a large number that are classified as unknown in several of these categories. How is it that we don't know? Am I misreading that? Or how is it that we don't know who it
Speaker 52
20:31
is that created the injury? Well, when the call comes in, it may not
Speaker 50
20:36
have been anyone that we could substantiate on. So this is the breakdown of the identified relationships by allegation type on the calls that came in. But at the time of the closure of the case, it may not have been, there may not have been anybody.
It could have been an anonymous caller that just had, you know, a name and we never identified that person or the child never identified that person. Does that make sense? Representative Birch.
Speaker 66
21:09
Thank you Madam Chair. I love this part of the report where it actually gets personal with our districts on what was referred and what the prosecutors took. I'm
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
21:19
wondering with regard to the numbers that were declined, is there advocacy on the part of CACD? Is there advocacy on the part of state police?
when there's a declination, how much involvement do you continue to exert, I guess, when they've said we're not going to do this? And do you see any consistency with areas where you have trouble where we might be able to look further into those particular areas?
Speaker 50
21:46
There are areas of the state that we identify that have issues with any type of prosecution on very, very young children because they're not good witnesses.
And so, but we are working continuously with our law enforcement out there to get these cases to these prosecutors. But all in all, we are trying to bring more prosecutors into the whole Child Advocacy Center arena. We have 13 Child Advocacy Centers out there, and prosecutors can sit in and listen to these children be interviewed. But once that prosecutor gets involved with the Child Advocacy Center and these cases on the front end, it seems that we have a higher prosecution rate out of that area.
And so that's something that we really work on. Our staff, local law enforcement, we really work on getting everybody we can to those multidisciplinary team meetings so they can hear about these cases, hear the details of the cases and what the children are saying. happen to them and then um and and we want our prosecutors at the table with us so we're working really hard out there to include them and
Speaker 60
22:56
bring them in senator pitch i want us to also start
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
23:06
with thank you for your years of service greatly appreciated i look at pages nine and ten to reference kind of a two-part question and in effect that page those pages are the pages of evil that is in front of us and probably only partially described what's really out there, I'm afraid. My question is the bottom left of page 10, 1,398 referrals, just under 1,400, included just under 2,800 total allegations. What are the other 50%? Are those in process?
Did they become untrue or unsubstantiated? The other allegations are not severe.
Speaker 50
23:46
We just broke out the severe uh in this in this but the rest of the allegations they may be a neglect allegation or something that doesn't rise to the level of severity so this
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
23:59
is only half the allegations on this chart of ugly yes or evil um the other question i have is if possible maybe this is to your follow-up person but the total by age we didn't put the total of the children
that have been abused at the bottom to the right of the 1398 to total those columns because it clearly looks like maybe, as you referenced earlier, they make better witnesses, but the 14 and above is a large part of our children population that's ending up on the report. And I think that totaling that might help us in future going after it to figure out how we may need to figure a better way of, because I, and maybe your expertise can weigh in, why
would we see such a large percentage in the 14 and above when we tend to kind of think that that probably is hitting
Speaker 77
24:57
every age group, and are we just missing
Speaker 59
25:01
those at younger age groups? We will get that totaled, and I'll take a better look, we'll take a better look at
Speaker 50
25:09
that. The 14 and above categories, you know, we take a lot of reports of sexual abuse, and that's the majority of these allegations right here.
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
25:19
As I studied that, though, I think the only thing that they're really not dramatically higher is the left unsupervised, which would tend to go with a 14 and above. It doesn't necessarily need the supervision, but almost every other category, they're higher than the 13-plus is the next highest, and it moves across, and I think it's a reporting method probably that's the phenomenon. Okay, we'll take a look at that. But I think totaling it would drive us to some corrective action in dealing with the
Speaker 56
25:47
younger children. All right. We'll add that to there.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
25:56
Representative Evans. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Roark, going back to Senator Pidge's question on the 1398, how often are you seeing multiple allegations involving the same child? So is this 1,398 separate children
Speaker 50
26:17
or? Now, that's allegations by severity. Okay. And so in any case, we can have one allegation to that child or there may be four.
