BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session AB 1229 (Evans) As Amended January 4, 2010 Hearing Date: June 10, 2010 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No KB:jd SUBJECT Juvenile Court Costs DESCRIPTION This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council, would authorize the court to designate a court financial evaluation officer to make evaluations of liability for reimbursement for the costs of legal services rendered to a minor. This bill would also require both the court financial evaluation officer and the county financial evaluation officer to follow the specific procedures set forth for county financial evaluation officers. BACKGROUND Last year, AB 131 (Evans, Chapter 413, Statutes of 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. In order to best protect a child in a dependency case, the law prevents the court from requiring repayment if doing so would harm a parent's ability to support the child or pose a barrier to reunification. This is to ensure that struggling families, with little income or means, are not asked to repay the costs of dependency counsel. Existing law allows a financial evaluation officer to make a determination on whether parents have the ability to reimburse the cost of providing dependency counsel. This bill would clarify that the financial evaluation officer may be an employee of the court or, with the agreement of the county, may be the county's financial evaluation officer. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW (more) AB 1229 (Evans) Page 2 of ? Existing law 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. Existing law requires the court to appoint counsel when the child is or may be placed in out-of-home care, except as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 317(a), (b).) Existing law 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. Existing law requires appointed counsel to have a caseload and training that assures adequate representation of the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 317(c); Rule of Court 5.660.) Existing law 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. Existing law 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 903.1.) Existing law 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. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a statewide standard for determining ability to pay reimbursements for counsel, as specified. Existing law requires that all funds collected through this reimbursement program be used to reduce dependency counsel caseloads. (Welf. & Inst. Sec. 903.47.) Existing law 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. (Welf. & Inst. Sec. 903.47.) Existing law 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. (Welf. & Inst. Sec. AB 1229 (Evans) Page 3 of ? 903.45.) This bill would clarify that the court may designate a financial officer to make financial evaluations of parents' liability for reimbursement of dependency costs. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill According to the author, 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 necessary obligations of the family, and the number of individuals dependent on that income. However, the author states that AB 131 lacks clarity as to whether a court needed county consent to appoint its own financial evaluation officer. This bill would clarify 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 conduct financial evaluations under the cost-recovery program. 2. Developing and implementing a reduced caseload standard SB 2160 (Schiff, Chapter 450, Statutes of 2000) amended Section 317 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to require the appointment of counsel for a child unrepresented by counsel, unless the court finds the child would not benefit from the appointment of counsel. SB 2160 also directed the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2001, to promulgate rules establishing caseload standards, training requirements, and guidelines for appointment of counsel for children in dependency cases. In addition to promulgating a rule that mandates the appointment of counsel for children subject to dependency proceedings in almost all cases, the Judicial Council contracted with the American Humane Association (AHA) to study dependency counsel caseloads and service delivery. In a report issued in June 2004, the AHA recommended a maximum caseload of 141 clients per full-time dependency attorney, with an optimal or best practice, caseload level of 77 client cases per attorney. The Judicial Council began testing the feasibility of the standards and recommendations of the report through the AB 1229 (Evans) Page 4 of ? Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding and Training (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. The Judicial Council acknowledged that 191 is a higher caseload than recommended by the AHA report, but due to fiscal realities, 191 was a more feasible caseload. 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).) The caseload standard adopted as a result of the DRAFT program is 188 clients per attorney, which has been modified to take into account the impact of nonattorney staffing, such as investigators and social workers, on requisite attorney time. 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 273 clients, and the Judicial Council estimates it will cost an additional $57.14 million to implement the adopted caseload standard. From 2005 to 2007, the Judicial Council implemented a pilot project in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties and found that between 7 to 10 percent of parents could afford to provide, on average, $850 in reimbursement for dependency counsel costs. Since there are 56,000 parents who are represented statewide, the Judicial Council estimates that the cost recovery program could generate $3.3 million to $4.8 million to be used in reducing attorney caseloads. Accordingly, AB 131 was enacted last year to establish a cost recovery program to provide some AB 1229 (Evans) Page 5 of ? of the funding needed to reduce caseloads for dependency counsel. 3. Bill would make a clarification as to appointment of financial evaluation officers Under AB 131, a financial evaluation officer, in determining a parent's ability to pay, must consider the family's income, the 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. However, as noted by the author, AB 131 lacks clarity as to whether a court needed county consent to appoint its own financial evaluation officer. This bill would specify 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 clarification would ensure that financial officers can be easily appointed. Support : None Known Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : Judicial Council Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : AB 131 (Evans, Chapter 413, Statutes of 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, Chapter 450, Statutes of 2000) required the court to appoint counsel in almost all dependency cases. The bill also required the court to determine, prior to appointment AB 1229 (Evans) Page 6 of ? of counsel, that counsel has a caseload and training that allows adequate representation of the dependent child. Prior Vote : Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0) Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0) Assembly Floor (Ayes 68, Noes 0) **************