BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1048| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1048 Author: Torrico (D), et al Amended: 7/16/09 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-1, 7/7/09 AYES: Corbett, Harman, Florez, Leno NOES: Walters SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-3, 8/17/09 AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Hancock, Leno, Oropeza, Price, Wolk, Yee NOES: Denham, Runner, Walters NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 67-9, 6/3/09 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Child protection: safe surrender SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill extends the period during which a person may safely surrender a baby at designated sites as long as the proper procedures under the Safely Surrendered Baby law are followed. Specifically, this bill (1) allows the safe surrender of a baby up to 30 days old, rather than 72 hours, (2) permits a fire agency to designate a safe surrender site, upon approval of the local governing body, (3) immunizes a safe surrender site and its personnel from criminal, civil, or administrative liability for a CONTINUED AB 1048 Page 2 surrendered child prior to taking actual physical custody of the child, or prior to the time the surrender site or its personnel knows, or should know, that the child has been surrendered, and (4) requires the Department of Social Services to report specified information to the Legislature. ANALYSIS : Existing law makes it a crime for a parent or other person entrusted with a child younger than 14 years of age to abandon the child (Section 271 of the Penal Code) and to fail to provide for the child or to present the child to an orphanage or similar institution as an orphan. (Section 271a of the Penal Code) Existing law makes it a crime for a parent willfully to fail, without lawful excuse, to provide a child with necessary food, shelter, medical assistance, or other remedial care. (Section 270 of the Penal Code) Existing law protects from prosecution under the state's child abandonment laws a parent or other person having lawful custody of a child 72 hours or younger, who voluntarily surrenders physical custody of the child to personnel on duty at a safe surrender site. (Section 271.5 of the Penal Code) Existing law provides a procedure for the surrender of newborns 72 hours or younger by a parent or other responsible person at a hospital or a site (safe surrender site) designated by the county, without incurring criminal liability under the state's child abandonment laws. (Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code) This bill allows the surrender of babies up to 30 days old by a parent or another responsible person. This bill requires, by January 1, 2013, the Department of Social Services (DSS) to begin reporting to the Legislature, on an annual basis, specified information and statistics related to the safe surrender program. Existing law authorizes a county to designate a site for the surrender of a newborn up to 72 hours old under the Safely Surrendered Baby law. (Section 1255.7(a)(1)(A) of AB 1048 Page 3 the Health and Safety Code) This bill authorizes a local fire agency, upon approval of the appropriate local governing body, to designate a site for the safe surrender of a newborn under the Safely Surrendered Baby law. Existing law provides immunity from civil, criminal, and administrative liability to a safe surrender site or its personnel that accepts custody of a surrendered child in good faith belief that action is required or authorized under the Safely Surrendered Baby law, including instances where the child is older than 72 hours or the person surrendering the child did not have lawful physical custody of the surrendered child. (Section 1255.7(h) of the Health and Safety Code) This bill further immunizes from civil, criminal, and administrative liability a safe surrender site or its personnel for a surrendered child prior to taking actual physical custody of the child and prior to the time that the site or its personnel knows or should know that the child has been surrendered. Background SB 1368 (Brulte, Chapter 824, Statutes of 2000) enacted the Safely Surrendered Baby law, which allows the surrender of a newborn by a parent or other responsible person to a safe surrender site, where the abandoned newborn may receive medical and other care until the county takes over custody of the newborn. This legislation was introduced to provide mothers of unwanted newborns a safe alternative to abandonment of the child in trash bins, alleys, or other places where the babies would be unprotected and could pass away. The bill created safe places (such as an emergency room of a hospital) where a person may surrender the baby and, if they change their mind, may retrieve the baby within a specified time. The bill also provided immunity from criminal prosecution for violation of the child abandonment laws to the person who safely surrendered the newborn. A sunset date of January 1, 2006 was part of the original bill, which was later removed by SB 116 (Dutton, Chapter 625, Statutes of 2005), making the safe surrender AB 1048 Page 4 law permanent. Prior Legislation AB 2262 (Torrico), 2007-08 Session, would have allowed for the safe surrender of a baby up to seven days