Okay. And it just depends, but this one just breaks down the allegation by that severe abuse. Because not all abuse is categorized in the state as a priority one, and the priority twos would be your most least severe abuse cases.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
26:47
Do you typically see, of these, of the severity, multiple per child? It's not just one thing. It's multiple things when involving the allegation.
Speaker 50
27:00
And we go in, and we may have a sexual abuse allegation on the case, but we do home visits. We do all of that during the course of our investigation. So if there is anything else, we don't call in a new report. We add allegations to our report. So if we get in there and they're talking about physical abuse or if they're talking about some type of neglect, those allegations would be added into our severe abuse case. Thank you.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
27:33
Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:38
I was adding up the cases that are broken out on pages 9 and 10, and when I add up all the ones that are related to sexual allegations, that comes up to 1,657. But the total number is 1398.
Speaker 50
28:02
It's allegations. Allegations. Allegations. Okay. It's not the case numbers. It's the allegation types.
So it's the types of allegations that were in those cases. All right. Thank you. Yes.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
28:17
Members, let's give Ms. Rourke a hand and wish her well as she leaves us. and we thank you for the difficult work that you've done for the state of Arkansas and for our children. 38 years. Thank you.
Mr. Glissom, we'll look forward to hearing from you next time. Next, we have in your packets item G, and this is presentation of an ISP by Representative Penzo. Representative Penzo, this has been much in the news of late, so we are eager to hear your ISP. And please introduce your guest to the committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 96
29:15
I've got Josh Bryant with me.
He helped me draft what is now Act 1022. So I'll let him tell you a little bit about the direction we'd like to see us go in the future. And I appreciate everybody that helped us get that passed and acted in the law. Representative Penzo, would
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
29:35
you remind us what that act does? It
Speaker 96
29:42
criminalizes a lot of the activities that were taking place. Like everybody heard about the arrest that just took place in Arizona and in Springdale.
You know, a lot of people said that this was just a Springdale issue, but we all now see that it was a three-state issue and probably a nationwide issue. So if we hadn't have passed this, Arkansas probably wouldn't have been able to file charges against the guy that was trafficking children in Arizona, and federal charges have been placed,
Arizona, Utah, but Arkansas probably couldn't have done anything about it, so I'm glad that we now can, and I'll let Josh kind of take over
Speaker 4
30:39
from here. Thank you. Please introduce yourself
Josh Bryant
Unverified
30:42
to the Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Josh Bryant. I live in Rogers, Arkansas, and I've worked pretty hard over the last month to try and clean up the mess that was left by Mr. Peterson's arrest. Upon his arrest, some colleagues of mine and I recognized that there would be a lot of hurting and afraid families, both adoptive families and biological families who are expecting to place their child up for adoption.
And because we'd known that these activities were going on for quite some time, we were able to quickly jump into action. We were able to get a court case started in which all of these adoptions were consolidated in front of one judge and would be supervised from that point forward in terms of how those cases were processed. The goal was to make sure that what started unethically in the dark finished ethically in the light.
