BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 260 (Lopez)
Version: April 7, 2015
Hearing Date: June 30, 2015
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Foster care: parenting youth
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that a child whose parent has been
adjudged a dependent of the court shall not be considered at
risk of abuse or neglect solely on the basis of information
concerning the parent's placement history, past behaviors,
health or mental health diagnoses occurring prior to the
pregnancy, except as specified. This bill would create certain
exceptions to the existing requirement that the court order
reunification services in cases where a parent of a child in a
dependency proceeding has been adjudged a dependent.
This bill would also require that prior to a foster care
placement of, or termination of parental rights over, a child
born to a parent who was a minor or a nonminor dependent at the
time of the child's birth, that reasonable efforts were made to
provide remedial services designed to prevent the removal of the
child from the parent, as specified.
This bill would require that court files and records concerning
a dependent parent be kept separate from court files and records
concerning his or her child, as specified. This bill would
authorize the records concerning a dependent parent to be
disclosed to the county in the child's dependency proceedings,
but would prohibit those records from being admitted as evidence
in the child's dependency proceedings, except pursuant to court
order.
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 2 of ?
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
Committee.)
BACKGROUND
The United States has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in
the industrialized world, although this rate has been declining
since 1990, when it peaked at 12 percent of adolescent girls.
Teenage girls in the dependency system are twice as likely to
become pregnant before turning 19 than teenage girls who are not
in foster care. The Guttmacher Institute argues that the
circumstances that led these girls to be placed in foster care
in the first place, along with the experience of being in foster
care, seem to make them particularly vulnerable. (Boonstra,
Heather D., Teen Pregnancy Among Young Women In Foster Care: A
Primer, Spring 2011, Volume 14, Number 2.0, Guttmacher Policy
Review.) Regarding the challenges that parenting foster youth
face, the John Burton foundation recently noted:
Parenting foster youth fall into the double cross-hairs of
foster care and teen parenthood. Educationally, they fall far
behind their peers, with a rate of high school graduation 13
percent lower than non-parenting foster youth and 25 percent
lower than their non-foster youth peers. As young, often
single parents, two out of three will live at, or below the
poverty line in adulthood. Most troubling, children of
parenting foster youth are a full five times more likely to
be maltreated and placed into foster care themselves.
(Lemley, Amy; Moving Parenting Foster Youth Out of the
Shadows, March 13, 2013, The John Burton Foundation.)
AB 12 (Beall and Bass, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010), the
California Fostering Connections to Success Act (Act),
authorized the juvenile courts to exercise jurisdiction over and
extend foster benefits to nonminor dependents between the ages
of 18 to 21 if they meet specified criteria. Thus, eligible
nonminor foster youth are now able to continue receiving support
from the dependency system as they transition into adulthood.
However, as California has expanded foster care to serve older
youth, concerns related to reproductive health have become even
more urgent. A 2009 Time article described why concerns are
rising:
A study at the University of Chicago found that nearly half
of girls who had spent time in the foster-care system had
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 3 of ?
been pregnant at least once by the time they were 19 years
old. Even more troubling, unplanned pregnancy had already
become a pattern for many of the young women - close to
one-quarter had experienced multiple pregnancies in their
teens. ?
The stats shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows
the risk factors for teen pregnancy. A report released the
week of July 20 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and
Unplanned Pregnancy found that almost half of the 500,000 or
so kids in foster care had sex for the first time before age
16, compared with 30 percent of their peers not in foster
care. They're also more likely to have experienced forced sex
and less likely to use contraception.
Perhaps the most important asset teenagers need to avoid
early parenthood is a strong relationship with parents or
other adults in their lives. But these are precisely the
kinds of bonds that many foster teens lack. "You're so busy
being transferred from home to home," says Alixes Rosado, who
has been in foster care in Connecticut since he was 6 years
old. "You don't have a lot of stable connections." The
20-year-old estimates that he has worked with a different
social worker every year for the past 10. (Amy Sullivan, Teen
Pregnancy: An Epidemic in Foster Care, July 22, 2009, Time
.)