old, rather than 72 hours; permitted a fire agency to designate a safe-surrender site, upon approval of the local governing body; and would have immunized a safe-surrender site and its personnel from criminal, civil, or administrative liability, as specified. The bill would have directed the Department of Health Care Services, among others, to issue updated instructions on or before July 1, 2009 to clarify what information was being gathered with respect to surrendered babies and their mothers. The bill was vetoed. AB 81 (Torrico), 2007-08 Session, would have extended the age at which an infant can be anonymously surrendered by a birth parent without criminal liability for child abandonment under the safe-surrender statute from 72 hours or younger to seven days or younger. The bill would have also authorized a local fire agency to be a safe-surrender site, as specified, and required DSS to conduct a statewide public awareness campaign for the safe-surrender program and establish a toll-free number to provide the public with information about the program. The bill was vetoed. AB 1873 (Torrico), of 2005-06 Session, sought to expand the safe-surrender law to allow a parent or individual with lawful custody of a child 30 days old or younger to be surrendered to a designated safe-surrender site. The bill was vetoed. SB 116 (Dutton), Chapter 625, Statutes of 2005, deleted the sunset date of January 1, 2006 from the safe-surrender law. SB 1413 (Brulte), Chapter 103, Statutes of 2004, immunized from civil damages a person who assists another person to voluntarily surrender physical custody of a newborn under the safe- surrender law, provided that the person is not compensated, renders the assistance in good faith, and believes in good faith that the person being assisted is a parent or other person having lawful custody of the AB 1048 Page 5 newborn. "Assistance" was defined to include providing transportation or accompanying the parent or other individual to the safe-surrender site. The bill further specified that this immunity would not extend to acts or omissions constituting gross negligence. SB 139 (Brulte), Chapter 150, Statutes 2003, provided that a child may be surrendered at any hospital or other designated safe-surrender site. Previously, a designated employee at a hospital emergency room or other location was the only person permitted to accept a baby. AB 2817 (Maddox), Chapter 1099, Statutes 2002, requires school districts to include information regarding the safe-surrender law in sex education classes. SB 1368 (Brulte), Chapter 824, Statutes of 2000, as described above, originally enacted the state's safe-surrender law. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund Authorizes new sites $0 $0 $0 General Expands safe surrender unknown, likely very minor new Local* eligibility costs Expands mandate on CPS unknown, likely very minor** General Requires new DSS report $16 $32General * These costs are not reimbursable **Potentially reimbursable state mandate on county child protective services (CPS) AB 1048 Page 6 SUPPORT : (Verified 8/19/09) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Association of California Healthcare Districts California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Catholic Conference California Commission on the Status of Women California Fire Chiefs Association California Medical Association California Professional Firefighters California Psychiatric Association California Psychological Association California State PTA City of San Jose Fire Districts Association of California Kern Child Abuse Prevention Council League of California Cities Yolo County Board of Supervisors OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/19/09) California State Association of Counties California Welfare Directors Association Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, this bill expands the scope of a life-saving law. Despite the protection of anonymity and confidentiality that the current law provides, the author asserts that the stringent 72-hour provision fails to account for factors such as postpartum depression, language and geographic barriers, and the lack of public awareness. The author's office states that these factors may prevent parents from making a coherent and informed decision on such a crucial matter. The State Auditor released a report in April 2008 on the Safely Surrendered Baby Law, which found, among other things, that funding for the program, public awareness, and the information provided to counties about the program were insufficient. (Bureau of State Audits, "Safely Surrendered Baby Law: Stronger Guidance from the State and Better Information for the Public Could Enhance Its Impact", April AB 1048 Page 7 2008 Report 2007-124 (Report).) The State Auditor further found that the number of abandoned babies had previously been underreported by DSS. The safe-surrender law originally required DSS to report all children abandoned before they reached the age of one year. However, DSS only gathered and reported statistics on abandoned babies seven days old and younger. According to the audit, at least 404 babies have been abandoned between 2001 to 2007, as opposed to 175, the previously reported number. The author's office reports that shortly after the Auditor's report was released, at least