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)
**************