And we are well on our way to seeing that happen. Some of these mothers that we've encountered, we've found more than 20 of them here in Arkansas who were working adoption plans through Mr. Peterson. The first baby that was born was born two days after his arrest. This was not her first adoption. And she was under the impression that at the time of birth, that child had to immediately go to the adoptive parents, that the child could not stay in the
room, that she could not hold that child. And because there were adoption advocates and professionals who were concerned about her well-being and whether she had been trafficked, whether she had been forced into anything, she learned for the first time that she had the right to hold her own child, that she had the right for that child to stay in the room, that she could nurse that child, that she could change her mind and parent that child. And for the first time, she walked away from an adoption, although difficult, with a smile
on her face. Her previous adoption, she had struggled very much with postpartum depression. And now she was able to walk away from an adoption in such a fashion that she felt like she was doing the right thing. We found women who have decided that they are going to parent their child now that they realize they have a choice. We have encountered women who now for the first time realize they have a choice in who adopts their child. Until then, they had been told who was going to adopt their child, and now they had a choice, and so they're taking some time to evaluate which
adoptive parents might be best for their child. We've had some who were comfortable with matches that were made and want to continue in that process, but we've also found some that have not been in Arkansas for long enough to proceed with an adoption. They haven't been here for four months. We found one who was not even a resident of Arkansas. She would have been forced to lie on court paperwork in order to establish jurisdiction in the state of Arkansas. And so this was not a problem or a solution in search of a problem. This was a problem that needs a
solution. And when Mr. Keys, the United States Attorney for the Western District, announced the indictments, he reported on how these women told investigators they felt treated like property. He reported on their living conditions, how they were paid $10,000 if they'd come to the United States and place a child up for adoption here in Arkansas. He reported on how 12 women, 12 pregnant women were housed, if you can call it that, in a three-bedroom home. Four women to a bedroom,
one bed in each bedroom. Nine pregnant women sleeping on the floor. Journalists were able to gain access to one of these homes, and what they found was even more disturbing. They found padlocks not on the inside of a front door or back door to keep people out, not on the inside of a bedroom door to keep people out, they found padlocks on the outside of bedroom doors to keep people in. Mr. Keyes has been quoted nationally now, saying, and I quote, make no mistake about
it, this is human trafficking in its purest form. Until July of this year, that would not have been an accurate statement under Arkansas law. But because of what this General Assembly did in passing Act 1022, our human trafficking definition includes this type of conduct. This General Assembly put a warning shot across the bow of practitioners who would traffic children and mothers through our adoption courts, and that shot has not been heard.
They've continued to act with impunity, agencies and attorneys alike. And so we cannot declare mission accomplished with the passage of a criminal bill. When I was 17, I got a speeding ticket, and I complained to my grandfather, who said, Josh, let me tell you about a time when I got a speeding ticket. This car passed me going 10 miles an hour faster than I was, but I was speeding. Well, five seconds later, I get pulled over. And so when the officer comes up to my car, I immediately complained and said, did you not see the car that passed me not five seconds before you pulled me over?
my grandfather was upset and the officer listened and said sir do you fish and my grandfather had this weird look on his face and said well yeah why and the officer said do you catch them all he he got his license registration proof of insurance and took his ticket like he should have but the point is that regardless of how dedicated and professional and devoted and persistent our law enforcement and prosecutors are will never catch them all. And so the system that allowed
this type of conduct to occur remains as broken as ever. This is the second time this committee has seen this bill. I don't think we need to go page by page through the bill, but I do want to frame that briefly, not only in terms of what has happened, but also in terms of some new research. Um, you know, we've done some new research that shows really in the United States we have always treated private adoption more as a marketplace than a means of child welfare. Um, and we can take all of this criminal conduct out of the mix and still see that.
Research shows that the average cost to adopt a Caucasian baby in the United States is about $43,000. shows that to adopt an African-American baby through private adoption in the United States, the cost is half of that. So researchers naturally wanted to ask why. Why is that the case? And what they found was disturbing. Adoption practitioners without equivocation told them there are simply more African-American babies available for adoption, fewer who are willing to adopt them.
That is supply and demand. more African-American babies in supply, lower demand of people who are willing to adopt them. Or flip that on its head, lower supply of Caucasian babies available for adoption and much higher demand of people who want to adopt them. If our system of private adoptions were about child welfare, it would value each human being as equally priceless. Add to that recent studies. In May of this year, The Atlantic reported,
the Atlantic Magazine reported on studies done a couple of years ago in which they noted that the number of abortions to adoptions was no less than a ratio of 10 to 1, that people were choosing adoption far more frequently than they were choosing adoption. And so they asked why, especially among women who were considering adoption and chose abortion. And their responses were also somewhat chilling. They said not knowing where a child was, not knowing whether
they were being taken care of or how they were developing or how they were being parented in such a fashion that they could form a positive opinion of their biological family was more guilt-inducing than an abortion. They found that some just felt like an abortion was less morally reprehensible because giving your child away in an adoption is wrong. They ultimately found in further studies that adolescent children subject to an open adoption are more satisfied
with their adoption. They have an easier time developing an identity, knowing who they are, where they're from, who their ancestors were. They have an easier time understanding why they were adopted and what those circumstances were. Those same studies have found that adoptive parents are far more satisfied with their adoption because their relationship with their children is better. They don't, their children don't feel like their adoptive parents have robbed them of a piece of their identity,
their heritage, and so forth. It's, research has found that open adoptions are better for the biological family. There's less instances of postpartum depression, Less issues of guilt and all the things that go along with that, not knowing where your child is and how that child is being cared for. And so as we proceed in this study, this is not in the bill, but we need to talk about open adoptions. If adoptions are meant to be a means of child welfare, then this research can't be dismissed.
