BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session AB 260 (Lopez) - Foster care: parenting youth ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: August 17, 2015 |Policy Vote: HUMAN S. 5 - 0, | | | JUD. 7 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: AB 260 would provide the following supports to parenting foster youth: Provide that a party seeking involuntary 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. Require reunification services to be ordered for a child with one or more dependent parents in instances where there has been a termination of reunification services for, or permanent severance of, parental rights over, any siblings or half siblings, unless other specified circumstances removing the necessity for reunification services also exist. Require the court clerk to maintain the court files and records of a minor or nonminor dependent parent separately AB 260 (Lopez) Page 1 of ? from the files and records of his or her child who is the subject of a dependency petition. Fiscal Impact: Child welfare services : Potential increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund*), including but not limited to the provision of reunification services, to specified cases. While the number of potentially applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases that would have otherwise been denied reunification services, annual costs would be about $100,000. Dependency caseload impact : Unknown, potential future cost savings (Local/General Fund*) in averted or reduced time spent in a dependency placement to the extent youth remain or are reunified with their parents sooner than otherwise would occur under existing law. Court workload : Minor ongoing administrative costs (General Fund) to maintain court files and records of dependent parents and their children separately. Proposition 30* : Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement for realigned programs, however, legislation that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs including child welfare services, apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase. Background: The significant challenges faced by parenting foster youth face have been described, as follows: 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. (Moving Parenting Foster Youth Out of the Shadows, March 13, 2013, Amy Lemley, The John Burton Foundation.) AB 260 (Lopez) Page 2 of ? This bill seeks to address some of the particular barriers facing parenting foster youth whose children are placed, or are at risk of being placed, in foster care, and seeks to connect these parenting youth with available services so that they may safely retain custody of their children. Proposed Law: This bill declares that a child of a minor parent or nonminor dependent parent 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. Additionally, this bill: Requires 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. Allows 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. Requires that foster care placements for dependent parents and their children support the preservation of the family unit and refer a dependent parent to services, as specified, to help prevent, whenever possible, the filing of a petition to declare a child a dependent of the juvenile court. For a child with one or more dependent parents, would enact exceptions to the provision that reunification services need not be ordered in instances where there has been a termination of reunification services for, or permanent severance of, parental rights over, any siblings or half siblings unless other specified circumstances removing the necessity for reunification services also exist. Requires 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 AB 260 (Lopez) Page 3 of ? aimed at preventing the removal of the child and that these efforts were unsuccessful. Related Legislation: SB 68 (Liu) 2015 requires 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 or nonminor dependent parent. This bill also authorizes the court to continue a case for an additional six months for the provision of additional reunification services for a minor parent or nonminor dependent parent who is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child's return. This bill is pending on the Assembly Floor. Staff Comments: By increasing the circumstances in which reunification and other services must be provided by county welfare agencies, this bill could require a subvention of funds from the state as provided under Proposition 30 (2012). This bill would remove the discretion of the court to not order reunification services in specified situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred , unless other specified circumstances removing the necessity for reunification services also exist. This bill also requires a local agency 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. It is unknown how many cases would be impacted under the provisions of this bill. While the exact number of parenting foster youth that have children in the dependency system is estimated to be less than 100, it is unknown how many of these cases would be eligible for services under the provisions of this measure. For every 10 cases that otherwise would have been denied reunification services due to the specified conditions in this bill, increased services costs for 12 months would cost approximately $100,000. To the extent the actual number of AB 260 (Lopez) Page 4 of ? impacted cases is greater or less, costs would be impacted accordingly. 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 foster care and 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 realigned programs. Although the provisions of this bill are a mandate on local agencies, any increased costs would not 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, which would include child welfare services and foster care, the provisions shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. To the extent the provisions of this bill result in additional cases of successful reunification and/or prevention of removal of a child from his or her dependent parent, significant future cost savings could be realized to the extent youth have reduced lengths of stay in the dependency system. -- END --