BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 886| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 886 Author: Simitian (D) & Daucher (R) Amended: 6/11/02 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 10-0, 4/24/02 AYES: Vasconcellos, McPherson, Alpert, Chesbro, Karnette, Knight, O'Connell, Scott, Sher, Vincent SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/4/02 AYES: Escutia, Ackerman, Haynes, Kuehl, Peace, Sher ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 1/30/02 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Parental authority: educational decisions SOURCE : Los Angeles County Office of Education DIGEST : This bill requires appointment of a responsible adult to make educational decisions for wards and dependents of the court when education rights are removed from their parents or guardians. ANALYSIS : Existing law grants to the guardian or conservatee of the person authority over the education of the ward or conservatee, subject to certain limitations. Existing law permits the dependency court to limit the control that a parent or guardian may exercise over a child, and requires any such limitation to be addressed in a court order. CONTINUED AB 886 Page 2 Existing law requires a local educational agency to appoint a surrogate parent for a child to represent the child in educational decisions in specified circumstances, including when the child becomes a ward or dependent of the court and is referred for special educational services, or when no parent for the child can be identified, or when the parent cannot be located. This bill requires the court, whenever it limits or suspends the rights of a parent, guardian or conservator of the child, or removes such guardian or conservator, to appoint a responsible adult to make educational decisions for the child until such time as the limitations of authority are removed, the minor turns 18 and is competent to make educational decisions, another responsible adult is appointed, a successor guardian or conservator is appointed, or the child is placed in long-term foster care, as specified, at which time the foster parent has the power to make educational decisions for the child. The bill disqualifies a person with a conflict of interest from serving as a responsible adult for the child, and defines "conflict of interest" for purposes of the disqualification. Background Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Office of Education, this bill is intended to ensure the continuity and accessibility of educational services for students who are dependents or wards of the court. Often, where the court limits parental rights, the sponsor states, nobody is officially appointed in the court's order to make educational decisions for the child, resulting in the child being deprived of access to appropriate educational services. Also, when a child is moved from foster or group homes for whatever reason, the child loses residency in a particular school district, which causes problems in gaining continuous access to needed educational services. This bill is intended to cure this deficiency in the law by requiring the court to appoint a responsible adult, whose residence can be used to establish residence for the child, AB 886 Page 3 and whose authority is clear, to make educational decisions for the child. Related Pending Legislation SB 1677 (Alpert) deals with the appointment of a responsible person to make education decisions for a dependent of the court. That bill was heard in the Senate Education Committee, and was amended to reflect the changes that this bill would make. SB 1677 also deals with the authority of surrogate parents who are appointed by the school to evaluate and sign off on individualized education plans for children with exceptional needs or where the local school agency cannot locate a parent of the child. There is now no conflict between the two bills. Prior Legislation AB 2392 (Corbett), 1999-2000 Session . Vetoed by Governor Davis, would have allowed appointment of foster parents as surrogate parents as well as expand the class of persons who may request assessments for special education needs. AB 1020 (Corbett), 1999-2000 Session . Vetoed by Governor Davis, was essentially the same as AB 2392. AB 2375 (Honda), 1999-2000 Session . Vetoed by Governor Davis, was identical to AB 645 (Honda), 1999-2000 Session, also vetoed by Governor Davis, would have required special education services to be provided to all dependent children. The veto message expressed support for special educational services for dependent children but concern about the costs. The relevant provisions of these two bills are the appointments of foster parents as surrogate parents with authority to request assessments for special education needs. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 6/11/02) Los Angeles County Office of Education (source) California County Superintendents Educational Services AB 886 Page 4 Association California Teachers Association California Judges Association California School Boards Association ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn, Bates, Bogh, Briggs, Calderon, Bill Campbell, John Campbell, Canciamilla, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg, Harman, Havice, Hollingsworth, Horton, Jackson, Keeley, Kehoe, Kelley, Koretz, La Suer, Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews, Migden, Mountjoy, Nakano, Nation, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Papan, Pavley, Pescetti, Reyes, Richman, Runner, Salinas, Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Vargas, Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wright, Wyland, Wyman, Zettel, Hertzberg NC:cm 6/22/02 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****