And we have to talk about whether it is actually in the best interest of a child to be subject and forced to be subject to a closed adoption. There are several other things that we'll need to talk through as we go through this study. But what I hope is that we can have all stakeholders at the table, that we can come up with legislation that fixes this system and ensures that this doesn't happen again. And I don't mind being called an idealist, because idealists envision the best possible future we have. I also know that it's probably good to steer away from extreme statements.
So with a little bit of intrepidity, I'm going to go ahead and make this statement that this committee and the next General Assembly literally has the opportunity to change the world, okay? I know that's a bold statement, but hear me out. Reporters from Arizona and Utah have contacted me, and attorneys general and their deputies from Arizona and Utah have contacted me asking, how are you taking care of this problem? are you taking care of these women? What did you do in order to get all of these cases
in front of one judge and make sure that they proceed ethically? Because they didn't know that this was going on. They were taken somewhat by surprise, and we were ready for it. The Arizona Republic is on record saying nobody's really sure what's going to happen to the mothers in Arizona, but Arkansas might provide a model. So, literally, the eyes of the country are watching what we do and how we respond to this. And if it only takes one committee to draft legislation
that fixes the problem and one legislature to pass that into law and one governor to sign it into law, if it only takes one state to change a country, especially a country who's watching what's going on, it only takes one country to change the world, and there's no country better suited to do that than in the United States. So literally, we have an opportunity. The ball is in our court. We have it, and I say we run with it. And so I appreciate the committee's time today, and with that, I'll take any questions members may have.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
42:45
Thank you so much. Representative Penzo, could you summarize basically what your bill will change in existing law? I'll let Josh go
Speaker 96
42:58
ahead and elaborate, being that he's the one that drafted it, if that's okay. So the
Josh Bryant
Unverified
43:07
bill, the interim study proposal that you have in front of you would work to address conflicts of interest in the adoption system. Right now, adoptive parents and biological parents are typically represented either by the same attorney or the same agency.
And since we have a marketplace, we're in a situation in which that practitioner who represents both sides of a transaction in this particular case becomes a choke point for money and information that can be manipulated in such a fashion to benefit not the parties, but the professional with that money and that information. And so we've got to do something to ensure that these conflicts of interest don't exist. There would be jurisdictional issues in the bill in front of you, or in the proposal in front of
that deal with trying to tighten up what the jurisdictional requirements are for an adoption. As I said, we found one woman who's not even a resident of the state of Arkansas. It's not fair for the Arkansas taxpayers to be burdened with the processing of an adoption in which no Arkansan is a party. On top of that, it's not fair for the Arkansas taxpayers to line the pockets of a practitioner prisoner who were defrauding the Arkansas taxpayer. In Arizona, the key issue that they
charged was the fact that this attorney was filing fraudulent Medicaid applications. He was alleging that these women were residents of the state of Arizona. They were not. He filed a Medicaid application. He charged the adoptive parents for medical expenses and pocketed that which the state paid, um, through its Medicaid program. The state of Arizona estimates that that's no less than $800,000 that the Arizona taxpayer lost. And so those jurisdictional issues have to be tightened up, not just so that the courts aren't bogged down with cases in which Arkansas are not involved,
but so that the Arkansas taxpayer doesn't run that risk of also being defrauded out of Medicaid money. The proposal seeks to deal with several other issues as well. So it talks about the definition of what is a proper payment from an adoptive parent to a biological parent. Right now, the law in Arkansas says that payments can be made for quote-unquote general maintenance. Well, we've seen practitioners running semi-trucks full of cash through those two words.