The child welfare system seeks to ensure the safety and
protection of these youths, and where possible, preserve and
strengthen families through visitation and family reunification.
Over the years, the Legislature has enacted a number of laws
which require the court to take into consideration specific
circumstances that present a barrier to family reunification
when trying to create a permanency plan for a child. AB 2070
(Bass, Ch. 482, Stats. 2008) required courts to assess, among
other factors, the particular barriers to accessing
court-mandated services for institutionalized and incarcerated
parents. Similarly, SB 977 (Liu, Ch. 219, Stats. 2014) required
the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the
custody of his or her parent in a certified substance abuse
treatment facility.
Recognizing the challenges that parenting foster youths face,
this bill seeks to connect these youths with available services
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 4 of ?
so that they may safely retain custody of their children. This
bill was heard in the Senate Human Services Committee on June
23, 2015, where the author agreed to amendments to ensure that
the provisions of the bill apply to minor parenting dependents
and nonminor parenting dependents alike. This analysis reflects
those amendments.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law allows a juvenile court to adjudicate a child a
dependent of the court as the result of abuse or neglect, as
specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.)
Existing law limits access to juvenile case files to specified
individuals and officials, including the child's parent or
guardian, attorneys for the parties, court and state
personnel, law enforcement, child protective services, and
school district officials, and prohibits any party authorized
to inspect a juvenile court case file from disseminating the
file or its contents unless otherwise permitted. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Sec. 827(a).)
This bill would require that the court clerk maintain the
court files and records of a dependent parent separately from
the files and records of his or her child who is the subject
of a dependency petition.
This bill would allow a dependent parent's dependency court
records to be disclosed to the county in his or her child's
dependency proceedings, but prevents those records from being
admitted as evidence in the child's dependency proceeding
except by court order stating that those files and records
contain information materially relevant to the case, as
specified.
2.Existing law requires the court to make a determination as to
whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate
the need for removal of a minor from his or her home. (Welf.
& Inst. Code Sec. 361(d).)
Existing law provides that unless certain exceptions apply,
the primary objective of the juvenile dependency system is
reunification of the minor with his or her family, and the
court must order the social worker to provide services to
reunify children legally removed from a parent. (Fam. Code
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 5 of ?
Sec. 7950, Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 202, 300.2, 361.5.)
Existing law does not require the court to order reunification
services in 16 situations, as specified, including:
the whereabouts of the parent are unknown;
the parent is suffering from a mental disability, as
specified;
the child or sibling of the child has previously entered
the dependency system due to physical or sexual abuse,
returned to the parent, and is being removed from the home
again because of physical or sexual abuse;
the parent caused the death of another child;
the child or sibling of the child has entered the
dependency system as a result of severe sexual or physical
abuse inflicted by the parent, as specified; and
that the child was conceived by means of sexual
intercourse with a child under the age of 14 years. (Welf.
& Inst. Code Sec. 361.5 (b).)
This bill would require that foster care placements for
dependent parents and their children support the preservation
of the family unit and provide services, as specified, to
prevent, whenever possible, the filing of a petition to
declare a child a dependent of the juvenile court.
This bill , for a child with one or more dependent parents,
would enact exceptions to the provision that reunification
services need not be ordered instances where there has been a
termination of reunification services for, or permanent
severance of, parental rights over, any siblings or half
siblings, as specified, unless other specified circumstances
removing the necessity for reunification services also exist.
This bill would require a party seeking foster care placement
of, or termination of parental rights over, a child with one
or both parents who were minors when the child was born to
demonstrate that reasonable efforts using available resources,
as specified, were made to provide services aimed at
preventing the removal of the child and that these efforts
were unsuccessful.
1.Existing law declares that a child whose parent has been
adjudged a dependent child of the court shall not be
considered to be at risk of abuse or neglect solely because of
the age, dependent status, or foster care status of the
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 6 of ?
parent.
