BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2607
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2607 (Skinner)
As Amended March 24, 2014
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, | | |
| |Dickinson, Garcia, | | |
| |Muratsuchi, Stone | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires that minors or nonminors be released from juvenile
detention as ordered, unless the court determines that a delay in
release from detention is reasonable. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that a minor or nonminor in juvenile detention shall be
released upon an order of the court, unless the court determines
that a delay in release from detention is reasonable, as provided.
2)Provides that, when the juvenile court holds its required hearing
every 15 days that a minor or nonminor is detained pending execution
of a court order of commitment or any other disposition and
considers, as required, the actions taken by the probation
department to carry out the court's order, the reason for the delay
in executing the order, and the effects of the delay on the youth,
the following shall not be considered reasonable delays:
a) If the minor was previously adjudicated a dependent of the
court and was in foster care at the time the petition to
adjudicate the minor a ward of the court was filed, the probation
officer's failure to identify a specific, appropriate and
available placement for the minor in the case plan, as defined,
upon an order of the juvenile court.
b) Delays caused by the administrative processes, including, but
not limited to, workload of probation officers.
c) Delays in convening meetings between agencies, as defined.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 2607
Page 2
1)Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child as a
dependent child when that child is subject to abuse or neglect.
2)Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child when
that child has committed acts that trigger delinquency jurisdiction
rendering the child a ward.
3)Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a delinquent, the
probation department and child welfare services department must
initially determine which status will best serve the interests of
the child and the protection of society. Requires that the
recommendations of both departments be presented to the juvenile
court, which determines which status is appropriate for the child.
A child may not be designated simultaneously both a dependent child
and a ward of the court.
4)Notwithstanding 3) above, authorizes the probation department and
the child welfare services department in any county, in consultation
with the presiding juvenile court judge, to create a dual status
protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to
be designated simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of
the juvenile court.
5)Allows the juvenile court to order a ward be detained in a detention
home or otherwise, as provided. Requires the juvenile court, when
it holds its required hearing every 15 days that a minor is detained
pending execution of a court order of commitment or any other
disposition, to consider the actions taken by the probation
department to carry out the court's order, the reason for the delay
in executing the order, and the effects of the delay on the youth.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : If a foster child commits a crime and becomes a ward of the
court as a delinquent, the child's status as a dependent is terminated
since a child cannot, as a general rule and except as discussed below,
be both a dependent and a ward of the juvenile court at the same time.
If the child successfully completes a detention by the juvenile
court, the child will normally be returned to his or her parents.
However, if the child came to delinquency out of the foster care
system, it may not be safe for that child to return home. In most
counties, the court can either send the child home and wait to see if
child welfare is called in again, or the court can retain delinquency
jurisdiction over the child in order to be able to place the child
AB 2607
Page 3
outside the home. In many instances neither of these options will be
in the best interest of a child who has already been subject to abuse
or neglect and the systemic difficulties found in both the foster care
and delinquency programs.
In an effort to address this issue and allow for better oversight of
youth who have been involved in both the foster care and delinquency
systems, in 2004 the Legislature passed legislation to allow counties,
should they so choose, to adopt dual status protocols which permit
children to be both dependents and wards at the same time. (AB 129
(Cohn), Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004.) Dual status for children who
are both wards and dependents allows for better oversight and
coordination between child welfare and probation and helps ensure that
children who have completed their detention are not held in limbo with
no home in which to return.
This voluntary program authorizes the probation department and the
child welfare services department in any county, in consultation with
the presiding juvenile court judge, to create a dual status protocol
to permit a youth who meets specified criteria to be designated
simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile
court. According to the Judicial Council Web site, 15 of California's
58 counties have elected to develop these protocols: Butte, Colusa,
Del Norte, Los Angeles, Inyo, Modoc, Placer, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Siskiyou, Sonoma and
Stanislaus. The remaining 43 counties have not elected to establish
dual jurisdiction protocols.
One of the biggest concerns in counties that have not adopted
dual-status protocols is what happens to a dependent child turned ward
after his or her detention period ends. In many cases, without a safe
home in which to return, children have had to remain in detention
beyond their term of confinement while the probation officer attempts
to find a safe place for them to live. This bill seeks to alleviate
that problem by specifically requiring that a youth in juvenile
detention be released from detention when the court orders so, unless
the court determines that a delay in release from detention is
reasonable.
Under existing law, the court is already required to hold a hearing
every 15 days that a youth is detained pending execution of a court
order of commitment or any other disposition to consider the actions
taken by the probation department to carry out the court's order, the
reason for the delay in executing the order, and the effects of the
AB 2607
Page 4
delay on the youth. This bill provides that the following three
possible reasons for delay are not considered reasonable:
1)If the minor was previously adjudicated a dependent of the court and
was in foster care at the time the petition to adjudicate the minor
a ward of the court was filed, the probation officer's failure to
identify a specific, appropriate and available placement for the
minor in the case plan, as defined, upon an order of the juvenile
court.
2)Delays caused by the administrative processes, including, but not
limited to, workload of probation officers.
3)Delays in convening meetings between agencies, as defined.
By adding the last two provisions, this bill protects not just foster
youth who enter the juvenile justice system, but all wards who require
out-of-home placement. This bill helps ensure that these youth are
not confined in a detention facility beyond the time required by a
court simply because of administrative delays.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
Foster children - who are legally under the care and/or
custody of the county welfare department because their
parents cannot adequately provide for them, and therefore
the responsibility of society as a whole - should never be
compelled to remain locked up in juvenile custody just
because they don't have homes to which they can return. . .
.
Because foster youth are living outside the home of a
parent, behaviors that might earn a severe grounding or
other punishments in a functioning home frequently rise to
a criminal matter. Studies on the foster care system have
shown that placing the child in foster care in and of
itself tragically increases the youth's likelihood of
delinquency. . . .
Dual-status youth are therefore not like other youth who
enter the juvenile justice system. Their behavior reflects
their special circumstances of having no parental figure to
supervise and care for them, having to live away from home,
and having to rely on strangers to be their surrogate
AB 2607
Page 5
parents. They need and deserve special care and
consideration. . . .
While the bill makes clear that youth should not be allowed to
languish in detention beyond the time ordered by the juvenile court,
the bill does not make clear what should happen to these youth after
they are released. Obviously for dual status children, either the
probation department or the child welfare agency must secure a safe
and appropriate placement for them. For youth in counties that have
yet to implement dual-status protocols, the probation department must
ensure that these youth, particularly those coming into the
delinquency system from the foster care system, have a safe and
appropriate placement. While the bill does not, as of yet, clarify
how that is to happen, the author has agreed to work with all the
stakeholders to help ensure that not only do wards of the court leave
detention timely, but when they do so they have a safe and supportive
home waiting for them.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN:
0003100