And so we need a better definition of what that means. What is an acceptable adoption or pregnancy-related expense that an adoptive family can pay on behalf of the biological parent? And this looks from the outside, from people who have no experience in adoption, like the buying of a child. And so if we can tighten that definition up a bit and talk about specifically what is an acceptable expense that we can pay, that it's not meant to be a profit or any sort
of remuneration to the biological parents, but it's meant to be an expense payment for the costs incurred through a pregnancy and going through an adoption, then it doesn't look like that anymore. And so we've got to tighten that definition up a bit. And there are several other things, but again, not in the bill. We still need to talk through in this study, do we need to consider open adoptions in the state of Arkansas? We're one of the few states who don't recognize an open adoption. How do we deal with the issue of unlicensed
adoption practitioners. I've spoken with investigators that have been frustrated with their lack of ability to do anything with an unlicensed adoption facilitator except go seek an injunction. Adoption is a very complex case. It's a very complex situation. It requires knowledge of child welfare, mental health, law, development, social work, things like that. And people who don't have the training or experience necessary to do that have no business assisting others in an adoption. And so there's got to be not only laws that say you have to be
licensed to do that, but there has to be a sufficient enforcement mechanism in place. And so those are things that we need to talk through as well. And all of that, I hope, would come out of
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
47:19
this particular study. Thank you for that explanation. All right, members, do I see a motion to adopt this study? Representative Crawford in a second. Representative Petty. Okay, I'm sorry, my mistake.
We had already adopted this for study at our last meeting in September, and this was just our presentation today to get more information of exactly what was involved in the study. So ignore that vote. We did not need that. This was just our chance to learn more about it, and it's already been adopted for study. And members, did you have any questions that you would like to ask while we have this expert witness
before us. All right. Senator Hester. Hey, so I
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
48:08
really like what we're doing here. I
had an initial concern. What if you're an organization that, say, for Northwest Arkansas, we have a Loving Choices where a mom comes and they probably facilitate with the mom and an adoptive parent. I don't know, but is this going to put some sort of hindrance on them where they can no
Josh Bryant
Unverified
48:27
longer work with both sides? So my understanding specifically the Loving Choices is that they only work through that pregnancy crisis model, that they don't actually do adoptions, but they do have referrals to Bethany or American adoptions or whatnot that they'll refer mothers
who are considering adoption to. There is a possibility that if we deal with the conflicts of interest, that one agency would not be able to represent both sides, that they would not be able to both care for a mother and care for the adoptive families. And so those agencies could be in a situation where they have to choose in any given case, are we going to assist the biological family or are we going to assist the adoptive family? I think it's important that when we talk through
the adoption triad, though, that we recognize that under that model, the most important member of the adoption triad is not even mentioned, and that's the child. So who is going to be taking care of that child. The pushback that we got on this conflict of interest issue was that it was going to raise the cost of adoption in Arkansas. And with respect to those who hold that view, I understand that view. But I do think it's short-sighted. Because the cost of an adoption, as used in that particular context, only references the
cost of starting an adoption. But we have to understand that an adoption is the same as having a child, there is a long-term cost over the course of a couple of decades. And if there is not sufficient protections in place to ensure, for example, that a mother is receiving the prenatal care that she needs, you talk about increasing the cost of adoptions, I'll tell you my personal story in adopting a child who did not get prenatal care. And the cost of that adoption is going to be in the millions between what we paid and
what insurance has paid for a medical condition in which the best doctors in the world at Boston Children's Hospital have said, we're not going to have the medical technology or knowledge any time in the near future to be able to diagnose your son. So if there were systems in place and mechanisms in place which would assure everybody had their own voice, everybody had their own advocate, things like that would be staved off. If we treat it like a marketplace, like we have been for all of American history and
adoption, those practitioners are doing everything they can to grow their margins, right? And so they skimp on prenatal care or they skimp on whatnot. And I'm not saying all practitioners. There are many practitioners who do this properly. But there are some who are going to do everything they can to spend as little money as they can so that they make as much as they can. And without some sort of check on that conflict of
interest, we're going to continue to see those problems. Other questions?
