BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 1761 (Hall) - Dependent children: placement.
Amended: March 28, 2014 Policy Vote: HS 4-0; JUD 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 1761 would authorize a social worker to place a
child who has been removed from the custody of his or her parent
in the home of a relative or non-relative extended family member
(NREFM) after the detention hearing and pending the
dispositional hearing, and requires the county welfare
department to initiate an assessment of the relative's or
NREFM's suitability, as specfiied.
Fiscal Impact: Potentially significant state costs (General
Fund*) for county social workers to conduct additional
assessments of relatives and NREFMs that have requested
placement of a child after the detention hearing and pending a
dispositional hearing. Assuming two to four hours per
assessment, annual costs to provide assessments for 10 percent
of the 8,500 relative placements annually would cost in the
range of $125,000 to $250,000 annually.
*Proposition 30 (November 2012) specifies that for legislation
enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of
increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for
realigned programs, including child welfare services, the
provisions shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that
the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.
Background: Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a
child into temporary custody under certain circumstances,
including if he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the
child is the victim of abuse or neglect. Under existing law, if
the child is not released to his or her parent or guardian, the
AB 1761 (Hall)
Page 1
juvenile court is required to hold specified hearings to
determine whether the child should be adjudged a dependent of
the court, including a detention hearing, jurisdictional
hearing, and dispositional hearing.
Under existing law, if an able and willing relative or NREFM is
available and requests temporary placement of the child pending
the detention hearing, the county welfare department is required
to initiate an assessment of the relative's or NREFM's
suitability, as specified.
This bill would provide that a social worker is further
authorized to temporarily place a child with a relative or NREFM
after the detention hearing or pending a dispositional hearing,
as specified.
Proposed Law: This bill would authorize a social worker to place
a child who has been removed from the custody of his or her
parent in the home of a relative or NREFM after the detention
hearing and pending the dispositional hearing. In addition, this
bill:
Clarifies legislative intent that a social worker may
place a child in the home of an appropriate relative or
NREFM pending the consideration of other relatives who
request preferential consideration.
Recasts the preferential consideration granted to
sibling placements to state that placement with siblings
and half-siblings shall receive preferential consideration
"unless that placement is found to be contrary to the
safety and well-being of any of the siblings" instead of
"if that placement is found to be in the best interest of
each of the children."
Related Legislation: AB 2391 (I. Calderon) 2014 would require
the county social worker and the court, when determining whether
placement with a relative is appropriate, to consider specified
factors, and would require that consideration for placement with
a relative subsequent to a dispositional hearing be given again
without regard to whether a new placement of a child must be
made. This bill is pending in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Prior Legislation: AB 545 (Mitchell) Chapter 294/2013 expanded
the definition of a nonrelative extended family member to
include an adult caregiver who has an established familial
AB 1761 (Hall)
Page 2
relationship with a relative of the child.
Staff Comments: By requiring the county welfare department to
conduct additional assessments of relatives and NREFMs for
potential placement of a child after the detention hearing and
pending the dispositional hearing, this bill imposes a
state-mandated local program that could require an ongoing
subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30.
For cases in which an assessment was completed for a relative or
NREFM that was granted temporary custody of a child pending the
detention hearing, and the same relative or NREFM seeks
placement of a child pending the dispositional hearing, it is
assumed there would be minimal additional costs. However, in
cases in which a relative initially had temporary custody prior
to the detention hearing and a different relative or NREFM
requests temporary custody of the child after the detention
hearing pending the dispositional hearing, county welfare
departments would be required to conduct a new assessment of the
relative/NREFM. It is unknown how many additional assessments
would be conducted under the provisions of this measure, but
assuming 10 percent of the 8,500 relative placements require an
additional assessment lasting two to four hours could cost in
the range of $125,000 to $250,000 annually.
Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12, the state and counties
contributed to the non-federal share of various social service
programs. AB 118 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 40/2011 and ABX1
16 Chapter 13/2011 realigned state funding to the counties
through the 2011 Local Revenue Fund (LRF) for various programs,
including foster care and child welfare services. As a result,
beginning in FY 2011-12 and for each fiscal year thereafter,
non-federal funding and expenditures for these activities
including child welfare services are funded through the LRF.
Proposition 30, passed by the voters in November 2012, among
other provisions, eliminated any potential mandate funding
liability for any new program or higher level of service
provided by counties related to the realigned programs. Although
the provisions of this bill are a mandate on social workers, any
increased costs would not appear to be subject to reimbursement
by the state. Rather, Proposition 30 specifies that for
legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an
overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local
agency for realigned programs, the provisions shall apply to
AB 1761 (Hall)
Page 3
local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual
funding for the cost increase.
To the extent it is determined that the provisions of this bill
impose a higher level of service on local agencies or result in
an increase in overall costs already borne by counties for the
provision of child welfare services, the state could potentially
elect to, but not be required to, provide funding for the cost
increase.