BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2292 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair AB 2292 (Nielsen) - As Amended: April 10, 2012 PROPOSED CONSENT SUBJECT : DEPENDENCY HEARINGS: EVIDENCE KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER ADMISSIBLE AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEFORE ORDERING A FOSTER CHILD RETURNED TO HIS OR HER PARENTS? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. SYNOPSIS This non-controversial bill, sponsored by Crime Victims United, seeks to ensure that judges consider the evidence before returning a dependent child to their parents. Specifically, this bill requires that the court at review and permanency hearings for foster children, whether for dependent children or for wards of the court who are also in foster care, consider relevant and admissible evidence before determining that it is safe to return a child to his or her parents or guardian. The author believes that this bill is necessary to protect children during the reunification process. This bill simply clarifies that the court must consider the relevant and admissible evidence before ruling. As such, this bill is declarative of existing law, which requires the court to consider the evidence before making an order. There is no opposition to this version of the bill. SUMMARY : Requires a juvenile court, at specified hearings, to consider the admissible and relevant evidence before returning a foster child to his or her parents. Specifically, this bill requires that at a review or permanency hearing for a dependent child or a delinquent child in the foster care system, the juvenile court must consider the admissible and relevant evidence when determining whether to return the child to his or her parents or guardian or retain the child in foster care. EXISTING LAW : AB 2292 Page 2 1)Provides that a child may become a dependent of the juvenile court and removed from his or her parents or guardian on the basis of abuse or neglect. (Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300. Unless stated otherwise, all further references are to that code.) 2)Provides that a juvenile court may adjudge a minor as a ward of the court because the minor has committed criminal acts or is habitually disobedient or truant and may detain the minor if continuance in his or her home is contrary to the minor's welfare. Placement of detained minors may include foster care. (Sections 602 et seq.) 3)Requires the court, at the review hearing, to order a dependent child returned to the custody of his or her parents unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that returning the child would create a substantial risk of harm to the child. (Section 366.21.) 4)Requires the court, at the permanency hearing, whether held timely or properly continued, to order a dependent child returned to the custody of his or her parents unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that returning the child would create a substantial risk of harm to the child. (Sections 366.21, 366.22, 366.25.) 5)Requires the court to review the status of each ward of the court placed in foster care every six month. At review and permanency hearings, requires the court to order the child returned to the custody of his or her parents unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that returning the child would create a substantial risk of harm to the child. (Sections 727.2 and 727.3.) COMMENTS : This non-controversial bill seeks to ensure that juvenile courts carefully consider the evidence before rendering their decisions. Specifically, this bill requires that the court at review and permanency hearings for foster children, whether for dependent children or for wards of the court who are also foster children, consider relevant and admissible evidence before determining that it is safe to return a child to his or her parents or guardian. The author believes that this bill is necessary to protect AB 2292 Page 3 children during the reunification process: "Protecting children should always be the priority of the judicial system. One aspect that needs to be addressed is how our court system handles reunification." Basic Background on Juvenile Hearings : If the child is removed from his or her parents, then an initial detention hearing is held either on the same day that the petition is filed or on the next court day to determine whether the minor should be further detained. Within 15 days of the dependency court's decision to detain the child, the court must hold a jurisdictional hearing to decide, based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether the child falls within the dependency court's jurisdiction. If the child continues to be detained, a dispositional hearing is held no later than ten days after the jurisdictional hearing. The court must review the case of each foster child who has been removed from his or her parents every six months. At this review hearing, the court assesses the parents' progress towards possible reunification. The court can reunify the family and dismiss the case, reunify the family and continue to monitor the family through family maintenance services, or maintain the case without, at that point, reunification. Generally within 12 months after the child is removed from his or her parents, the court must determine, in a permanency hearing, whether the child should be returned home or whether efforts to reunite the family should be terminated. If the child is not returned home, efforts could still continue to reunify the family. If reunification efforts end, the court must determine a different permanency plan for the child. Possibilities include adoption, legal guardianship or some other permanent arrangement. This Bill Clarifies the Court's Obligation to Consider Evidence : At each of the hearings affected by this bill - the review and the permanency hearings - there is a statutory presumption that a child should be returned to his or her parents or guardian. In order not to return the child, the court must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that returning the child would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The court must read and consider the social worker's report, as well as other reports or evidence submitted. AB 2292 Page 4 This bill simply clarifies that the court must consider the relevant and admissible evidence before ruling. As such, this bill is declarative of existing law, which requires the court to consider the evidence before making an order. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Crime Victims United of California (sponsor) Opposition (to the bill as amended) None on file Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334