BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
As Amended April 30, 2012
Hearing Date: June 19, 2012
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Juveniles: Educational Decisions
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require the court, after a parent's right to
make educational decisions for his or her minor child has been
limited, to determine if there is a responsible adult who is a
relative, nonrelative extended family member, or other adult
known to the child, who is available and willing to serve as the
child's educational representative before appointing an
educational representative or surrogate who is not known to the
child.
This bill would also require an appointed educational
representative or surrogate to meet with the child, investigate
the child's educational needs and whether those needs are being
met, and present recommendations to the court or attend court to
participate in any portion of the hearing which concerns the
child's education.
BACKGROUND
The juvenile dependency system seeks to ensure these children's
safety and protection, and where possible, preserve and
strengthen families. When children are taken from the custody
of their parents, typically for abuse or neglect, social workers
are required to release a child temporarily to a responsible
relative, unless a specified condition exists. (Welf. & Inst.
Code Sec. 309(a).) Social workers may also release a child into
the custody of a nonrelative family member, defined as "any
adult caregiver who has established a familial or mentoring
(more)
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
Page 2 of ?
relationship with the child." If no suitable relative or
nonrelative family member can assume custody, children are also
placed in foster homes. According to the Judicial Council, on
any given day in 2007, nearly 80,000 children were in foster
care in California. (Judicial Council, Facts about Foster Care,
İas of June 5, 2012].)
These placements, at least initially, are temporary, while the
social worker develops a case plan according to the following
priorities: maintain the child within his or her home; remove
the child but with the goal of reuniting the parent and child;
or find a permanent placement for the child.
This process of reunifying a family or finding an alternative
permanent placement for a dependent child can take a great deal
of time. On average, children placed in foster homes spend 27
months in foster care. Research shows that often the adults in
foster children's lives lack a full picture of their educational
needs. The Vera Institute for Justice reports that "İf]oster
parents İare] most concerned with the children's behavior; they
rarely expressed concern with their foster children's poor
grades, and most did not regularly help with homework.
Caseworkers often were not aware of their academic progress,
focusing instead on the frequent crises that characterize foster
care. School staff usually had little knowledge of a child's
foster care background and how bureaucratic demands of the
system might explain missed tests or assignments." (Finkelstein
et all, What Keeps Children in Foster Care from Succeeding in
School?, (July 2002) Vera Institute of Justice.)
Under existing California law, courts are authorized to appoint
educational rights holders (ERH), or educational representatives
for children when a parent's right to make educational decisions
for the child has been limited by the court. Typically, this
appointment happens at one of the initial hearings, before a
child is placed in foster care. In appointing an ERH, the court
is instructed to consider appointing a responsible adult
relative, nonrelative extended family member, foster parent,
family friend, mentor, or a court-ordered special advocate
(CASA) volunteer as the ERH if one is available and willing to
serve. Existing law requires the ERH to meet with the child at
least once and as often as necessary to make educational
decisions that are in the best interest of the child.
This bill seeks to strengthen educational support for children
who lack a capable adult to make these decisions. Specifically,
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
Page 3 of ?
after a parent's right to make educational decisions for his or
her child has been limited, this bill would require the court to
determine if there is a responsible adult who is a relative,
nonrelative extended family member, or other adult known to the
child who is available and willing to serve as the child's ERH
before appointing an ERH who is not known to the child.
This bill would also require an appointed ERH to meet with the
child, investigate the child's educational needs and whether
those needs are being met, and present recommendations to the
court or attend court to participate in any portion of the
hearings which concern the child's education.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes the juvenile court to limit a parent's
or guardian's right to make educational decisions on behalf of
his or her child, and to appoint an educational rights holder
(ERH) to make those decisions. If the court cannot find a
responsible adult to make educational decisions, the court, with
the input of interested individuals, may make educational
decisions for the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 319, 361,
726.)
Existing law limits the duration of the ERH order until the
child is placed in a permanent living arrangement with a foster
parent, relative caretaker, or nonrelative extended family
member who thereafter assumes the right to make educational
decisions on behalf of the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs.
361, 726.)
Existing law authorizes the juvenile court to limit a parent's
or guardian's right to make decisions about the regional center
and other developmental services for a child with developmental
disabilities, and to appoint a developmental services
decision-maker. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 319, 361, 706.5, 726,
4512, 5328.)
Existing law provides that a surrogate parent may represent a
child with exceptional needs in matters relating to
identification, assessment, instructional planning and reviewing
and revising the individualized education program. (Ed. Code
Sec. 56050.)
Existing law requires a local educational agency to appoint a
surrogate parent for a child to represent the child in
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
Page 4 of ?
educational matters, including when the child is adjudicated a
dependent or ward of the court and is referred for special
education services, when no parent for the child can be
identified, or when the local educational agency cannot locate a
parent. (Gov. Code Sec. 7579.5.)
Existing law grants a guardian or conservator of the person
authority over the education of the ward or conservatee, subject
to limitation by the court. (Prob. Code Sec. 2351.)
Existing rules of court provide that the court should consider
appointing a responsible adult relative, nonrelative extended
family member, foster parent, family friend, mentor, or CASA
volunteer as the educational representative if one is available
and willing to serve. Existing rules of court also require the
educational representative to meet with the child at least once
and as often as necessary to make educational decisions that are
in the best interest of the child. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule
5.650(f).)
This bill would require the court, at an initial detention
hearing or when a child is adjudicated a dependent of the court,
and the court limits a parent's educational rights, to determine
whether there is a responsible adult, who is a relative,
non-relative extended family member, or other adult known to the
child and who is willing and able to serve as the child's
educational representative, before appointing an educational
representative or surrogate who is not known to the child.
