BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1425|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1425
Author: Negrete McLeod (D)
Amended: 6/26/12
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/19/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
SUBJECT : Juveniles: dependent children
SOURCE : County of San Bernardino
DIGEST : This bill prohibits a court from granting a
hearing to modify a denial of reunification services, or a
change in a custody or visitation order, for parents whose
children were removed for extreme physical abuse, sexual
abuse, or because the parent caused the death of another
child, as specified, unless it appears that the best
interest of the child would be promoted by the proposed
change in order. This bill prohibits a court from granting
the modification unless the court finds, by clear and
convincing evidence that the proposed change is in the best
interest of the child.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a minor may be
removed from the physical custody of his or her parents for
serious abuse or neglect, or risk of serious abuse or
neglect including:
The child has suffered or there is a substantial risk
CONTINUED
SB 1425
Page
2
that the child will suffer, serious physical harm
inflicted nonaccidentally by the;
The child has suffered or there is a substantial risk the
child will suffer serious physical harm or illness as a
result of neglect;
The child has suffered or there is a substantial risk
that the child will suffer serious emotional damage as a
result of the conduct of the parent;
The child has been sexually abused, or there is a
substantial risk that the child will be sexually abused
by the parent, guardian, or member of the household, or
the guardian has failed to adequately protect the child
from sexual abuse when the parent knew or should have
known the child was in danger;
The child is under the age of five and has suffered
severe physical abuse, as specified;
The child's parent or guardian caused the death of
another child through abuse or neglect;
The child has been left without any provision for
support, or physical custody of the child has been
voluntarily surrendered, as specified;
The child has been subjected to an act(s) of cruelty by
the parent or guardian or a member of his or her
household, or the parent or guardian has failed to
adequately protect the child from acts of cruelty, as
specified; or
The child's sibling has been abused or neglected and
there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused
or neglected, as specified. (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.)
CONTINUED
SB 1425
Page
3
Existing law provides that if the court finds one of the
following conditions by clear and convincing evidence,
reunification services need not be provided to a family:
When a parent has voluntarily relinquished the child, as
specified;
The parent's whereabouts are unknown;
Where a parent is suffering from a metal disability that
renders him or her unable to adequately care for the
child;
Where the child or a sibling of the child have been
adjudicated a dependent of the court as a result of
physical or sexual abuse
If a parent or guardian of the child has causes the death
of another child through abuse or neglect; or
That the child has been adjudicated as a result of severe
sexual abuse or the infliction of severe physical harm to
the child, a sibling, or half sibling by a parent or
guardian, and the court finds that it would not benefit
the child to pursue reunification services. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(b).)
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 permits a party to file for reconsideration of
an order terminating or denying reunification services if
the petitioner shows that changed circumstances require a
modification of the court's order. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
388(c).)
Existing law provides that a court must order a hearing on
the merits of a petition filed under Welfare and
CONTINUED
SB 1425
Page
4
Institutions Code Section 388 if it appears that the best
interests of the child may be promoted by the proposed
change of an order, recognition of a sibling relationship,
termination of jurisdiction, or clear and convincing
evidence supporting revocation or termination of
court-ordered reunification services (Welf. & Inst. Code
Sec. 388(d).)
Existing law requires the court to construe the petition
for modification of an order liberally, in favor of
granting a hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 5.570(a).)
This bill prohibits a court from granting a hearing to
modify a denial of reunification services, or modification
in a custody or visitation order, for parents whose
children were removed for extreme physical or sexual abuse,
or because the parent caused the death of another child, as
specified, unless it appears that the best interests of the
child would be promoted by the proposed change in order.
This bill prohibits a court from granting the modification
unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence
that the proposed change is in the best interest of the
child.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/26/12)
County of San Bernardino (source)
Executive Committee of the State Bar of California
Los Angeles District Attorney
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, this bill
addresses the "most egregious factual circumstances under
which a parent can be denied reunification services, to
require when a parent files a petition to modify those
orders, that the matter be heard under the same clear and
convincing evidence standard that Ŭthe] court used
originally to deny reunification. It is rare that a change
of parental circumstances within the 120 days would be
persuasive when the abuse was found to be so severe and
injurious. However it is common for parent's attorneys to
CONTINUED
SB 1425
Page
5
file such petitions prior to the ? hearing and the lower
standard of proof results in most petitions being heard,
resulting Ŭin] delays of permanency to the most severely
abused children."
RJG:n 6/26/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED