BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2292|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2292
Author: Nielsen (R)
Amended: 4/10/12 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/12/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Corbett, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 72-0, 4/30/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Juveniles: reunification orders
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires the court to consider the
admissible and relevant evidence before issuing an order
returning a minor to the physical custody of his/her
parents in dependency and wardship proceedings.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a minor may be
removed from the physical custody of his/her parents and
become a dependent for the juvenile court for serious abuse
or neglect, or risk of serious abuse or neglect. (Welfare &
Institutions Code (WIC) Section 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. (WIC Section 361.5)
CONTINUED
AB 2292
Page
2
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. (WIC Section 388(c))
Existing law requires the court, at the review hearing, to
order a dependent child returned to the custody of his/her
parents unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that returning the child will create a
substantial risk of harm to the child. (WIC Section
366.21)
Existing law requires the court, at the permanency hearing,
to order a dependent child returned to the custody of
his/her parents unless the court finds, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that returning the child will create a
substantial risk of harm to the child. (WIC Section
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 truancy, and may detain the minor as
specified. Placement of detained minors may include foster
care. (WIC Section 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/her parents unless the court finds, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that returning the child
will create a substantial risk of harm to the child. (WIC
Section 727.2 and 727.3)
This bill requires the court to consider the admissible and
relevant evidence before issuing an order returning a minor
to the physical custody of his/her parents in dependency
and wardship proceedings.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
CONTINUED
AB 2292
Page
3
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/13/12)
Crime Victims United
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author,
"ÝC]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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 72-0, 4/30/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Bonilla, Bradford, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Chesbro,
Conway, Cook, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon,
Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi,
Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres,
Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blumenfield, Brownley, Cedillo, Davis,
Fuentes, Furutani, Logue, Smyth
RJG:do 6/14/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED