BILL ANALYSIS AB 1229 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 1229 (Evans) As Amended August 10, 2010 Majority vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |68-0 |(January 27, |SENATE: |22-12|(August 18, | | | |2010) | | |2010) | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: B. & P. 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. The Senate amendments make technical, clarifying changes. EXISTING LAW : 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. 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. 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. 4)Requires the Judicial Council to establish a cost-recovery AB 1229 Page 2 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. 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. 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. AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar to the version approved by the Senate. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs. COMMENTS : 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 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. AB 1229 Page 3 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." SB 2160 (Schiff), Chapter 450, Statutes of 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 (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 AB 1229 Page 4 California Legislature (April, 2008).) 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 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. AB 1229 Page 5 Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0005338