BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1229
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1229 (Evans) - As Amended: January 4, 2010
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : COUNSEL IN JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS: COST RECOVERY
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED TO SPECIFY THAT COURTS
ARE PERMITTED TO DESIGNATE AN OFFICER TO MAKE THE REQUIRED
FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF A PARENT'S ABILITY TO REIMBURSE THE COST
OF PROVIDING DEPENDENCY COUNSEL?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Last year, AB 131 (Evans), Chap. 413, Stats. 2009, established a
program for reimbursing the courts for the costs of providing
counsel to parents and their children in dependency actions, if
the parents have the financial ability to do so. Quite
appropriately in order to best protect a child in a dependency
case, the law prevents repayment if doing so would harm a
parent's ability to support the child or pose a barrier to
reunification. This ensures that struggling families, who
cannot afford to, are not asked to repay the costs of dependency
counsel. In order to determine if parents have the ability to
reimburse the cost of providing dependency counsel, there must
be an evaluation of their financial condition. Existing law
allows a financial evaluation officer to make that evaluation.
This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council, clarifies that the
financial evaluation officer may be an employee of the court or
may, with the agreement of the county, be the county's financial
evaluation officer. There is no known opposition to the bill.
SUMMARY : Makes technical changes to the Judicial Council's
cost-recovery program to collect reimbursements for counsel
appointed by the court to represent parents or their children in
dependency cases. Specifically, this bill allows the court to
designate a financial officer to make financial evaluations of
parents' liability for reimbursement of dependency costs.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 1229
Page 2
1)Permits the court to appoint counsel in a dependency case for
a parent or guardian of a dependent child when it appears to
the court that the parent or guardian wants counsel but is
currently unable to afford counsel. Requires the court to
appoint counsel when the child is or may be placed in
out-of-home care, except as specified. (Welfare &
Institutions Code section 317(a), (b). Unless otherwise
stated, all further statutory references are to that code.)
2)Requires the court to appoint counsel for an unrepresented
child in a dependency case, unless the court finds that the
child would not benefit from the appointment of counsel.
Requires appointed counsel to have caseload and training that
assures adequate representation of the child. (Section
317(c); Rule of Court 5.660.)
3)Provides that a person liable for support of a minor shall be
liable to the county for the costs of legal services rendered
to the minor by an attorney. Provides that there is no
liability for legal services if the petition to declare the
minor a dependent of the court is dismissed at or before the
jurisdictional hearing. (Section 903.1.)
4)Requires the Judicial Council to establish a cost-recovery
program to collect reimbursements for counsel appointed by the
court to represent parents or their children in juvenile court
cases. Requires the Judicial Council to develop a statewide
standard for determining ability to pay reimbursements for
counsel, as specified. Requires that all funds collected
through this reimbursement program be used to reduce
dependency counsel caseloads. (Section 903.47.)
5)Allows the court, with the consent of the county and pursuant
to terms and conditions agreed upon by the court and county,
to designate a financial evaluation officer to make financial
evaluations of liability for reimbursement for legal services
rendered to a minor, as provided. (Id.)
6)Allows a county board of supervisors to designate a financial
evaluation officer to make financial evaluations of liability
for specified reimbursement programs, including reimbursement
for legal services rendered to a minor, and specifies the
procedure for doing so. (Section 903.45.)
AB 1229
Page 3
COMMENTS : Last year, AB 131 (Evans) established a program for
reimbursing the courts for the costs of providing counsel to
parents and their children in dependency actions, if the parents
have the financial ability to do so. In order to best protect
children in dependency cases, the law prevents repayment if
doing so would harm a parent's ability to support the child or
pose a barrier to reunification. This ensures that struggling
families, who cannot afford to, are not asked to repay the costs
of dependency counsel.
Existing law allows a financial evaluation officer to make an
evaluation of a parent's financial condition to determine if
reimbursement of any or all of the dependency counsel costs are
appropriate. This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council,
clarifies that the financial evaluation officer may be an
employee of the court or may, with the agreement of the county,
be the county's financial evaluation officer.