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
51:22
Yes, Senator Bond. Thank you for being here. I know it's a very serious topic, and Senate Judiciary, the joy of serving on that. We
saw, I think, a portion of this bill. Is this the portion that was amended off last time, or is this a different draft? It's the portion that was amended off. And so I know there was a group of the Arkansas Bar lawyers who had issues, technical issues with the bill. I don't want to say they opposed it, but part of this interim study process seems to be we have an opportunity to bring them in
and maybe come up with, in the light of what we're facing, come up with some language that both sides can agree to and then maybe some that both sides can't agree to and vet it out. have we vetted it back through that group of, is it the Arkansas Bar Association adoption attorneys or was that? Yes.
Josh Bryant
Unverified
52:14
So the organization, our group of attorneys who are a part of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, Quad A is how they refer to themselves. We've been in contact with them. The, certainly the goal would be for all of us to work together, bring again,
all of those stakeholders to the table so that we can find language that we're all comfortable with. We continue to be in contact with those attorneys and others who have since come into the conversation. So to answer your question, yes, that's the goal is to figure out where we can agree and maybe have one bill come out of committee or one proposal come out of committee that everybody can agree on and then we vet the rest of those things that we can't agree on and try to find the best course forward. Thank
Speaker 100
52:55
you. All right, members, any other questions?
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
53:05
Okay, seeing none, thank you so much for coming all the way
from Rogers. We appreciate your being with us today. And Representative Penzo, thank you so much for bringing this before us. I think it's important that we all learn as much about this as we possibly can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And members, I don't see any more business before us unless one of
you have something to bring. Our next meeting of this committee is on December the 10th, and the Capitol will be all beautifully decorated for Christmas at that time. And I think children will be singing, so we will enjoy being here.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Comments by the Chairs 1. Senator Bart Hester 2. Representative Charlene Fite
C. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of September 11, 2019 Meeting [EXHIBIT C]
D. Standards for Community Mental Health Centers and Clinics and the Accreditation Policy for Community Mental Health Center and Clinics – Rule [EXHIBIT D] 1. Mark White, Chief of legislative and intergovernmental affairs, Department of Human Services (DHS) 2. Patricia Gann, Assistant Director, Division of Aging, Adult, and Behavior Health Services
E. Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS), Mischa Martin, Director 1. Summary of Garrett’s Law Referrals for SFY 2019 [EXHIBIT E1] 2. Garrett’s Law Referrals, July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 [EXHIBIT E2]
F. Arkansas State Police, Crimes Against Children Division, Quarterly Report, April–June 2019 [EXHIBIT F] - Major Jeff Drew, Commander
G. Presentation of ISP-2019-134 - “An Act To Amend The Law Concerning Adoptions; And For Other Purposes”. [EXHIBIT G] - Representative Penzo
H. Other Business
I. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGING, CHILDREN AND YOUTH, LEGISLATIVE & MILITARY AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Nov 4, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit C - Minutes | Exhibit | 2 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit D - Rules | Exhibit | 74 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit E1 - Garrett's Law Summary - SFY 2019 | Exhibit | 18 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit E2 -Garrett's Law Data - SFY 2019 | Exhibit | 41 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit F - ASP - CACD - APR-JUNE 2019 - QRTLY Report - | Exhibit | 36 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit G - ISP - 2019-134 · Presentation of ISP-2019-134 - “An Act To Amend The Law Concerning Adoptions; And For Other | Exhibit | 9 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 6
Speaker 9
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 35
Speaker 36
Speaker 47
Speaker 48
Speaker 50
Speaker 52
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 66
Speaker 60
Senator Mathew Pitsch
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 56
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Speaker 96
Josh Bryant
Unverified
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Senator Will Bond
Unverified
Speaker 100