AB 2292 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis

BILL ANALYSIS Ó

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session

AB 2292 (Nielsen)
As Amended April 10, 2012
Hearing Date: June 12, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
NR

SUBJECT

Juveniles: Reunification Orders

DESCRIPTION

This bill would require the court to consider the admissible and
relevant evidence before issuing an order returning a minor to
the physical custody of his or her parents in dependency and
wardship proceedings.

BACKGROUND

When severe child abuse, or a risk of abuse, comes to the
attention of the dependency system, the child is immediately
removed from a parent's physical custody. The court then holds
an initial detention hearing to determine whether the child
should be further detained. Within the next few weeks the court
must determine at a jurisdictional hearing whether the child has
suffered or is in substantial risk of serious harm and thereby
falls within the dependency court's jurisdiction. When a child
is detained, within ten days, the court must hold a
dispositional hearing to ascertain whether there are child
welfare services that would permit the child to return home
pending the next hearing, and, if appropriate, order services to
be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and family.
(Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 319(f).) These determinations are based
largely on the information presented to the court in the social
worker's report of the case.

Reunification with a family generally takes place in the 12
months from the date of detention, and the court reviews each
case at least every six months. Parents are required to meet
(more)

AB 2292 (Nielsen)
Page 2 of ?

goals outlined in a case plan submitted by the social worker.
Where an exception to reunification applies, or if at the end of
the reunification time frame the court finds that reunification
is not in the child's best interest, the court must determine a
different permanency plan for the child which may involve
adoption or legal guardianship. At this point, the court may
begin terminating the parent's rights to the child.
This bill would restate existing law by requiring courts to
consider relevant and admissible evidence before issuing an
order returning a minor to the physical custody of his or her
parents in dependency and wardship proceedings.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law provides that a minor may be removed from the
physical custody of his or her parents and become a dependent
for the juvenile court for serious abuse or neglect, or risk of
serious abuse or neglect. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.)

Existing law provides that unless certain exceptions apply, as
specified, the court must order the social worker to provide
services to reunify the family if the child is legally removed
from a parent. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5)

Existing law permits a party to petition the court to terminate
reunification services if there is a change in circumstances
justifying termination of court ordered reunification services
or if an action or inaction of a parent or guardian creates a
substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur. (Welf.
& Inst. Code Sec. 388(c).)

Existing law 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 366.21.)

Existing law requires the court, at the permanency 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 366.21,
366.22, and 366.25.)

Existing law provides that a juvenile court may find a minor as
a ward of the court for criminal acts, habitual disobedience, or

AB 2292 (Nielsen)
Page 3 of ?

truancy, and may detain the minor as specified. Placement of
detained minors may include foster care. (Welf. & Inst. Code
Sec. 602 et seq.)

Existing law requires the court to review the status of each
ward of the court placed in foster care every six months. At
review and permanency hearings, existing law 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 727.2 and 727.3.)

AB 2292 (Nielsen)
Page 4 of ?

COMMENT

1.Stated need for the bill

In support of this bill the author writes:

İC]urrent law does not go far enough to protect children. AB
2292 would address this, by adding another step to the
reunification process. It would state that the court, before
issuing a reunification order, must consider all admissible
and relevant evidence. In doing so, this creates a standard
that must be adhered to across the state and would provide
another layer of protection for children in California.

2.This bill restates existing law

This bill would require judges to consider relevant and
admissible evidence at review an permanency hearings. (See
Background.) At these hearings a court must order reunification
services if a child was removed from a parent who did not
voluntarily relinquish parental rights, unless certain
exceptions apply. (Welf. & Inst. Sec. 360(a).) At these
hearings, the court may consider as evidence, among other
information it finds relevant, the social worker's report and
recommendations, the recommendations of a court-appointed
special advocate (CASA), the efforts and progress of the parent
or guardian, and the criminal history of the parent or guardian
subsequent to the child's removal. (Welf. & Inst. Sec.
366.21(e); Cal Rules of Court, Rule 5.708(c)-(e).)

At each review hearing, the court must terminate dependency
jurisdiction and return the child to the custody of his or her
parent or guardian, unless the social services agency
establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions
still exist that justify the court taking jurisdiction of the
child or that such conditions will exist if supervision is
withdrawn. (Welf. & Inst. Secs. 364 and 727.2.)

Similarly, at a permanency hearing the court must return a
dependent child to the custody of his or her parents or guardian
unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
returning the child would create a substantial risk of harm to
the child. (Welf. & Inst. Secs. 366.21 and 727.3.) Thus, there
is a presumption, at both review and permanency hearings, that a
child should be returned to his or her parent or guardian unless
it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that returning

AB 2292 (Nielsen)
Page 5 of ?

the child would create a substantial risk to the safety,
protection, and physical or emotional well-being of the child.

This bill would provide that the court must consider relevant
and admissible evidence before returning a child to his or her
parents after a review or permanency hearing. Because existing
law requires a court to consider evidence at these hearings, the
language of this bill does not add to or alter the existing
standard regarding evidence a court must consider under current
law.
3.Evidentiary standards

This bill would require courts to consider relevant and
admissible evidence before returning a child to the custody of
his or her parents. In a court of law, only relevant evidence
is admissible, but the admissibility of individual pieces of
evidence is limited by the purpose for which it is submitted.

In order for evidence to be relevant, it must be material and
offer probative value. Evidence is material if it is directed
to a proposition properly provable in trial. Probative value
relates to individual pieces of evidence, and their likelihood
to make the overall proposition more or less likely to be true.

As a standard rule, a court may not consider evidence that is
not relevant or admissible. Under current law, a court is
required to take into consideration a child's best interests.
Courts are also required to return a child to the custody of his
or her parents unless it is shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that reunification is not in the child's best
interests. (See Comment 2.) Thus, under current law, courts are
required to look to relevant and admissible evidence to
determine the best interests of the child.

Support : Crime Victims United

Opposition : None Known

HISTORY

Source : Author

Related Pending Legislation : None Known

AB 2292 (Nielsen)
Page 6 of ?

Prior Legislation : None Known

Prior Vote :

Assembly Floor (Ayes 72, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************