According to the author, the clean-up language in this bill
"would clarify that AB 131 intended that the courts could either
identify a financial evaluation officer on their own staff, or
with the agreement of the county, use the county's financial
evaluator. However, the current language in AB 131 may be
misinterpreted as the courts needing the county's agreement to
create their own financial evaluation officer. The Judicial
Council believes that the current language would create more
work for both sides to come to an agreement."
Caseload Study for Dependency Counsel : SB 2160 (Schiff), Chap.
450, Stats. 2000, directed the Judicial Council, by July 1,
2001, to promulgate rules to establish caseload standards,
training requirements and guidelines for appointment of counsel
for children in dependency cases. The Judicial Council
promulgated rules that mandated appointment of counsel for
children, at the trial court level, in almost all cases. In
addition, the Administrative Offices of the Courts contracted
with the American Humane Association to study dependency counsel
caseloads and service delivery. In a June 2004 report, the
American Humane Association recommended a maximum caseload of
141 client cases per dependency attorney, though they suggested
that an optimal level would be 77.
The Judicial Council began testing the feasibility of the
standards and recommendations of the report through the
Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding and Training
AB 1229
Page 4
(DRAFT) pilot program, with the goal of improving representation
of parents and children in dependency cases as cost-effectively
as possible. Ten counties - Imperial, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Santa Cruz and Stanislaus - initially began testing the
recommendations through a centralized dependency counsel
administrative model.
The DRAFT program has measured the effect of reduced caseloads
and increased compensation for dependency counsel on improved
well-being outcomes for children, with the average caseload in
DRAFT counties at 191 clients per attorney. According to a
report by the Judicial Council, the DRAFT counties out-performed
non-DRAFT counties in improvements in key outcomes for children,
including decreased time for family reunification, less reentry
into the foster care system, decreased time to guardianship, and
increased placement with at least some siblings. (Judicial
Council, Dependency Counsel Caseload Standards: A Report to the
California Legislature (April, 2008).)
New Caseload Standard Adopted, but Not Funded : As a result of
the DRAFT program, the Judicial Council adopted a modified
caseload standard of 188 clients per dependency attorney, with a
half-time investigator or social worker per attorney. However,
according to Judicial Council, the courts lack sufficient
funding to implement this recommendation. As of July, 2008,
dependency counsel had an average caseload of 283 clients.
Judicial Council estimated it will cost an additional $57.1
million to implement the adopted caseload standard.
According to a Judicial Council pilot project in San Joaquin and
Stanislaus Counties, between 7 and 10 percent of parents could
afford to provide, on average, $850 in reimbursement for
dependency counsel costs, for a total annual cost recovery of
$3.3 million to $4.8 million. While the cost recovery will not
come close to bridging the $57.1 million funding shortfall, it
does provide some of the funding needed to reduce caseloads for
dependency counsel. As a result of that pilot project, AB 131
was introduced and became effective this year.
This bill makes a technical clarification to ensure that courts
can appoint a financial evaluation officer to determine a
parent's ability to repay the costs of dependency counsel .
Under AB 131, a financial evaluation officer, in determining a
parent's ability to pay, must consider the family's income, the
AB 1229
Page 5
necessary obligations of the family, and the number of
individuals dependent on that income. These important
evaluations ensure that the cost recovery program not be used to
impoverish already financially struggling families, and that
cost recovery efforts do not inadvertently cause families to
choose between repaying their debt to the courts and providing
their families with needed food, shelter and medical care.
Amendments taken in the Senate last year lacked clarity as to
whether a court needed county consent to appoint its own
financial evaluation officer. This bill clarifies that the
court may appoint its own financial evaluation officer or, with
the consent of the county, may use the county financial
evaluation officer to make the financial evaluations of whether
parents can afford to reimburse the court for the costs of
dependency counsel. This bill's clarification ensures that
financial officers can be easily appointed.
Prior Legislation : AB 131 (Evans), Chap. 413, Stats. 2009,
established a program whereby parents who have the ability to do
so are required to reimburse the cost of providing counsel to
the parents and their children in dependency actions.
SB 2160 (Schiff), Chap. 450, Stats 2000, required the court to
appoint counsel in almost all dependency cases. The bill also
required the court to determine, prior to appointment of
counsel, that counsel has a caseload and training that allows
adequate representation of the dependent child.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334