This bill would further declare that the child of a foster
child is not considered at risk of abuse or neglect based
solely on information regarding the parent's placement
history, past behaviors, or health or mental health diagnoses
prior to the pregnancy, although such information may be taken
into account when considering whether other factors exist that
place the child at risk of abuse or neglect.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
It is vital that we initiate a culture shift around the way we
think about parenting foster youth. Instead of making it more
difficult for these youth or overlooking their unique needs as
parents living within the dependency system, we should be
supporting them in their goals to create a healthy family in
the same way we support their goals for higher education,
career/professional, or any other permanency outcomes our
system seeks to achieve for them. By working to break the
cycle of foster care, we can ensure our foster youth can
succeed while also preserving the lives of children in their
family unit rather than settling for additional, unnecessary
entrances into the system for those children.
2.Support for parenting foster youth
Research shows that parenting foster youth are at a
disproportionately high risk of having their children placed in
foster care, thereby creating what the author refers to as a
"cycle of foster care." This bill would establish a variety of
different mechanisms to better ensure preservation of the family
and offer support to parenting foster youths.
a. Limits use of a parenting youth's record
This bill would require that the court maintain the files of a
parenting youth separate from the files of a child for whom a
dependency petition has been filed, and would generally
prevent those files from being admitted as evidence in the
child's dependency proceeding. A dependent's files may
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 7 of ?
contain years of very private information about the youth's
health, mental health, and education. Research shows that
adolescence is a period of poor control over behavior and
emotions, and teenagers, whether in foster care or not, are
likely to exhibit high levels of emotional arousal and
reactionary decision-making. (Tucker, Gargi, Decision-Making
is Still a Work in Progress for Teenagers, March 2013, Brain
Connection.) Therefore, while a dependent youth's record may
not be relevant to his or her ability to parent, the
information in a file could be very damaging to a youth
seeking to retain custody of his or her child.
Thus, this bill would help ensure that outdated and largely
irrelevant information is not used to remove a child from the
custody of a parenting youth. In support the Alliance for
Children's Rights writes, "The youth we work with are
determined to provide a better childhood for their children
than they experienced and are often receptive to intervention
they may have previously rejected. [This bill] recognizes
this moment of opportunity and will prevent certain
information about prior incidents and resolved past behaviors
from being used inappropriately to detain a parenting foster
youth's child."
b. Provides parenting youth a "fresh start" with regard to
subsequent children
Under existing law there are 16 circumstances that the
Legislature has deemed so egregious that the court need not
order reunification services. (See Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
361.5(b).) These exceptions to reunification demonstrate how
the dependency system's primary goals of ensuring the safety
of children and preservation of family are balanced. Thus,
when a child has been severely physically or sexually abused
by a parent, the court need not offer reunification services.
Another situation where reunification services might not be
ordered is where a child has entered the dependency system due
to physical or sexual abuse (caused by the parent or another
person because of the parent's negligence), and was returned
home after the provision of reunification services, only to be
abused again. Additionally, a parent whose whereabouts are
unknown or who is suffering from a mental disability that
leaves him or her incapable of caring for a child may not have
reunification services ordered by the court. Courts are also
not required to order reunification services when a parent has
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 8 of ?
failed to reunite with a sibling of a child, or has had his or
her parental rights over a sibling terminated.
Minor parents, in particular, may have a difficult time
protecting children from abusive family members because they
may be victims of similar abuse. The fact that a minor parent
has failed to reunify with her child should arguably not be a
barrier to reunification services she might otherwise have
access to for subsequent children later on in life.
Accordingly, with regard to parenting dependent youths, this
bill would create an exception to the above rule for parenting
youths who failed to reunify, or had their parental rights
terminated, over a sibling of the child currently before the
dependency court. Accordingly, for these youths, the court
would be required to order reunification services.