This bill would require an educational representative or
surrogate, prior to each review hearing, to meet with the child,
investigate the child's educational needs and whether those
needs are being met. The educational representative or
surrogate would be required to provide information and
recommendations concerning the child's educational needs to the
social worker or the probation officer, make written
recommendations to the court, and/or participate in those
portions of the review hearing that concern the child's
education.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
Page 5 of ?
Various California laws address the process for appointing an
educational rights holder (ERH) for foster youth, however,
enhancements to these laws are necessary to ensure greater
accountability for educational progress.
Current law requires that if a court limits a parent's
educational rights, it must either appoint a "responsible
adult" to act as the ERH or, if the child has special
education needs, refer the child to the Local Education
Agency (LEA) for appointment of a "surrogate parent."
Additionally, existing law only requires the ERH to meet with
the child one time (Rule 5.650(f)(2)) and does not require
the ERH to provide updates on the child's educational needs
and progress to the child's social worker or probation
officer, or to the court.
2.Prioritizing considerations for educational rights holders
When a court limits a parent's ability to make educational
decisions for his or her child, this bill would require the
court to determine whether there is a relative, a nonrelative
family member, or another person known to the child who is
available and willing to serve as the child's ERH before
appointing an adult who is not known to the child. Practically
speaking, this bill will require the social worker, at the
initial intake with the child, to enquire of the child as to
relatives and family friends whom the child knows. The social
worker would then report this information to the court and the
court would be required to consider these adults first in
choosing a suitable ERH.
Research indicates that academic challenges posed by poverty,
disability, and language barriers are compounded when children
also have to move from school to school as they are placed in
new foster homes. For foster children, each move potentially
represents a new home, family, school, teachers, and friends.
(King, Study: Foster children struggle to learn, (September 24,
2010) U.S.A. Today.) In support of this bill, Children Now
writes:
Tragically, children in foster care are much less likely than
children in the general population to have an engaged adult
supporting their education. This lack of educational support
is part of the cause of the significant gap in academic
achievement between foster children and other youth. Without
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
Page 6 of ?
an adult supporting their educational success, many foster
youth suffer delayed enrollment, are funneled into low
quality schools and remedial classes, lack meaningful
representation at special education planning meetings, and
fail to access resources such as tutors or summer school
programs.
Arguably this bill would help ensure that a person the child
trusts will be responsible for overseeing these important
educational decisions. As noted above, the adults involved in a
foster child's life generally have concerns that take higher
priority over a child's education. Foster parents are concerned
with behavioral issues, and social workers are occupied with the
crises that prevalent in foster care. Often teachers and the
school administration do not know about a child's history in the
foster system. Thus, in addition to providing educational
oversight, having a constant in and ERH may help ensure degree
of stability in the lives of many foster children.
3.Educational rights holders would be required to prepare for
each of the child's hearings
Under existing law an ERH is only required to meet with the
child once, regarding the child's particular needs and placement
in a public school, though an ERH is not prohibited from taking
a more active role in a child's education. The current law
outlines a number of considerations for the ERH to take into
account when placing a child in a public school, but does not
require subsequent meetings or check-ups to monitor the child's
progress, or to provide information to the social worker or
court. This bill would instead require that the ERH meet with
the child, investigate the child's needs and whether those needs
are being met, and provide information and recommendations to
the child's social worker prior to each review hearing. The ERH
would also be required to make written recommendations to the
court, and/or participate in hearings concerning the child's
education.
The Vera Institute argues that "establishing primary
responsibility for educational matters in each case would be a
useful reform. ?Greater information sharing could help-in
particular, giving caseworkers access to children's academic
records and giving teachers and other school staff information
about a child's foster situation."
This bill, in addition to what is required under existing law,
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
Page 7 of ?
would require an ERH to meet with the child to determine whether
his or her educational needs are being met. Therefore,
depending on the particular child, the ERH may need to meet with
him or her more frequently. This bill would also require an ERH
to prepare information and recommendations prior to each review
hearing, which are generally held at least every six months.
Thus, social workers and courts will have current information on
the educational status of the minor in determining what future
action is in his or her best interest. Arguably, at the very
least, the provisions of this bill will ensure that an ERH will
be able to provide meaningful information and updates related to
a child's education to the social worker and court, and
communicate with educators regarding the child's situation and
needs.
Support : Abrazo Foster Family Agency; Aspiranet; California
Alliance of Child and Family Services; Children Now; Disability
Rights Education and Defense Fund; Fresno County Foster Care
Standards and Oversight Committee; National Center for Youth Law
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Public Council: Children's Rights Project
Related Pending Legislation : SB 121 (Liu/Asm Hum. Services
Comm. 2011) would require that the a person holding the right to
make educational decisions for a foster youth to provide a
written statement to the local educational agency stating that
he or she has made that decision. This bill is being heard in
the Assembly Education Committee on June 13, 2012.
Prior Legislation :
AB 709 (Brownley, Chapter 463, Statutes of 2011) requires
schools to immediately enroll a foster child, even if the child
is unable to produce medical records, including, but not limited
to, records or other proof of immunization history.
SB 578 (Negrete McLeod, Chapter 472, Statutes of 2011) requires
a school district to accept coursework satisfactorily completed
by a pupil in foster care while attending another public school
even if the pupil did not complete the entire course and to
award that pupil full or partial credit for the coursework
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
Page 8 of ?
completed
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************