BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 1099 (Steinberg) - Dependent children: sibling visitation.
Amended: April 29, 2014 Policy Vote: Judiciary 6-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 12, 2014 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 1099 would do the following with respect to
dependent children and their siblings:
Requires courts to consider relationships between
dependent and non-dependent siblings.
Requires social workers to include specified details
relating to sibling visitation in reports and evaluations,
and would require courts to make renewed findings on
sibling interaction.
Authorizes a dependent minor or nonminor to request
visitation with a sibling who is in the physical custody of
a common parent, and would require the court to grant such
request unless it is determined by the court that
visitation is contrary to the safety and well-being of any
of the siblings.
Fiscal Impact:
Potential state costs in the range of $325,000 to $650,000
(General Fund) annually for increased workload to social
workers to document detailed information on sibling
interaction efforts, assuming an additional 15 minutes to 30
minutes annually for an estimated 17,800 dependents who are
not placed with siblings.
Potentially significant state costs (General Fund) for local
agencies to facilitate additional sibling visits between
dependents and non-dependent children that the courts have not
previously granted.
Minor impact to court workload for the expansion of current
sibling visitation provisions of law.
Background: Existing law requires the court to consider
relationships between dependent siblings when planning for legal
permanence of a foster child, however, current law is unclear
regarding the court's jurisdiction with respect to consideration
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 1
of sibling relationships between dependent and non-dependent
siblings.
Proposed Law: This bill would provide for the following with
regard to minors and nonminor dependents and their siblings:
Requires courts to consider relationships between
dependent children and non-dependent siblings in the
custody of a parent subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Requires social workers to include additional details
relating to sibling visitation in every social study,
supplemental report, or evaluation to the court, explaining
the reason(s) why siblings are not placed together, a
description of the location and the length of the visits
between siblings, whether visits are supervised or
unsupervised, a discussion of the reasons why visits are
supervised and what needs to be accomplished in order for
visits to be unsupervised, as well as any plans to increase
visitation between siblings.
Requires review of the reasons for any suspension of
sibling interaction at each periodic review hearing, as
specified, and requirement that in order for a suspension
to continue, the court shall make a renewed finding that
sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being
of either child.
Authorizes a dependent child or nonminor dependent to
request visitation with a sibling, as specified, and would
require the court to grant such request unless it is
determined by the court that visitation is contrary to the
safety and well-being of any of the siblings.
Includes codified legislative intent language stating
Related Legislation: SB 1460 (Committee on Human Services) 2014
would amend state law to address specified federal provisions of
law. As relevant to this bill, SB 1460 requires a probation
officer to explain why siblings are not placed together and what
efforts he or she is making to place the siblings together or
why making those efforts would be contrary to the safety and
well-being of any of the siblings. This bill is pending on the
Suspense File of this Committee.
Staff Comments: The Judicial Council has indicated the
provisions of this bill requiring courts to consider
relationships between dependent children and non-dependent
siblings in the custody of a parent subject to the court's
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 2
jurisdiction would not pose a fiscal burden on the courts.
Likewise, making renewed findings that sibling interaction is
contrary to the safety or well-being of either child would be an
expansion of existing sibling visitation procedures and are not
estimated to incur significant new costs on the courts.
The provision of the bill requiring additional details in
assessments and studies provided to the courts could require
additional social worker time, and therefore, costs. It is
estimated there are approximately 37,450 dependents with
siblings in out-of-home care, of which 17,800 are not placed
together. Assuming an additional 15 minutes to 30 minutes
annually for a social worker to include the detailed information
for those siblings not placed together would result in annual
costs in the range of $325,000 to $650,000. Actual costs will be
dependent on the time required for each case, which will likely
vary.
This bill adds a new provision of law that provides that a
request for sibling visitation (between two dependent siblings,
as well as between a dependent and non-dependent sibling), may
be granted unless it is determined by the court that sibling
visitation is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of
the siblings pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 16002.
Because the evidentiary standard reflected in WIC § 16002(b)
provides that the court must determine "by clear and convincing
evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety and
well-being of any of the siblings," the evidentiary burden is
high and may be difficult to meet, resulting in an increase in
visitations granted by the courts. While the number of
additional sibling visitations granted by the courts is unknown,
there would be additional workload on local agencies to
facilitate these visits that are not provided under existing
law.
Prior to FY 2011-12, the state and counties contributed to the
non-federal share of child welfare services expenditures. 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 child
welfare services. As a result, beginning in FY 2011-12 and for
each fiscal year thereafter, non-federal funding and
expenditures for child welfare services activities are funded
through the LRF.
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 3
Proposition 30 was passed by the voters in November 2012, and
among other provisions, eliminated any potential mandate funding
liability for any new program or higher level of service
mandated on the counties related to realigned programs,
including child welfare services. Rather, legislation enacted
after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of
increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for
programs or levels of service mandated by realignment only apply
to local agencies to the extent that the state provides annual
funding for the cost increase. Local agencies are not obligated
to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation
above the level for which funding has been provided.
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.
Recommended amendments: As drafted, the provisions of this bill
could be interpreted to authorize a court to grant sibling
visitation between a dependent and non-dependent child unless it
is determined by clear and convincing evidence that sibling
interaction is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of
the siblings (due to the cross reference to WIC § 16002(b) in
new paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of WIC § 388). In order to
clarify that the courts have additional discretion when
determining whether to grant a visitation between a dependent
and non-dependent child, the author may wish to consider an
amendment to separately state the evidentiary standard under
which visitation between a dependent and non-dependent child may
be granted from the existing high evidentiary standard that must
be shown in order to deny visitation between dependent children.