BILL ANALYSIS
AB 129
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 13, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
AB 129 (Cohn) - As Amended: January 5, 2004
SUBJECT : JUVENILE COURT: DUAL STATUS CHILDREN
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A JUVENILE COURT BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION UNDER BOTH DEPENDENCY AND DELINQUENCY
STATUTES?
SYNOPSIS
Under existing law the juvenile court can have jurisdiction over
a child either because that child is the subject of abuse and
neglect and therefore comes within the description of Welfare
and Institutions Code section 300 as a dependent child, or
because the child has committed acts that prompt delinquency
jurisdiction rendering the child a ward under section 601 or
602.
This non-controversial bill is co-sponsored by the Judicial
Council of California and the Children's Law Center of Los
Angeles. It would authorize the probation department and the
child protective services department in any county to create a
protocol to permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be
designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile
court. A minor who is designated as both a dependent child and
a ward of the juvenile court would be known as a dual status
child. It would also require the Judicial Council to collect
and compile data collected, to evaluate the results of
implementing the protocol, and to report its findings and any
resulting recommendations to the Legislature, within 2 years of
the date participating counties first deem a child to be a dual
status child.
The co-sponsors point out in support of the bill that some
children are caught between the dependency and delinquency
juvenile justice systems and this bill grew out of the
recognition that some children need the interventions of both
the dependency and delinquency systems. This bill provides
counties with the authority to implement such an approach.
SUMMARY : Seeks to allow a minor who is designated as both a
AB 129
Page 2
dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court to be known as
a dual status child. Specifically, this bill authorizes the
probation department and the child protective services
department in any county to create a protocol which would permit
a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated as both a
dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a juvenile court can have jurisdiction over a
child as a dependent child because that child is the subject
of abuse and neglect. (Welfare and Institutions Code section
300.)
2)Provides that a juvenile court can have jurisdiction over a
child because that child has committed acts that trigger
delinquency jurisdiction rendering the child a ward. (Welfare
and Institutions Code section 601, 602.)
FISCAL EFFECT : The bill as currently in print is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to allow a minor who is designated
as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court to be
known as a dual status child. Under existing law the juvenile
court can have jurisdiction over a child either because that
child is the subject of abuse and neglect and therefore comes
within the description of Welfare and Institutions Code section
300 as a dependent child, or because the child has committed
acts that prompt delinquency jurisdiction rendering the child a
ward under section 601 or 602.
When a child who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court
under one of these statutory provisions appears to also come
within the description of the other, current law provides for a
procedure for determining which status should continue, but
specifically prohibits a child from simultaneously being both a
ward and a dependent. (See Welfare and Institutions Code
section 241.1.)
This bill authorizes the probation department and the child
protective services department in any county to create a
protocol to permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be
designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile
court. A minor who is designated as both a dependent child and
AB 129
Page 3
a ward of the juvenile court would be known as a dual status
child. These provisions would also require the Judicial Council
to collect and compile data collected, to evaluate the results
of implementing the protocol, and to report its findings and any
resulting recommendations to the Legislature, within two years
of the date participating counties first deem a child to be a
dual status child.
The author points out that the proposed legislation provides
counties with the authority to decide if they want to adopt this
new strategy, and calls for the collection of data and the
preparation of an evaluation report to the Legislature
concerning the effect of implementation of the new protocols.
The author believes that the enactment of the bill will help
promote improvement in the juvenile justice system and will help
yield valuable information about the best approaches to these
cases.
The author also asserts that currently only California and
Colorado use an either/or approach to jurisdiction in juvenile
justice cases and that the other 48 states either use or have
some form of dual status approach.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsor of the bill, the Judicial
Council of California, writes, "Because the role of the juvenile
court in dependency and delinquency matters is different, and
because two different county agencies are responsible for
managing the welfare of dependents and wards (delinquent
children), the current system necessarily precludes certain
interventions with the child and his or her family." According
to the Judicial Council, "AB 129 grows out of the recognition
that some children need the interventions of both the dependency
and delinquency systems, and provides counties with the
authority to implement such an approach."
The sponsor also argues, "One key advantage to allowing a dual
status designation is that the court would be able to fully
address family reunification issues at the same time that it
seeks to rehabilitate a delinquent child. In this way, parents
who have found to be abusive or neglectful can be held
accountable at the same time that their children's behavioral
problems are addressed. Moreover, this approach provides for
greater access to resources and federal funds available to
dependent youth, even after they develop delinquency issues."
AB 129
Page 4
The co-sponsor of the bill, the Children's Law Center of Los
Angeles, also argues, "Much of the difficulty faced by children
caught between these two systems flows from California's
statutory prohibitions against a delinquent child with a
preexisting dependency simultaneously receiving supervision and
assistance from both court systems."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council of California (Sponsor)
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles (Co-Sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Daneen Bennigson / JUD. / (916)
319-2334