two babies were abandoned. One of the babies was a nine-day-old baby abandoned on the track of a Vacaville school. The mother left the baby within a half-mile of a fire station and a hospital, both designated safe-surrender sites. The baby was too old to be safely surrendered and the mother had suffered a psychotic breakdown. Finally, the author's office states that currently 22 states have safe surrender provisions that give parents a month or longer to surrender their baby. North Dakota and Missouri have gone so far as to allow a parent up to one year without the threat of prosecution for child abandonment provided that the child is left with a health care provider. Supporters of the bill contend that the current 72-hour threshold is too stringent and does not account for situations where, for example, mothers suffer from postpartum depression psychotic breaks weeks after giving birth. The author's office also points out that some women may live in counties where safe surrender sites are not readily accessible. In this situation a woman may have to find a mode of transportation into a different county to leave the infant at a safe-surrender site, which may not be feasible within 72 hours. The author's office also points to the higher reported number of abandoned babies as evidence that existing law needs to be adjusted to allow for the surrender of infants older than 72 hours. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : A number of law enforcement and social service agencies strongly support the safe-surrender AB 1048 Page 8 law, but are opposed to extending the surrender period to 30 days. Opponents claim that the original law was meant to address particular situations in which newborns are at greatest risk of abandonment. Expanding the law to 30 days, opponents claim, does nothing to address those particular risks and will only create a number of unintended and unwanted consequences, some of which may even put children at greater risk. The County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) writes that the 30-day provision is not supported by research on child abandonment, is inconsistent with the policy of anonymity, and circumvents well-considered child protection and relinquishment policies. CWDA points out that existing research clearly distinguishes between women who kill or abandon babies shortly after birth and those who endanger their babies later on. Research shows that mothers who kill or abandon newborns do so within the first 24 hours because they are in a severe state of denial about their pregnancy and/or have managed to keep their pregnancy a secret. Without a safe-surrender site that maintains their anonymity and protects their secret, young women in such a situation are likely to abandon a baby in an unsafe place. This is why the anonymity guaranteed by the safe surrender is so essential. CWDA claims that women who kill their babies after this initial period do so for quite different reasons: They may suffer from postpartum depression or mental illness, or perhaps they are motivated by a misguided belief that the child will be better off dead or that God is commanding them to kill their child. Clearly these women need help, but CWDA contends that safe-surrender sites will not help them or their children. CWDA contends that women who have cared for their children for up to 30 days have probably not been able to keep this a secret from family and friends. They would not benefit, therefore, from the anonymity of a safe-surrender site. Of course, it is possible that after the three-day period some women (or men for that matter) may feel so overwhelmed that they feel that they can no longer safely or adequately care for their child. However, CWDA points out that there are already existing methods for dealing with this situation, such as "crisis nurseries" or lawful relinquishment. For example, AB 1048 Page 9 existing voluntary relinquishment laws enable a parent to surrender a child to a county child welfare agency and to place a child in foster care for up to six months. According to CWDA, these options not only remove the child from potential danger but also provide counseling, and opportunity to gather critically needed medical information, and better security for the rights of birthparents. This process is also better for children, who in the safe-surrender context might be denied information about their parental and medical history. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles County Sheriff also oppose this bill for essentially the same reasons set forth by CWDA. In addition to the arguments made by CWDA, these agencies pointed out that extending the time period might result in abusive parents using the safe surrender law to escape criminal responsibility for child abuse or neglect. The California State Association of Counties is also opposed to the bill in its current form, but states that seven days is a more appropriate expansion of the surrender period. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gilmore, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Villines, Bass NOES: Anderson, Fuller, Gaines, Hagman, Knight, Logue, Miller, Niello, Tran NO VOTE RECORDED: Block, Duvall, Garrick, Yamada RJG:mw 8/19/09 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE AB 1048 Page 10 **** END ****