Staff notes that the above exception would not apply for a
parent whose rights had been terminated, or who failed to
reunify with a sibling, if combined with any of the other 14
reasons for which courts need not order reunification
services. Thus, a parenting youth who failed to regain
custody of a child because of extreme physical abuse, sexual
abuse, or causing the death of a child, among other egregious
circumstances, would not be entitled to the protections of
this bill.
c. Requires that reasonable efforts be made to keep a child
with a parenting youth
This bill would additionally require that before a foster care
placement or termination of parental rights for a child who
has a dependent parent, reasonable efforts must be made to
keep the child with his or her parents. Reasonable efforts
would include using available resources of the child and his
or her parents' family, social services agencies, caregivers,
and other available service providers. Combined with the
other protections of this bill, this provision should arguably
allow more parenting youth to receive supportive services,
which will help them retain custody of their children.
1.Clarifying amendments
This bill would provide that court records concerning a
dependent parent may be disclosed to the county in a child's
dependency proceeding, but shall not be admitted as evidence in
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 9 of ?
the child's dependency proceeding, except pursuant to a court
order stating that the records contain information that is
materially relevant to the case. While the aim of this
provision, to ensure that prior, irrelevant actions of a
parenting youth are not the basis for removing a child from the
custody of that youth, represents good public policy, as
drafted, the provision presents issues with regard to evidence
that the court may consider. It is incongruous to allow
evidence, in the form of a social worker's report, into
evidence, while also prohibiting the primary source from being
entered into evidence. The court, which often relies on reports
submitted by a county social worker, should not be prevented
from reviewing the documents that the social worker consulted in
creating that report.
The following amendment would instead prohibit a court from
relying solely on information in a parenting youth's court file
or record in determining whether to remove a child from that
youth's custody, and would ensure that in most cases, only the
county and the court see a parenting youth's record. This will
arguably ensure that the court will look to the current
situation of the youth and his or her ability to parent a child,
rather than past, and largely irrelevant behavior of that youth.
Additionally, it will properly ensure that the court, and not
the social worker, is the final judge of what information from a
youth's case file is relevant to the dependency petition.
Suggested amendment:
Section 825.5. is amended to read: The clerk of the
superior court shall maintain court files and records
concerning a minor dependent parent or a nonminor dependent
parent of a child who is the subject of a dependency
petition separate from court files and records concerning
the child. Dependency court records concerning a minor
dependent parent or a nonminor dependent parent may be
disclosed to the county and the court in the child's
dependency proceedings; however, information from the
records shall only be admitted as evidence in the child's
dependency proceedings pursuant to a court order finding
that the information is materially relevant to the case,
subject to the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section
361.8.
Support : Alliance for Children's Rights; American Civil
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 10 of ?
Liberties Union of California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), AFL-CIO; Disability Rights California; Executive
Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Youth Connection
Related Pending Legislation : SB 68 (Liu, 2015) would require the
court in making its determination whether to return a child, who
was removed from his or her parent's custody, back to the
physical custody of his or her parents, to take into account the
particular barriers to a minor parent and would authorize the
court to continue the case for an additional six months for the
provision of additional reunification services if the minor
parent is making significant and consistent progress toward
establishing a safe home for the child. This bill is currently
in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation :
SB 528 (Yee, Chapter 338, Statutes of 2013) among other
provisions, authorized social workers to provide foster youth
with access to age-appropriate, medically accurate information
about sexual development, reproductive health, and prevention of
unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, and
added minor and nonminor dependent parents to the list of
families prioritized for subsidized state and federal child
development services.
SB 500 (Kuehl, Chapter 630, Statutes of 2005) created an option
for teen foster parents to live with their children in foster
homes.
SB 1178 (Kuehl, Chapter 841, Statutes of 2004) the Teen Parents
in Foster Care Act, expressed the Legislature's intent to
preserve and strengthen family relationships between minor
dependent parents and their dependent children and required the
foster care system to treat these families as a unit rather than
as individuals.
Prior Vote :
AB 260 (Lopez)
Page 11 of ?
Senate Human Services Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)
**************