BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2060
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2060 (Bonilla)
As Amended August 7, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |70-0 |(May 25, 2012) |SENATE: |39-0 |(August 9, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Enhances the appointment and duties of a responsible
adult authorized to make educational decisions for a child under
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires the court, at an initial petition hearing and when a
child is adjudicated a dependent or a ward of the court, where
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.
2)Provides that, if an educational representative or surrogate
is appointed for the child, the representative or surrogate
must meet with the child, investigate the child's educational
needs and whether those needs are being met, and, prior to
each review hearing, provide information and recommendations
concerning the child's educational needs to the social worker
or, for a ward, the probation officer, make written
recommendations to the court and participate in those portions
of the review hearing that concern the child's education.
3)Clarifies that the provisions in 1) above, in no way remove
the obligation to appoint a surrogate parent for students with
disabilities who do not have parental representation in
special educational procedures, as required.
The Senate amendments avoid chaptering out issues with SB 1013
(Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 35, Statutes of
2012.
AB 2060
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Gives the juvenile court the authority to limit a parent's or
guardian's right to make educational decisions on behalf of
his or her child, and to appoint an "education rights holder"
to make those decisions. If the court cannot find a
responsible adult to make educational decisions and
appointment of a surrogate parent for education is not
warranted, as defined, allows the court, with the input of
interested individuals, to make educational decisions for the
child.
2)Limits the duration of the education rights holder order
until, among other possible scenarios, 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.
3)Gives the juvenile court the authority 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 decisionmaker.
4)Provides that a surrogate parent, as defined by federal law,
may represent a child with exceptional needs in matters
relating to identification, assessment, instructional planning
and reviewing and revising the individualized education
program.
5)Requires the local educational agency to appoint a surrogate
parent for a child to represent the child in educational
matters in certain circumstances, 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
discover the location of a parent.
6)Grants a guardian or conservator of the person authority over
the education of the ward or conservatee, subject to
limitation by the court.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
AB 2060
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by Public Council, Children's
Rights Project, is intended to ensure the continuity and
accessibility of educational services for students involved with
the juvenile court. The juvenile court seeks to protect the
safety and wellbeing of children who are at risk of, or have
experienced abuse or neglect. This includes meeting the child's
educational needs and goals. When the parents of children under
the supervision of the juvenile court are found by the court to
be unsuitable to make educational decisions on behalf of their
children, the court may appoint a responsible adult to serve as
the child's "education rights holder." These students' parents'
rights to make educational decisions for them may be temporarily
or permanently removed. Without appointment of another adult to
make those decisions, there may be no one who has the authority
to allow the child to access appropriate educational resources.
A study by the Vera Institute of Justice shows the difficulty
foster youth have in school and the need for caring adults to
help them succeed:
A large portion of the half million children in foster
care nationwide perform poorly in school. They lag
behind their non-foster peers academically and are more
likely to have behavior and discipline problems. . . .
We found that foster children face roadblocks that
other economically disadvantaged children do not face,
roadblocks that can affect their academic performance.
The children had concerns about maintaining ties with
their biological parents and caring for siblings that
often distracted them from schoolwork. Mandated court
appearances and doctors' appointments caused them to
miss school frequently. Behavior problems-both
aggression and withdrawing-which may be rooted in
pre-placement trauma, kept them from focusing on
school. And they often avoided social interactions
with peers in order to keep their foster status hidden.
Yet they blamed themselves-not foster care or the
schools-for their poor academic achievement.
AB 2060
Page 4
The adults in these foster children's lives often
lacked a full picture of their educational needs.
Foster parents were 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.
No one acknowledged primary responsibility for the
educational progress of these children.
(Marni Finkelstein, et al., What Keeps Children in Foster Care
From Succeeding in School? Executive Summary (Vera Institute of
Justice 2002).)
This bill enhances children's rights in two key ways. First,
the bill requires that before a court, when looking for an
educational representative for a child, can appoint a stranger
to that role, the court must first 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. Supporters note that this provision should help
ensure that children have engaged adults personally familiar to
the child, rather than strangers, making critical educational
decisions for the child.
Second, the bill requires that, if an educational representative
or surrogate is appointed for the child, the representative or
surrogate must meet with the child, investigate the child's
educational needs and whether those needs are being met, and,
prior to each review hearing, provide information and
recommendations concerning the child's educational needs to the
social worker (or probation officer in the case of wards), make
written recommendations to the court and participate in those
portions of the review hearing that concern the child's
education. This is a significant increase from the current law,
which only requires, under rules of court, that the educational
representative meet with the child once and does not require
updates and progress reports to the child's social worker or
probation officer and the court. The provisions of this bill
AB 2060
Page 5
help ensure that a caring, responsible adult is watching out for
the child's educational needs, on an ongoing basis.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0004704