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 --