BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1702
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 15, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1702
(Mark Stone and Maienschein) - As Amended March 7, 2016
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SUBJECT: REUNIFICATION SERVICES FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN: SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION
KEY ISSUE: in order to protect abused children from further
trauma, SHOULD A COURT BE PERMITTED TO DENY REUNIFICATION
SERVICES TO THE PARENt OF A FOSTER child WHO ALLOWED that CHILD
TO BE SEXUALLY exploited?
SYNOPSIS
California's child welfare system is responsible for the
protection and safety of children at risk of abuse, neglect or
AB 1702
Page 2
abandonment. When it is necessary for the state to remove a
child from his or her parents, the primary objective is to
safely reunify the child with his or her family, usually
accomplished by offering various reunification services to the
parents. However not all children can be safely reunited with
their families and the Welfare & Institutions Code allows judges
to forgo reunification services when the court finds, by clear
and convincing evidence, that certain situations exist, such as
when a parent has been convicted of a violent felony or has
previously caused the death of another child.
This bill, sponsored by the County Welfare Directors of
California and the County of Alameda, establishes an additional
circumstance in which reunification services can be denied to a
parent -- when that parent has consented to, or participated in,
the sexual exploitation of the child. The author explains that
the bill is necessary to "ensure foster youth who have been
commercially sexually exploited by their parent or guardian are
not placed at risk of further exploitation by the very system
that is supposed to protect them." The bill correctly
recognizes that parents may be as exploited as the children they
are trying to protect and rightly exempts from the exception
from reunification services parents who were coerced into
consenting to the sexual exploitation of the child. This will
help ensure that victim-parents can themselves get the services
they need to protect themselves and their children from further
abuse. Like other exceptions from reunification services, this
bill will still allow a court to provide reunification services
to parents who have allowed their children to be sexually
exploited, but only if the judge finds, by clear and convincing
evidence, that reunification is in the child's best interest.
This bill is supported by, among others, the California
Immigrant Policy Center, the California Police Chiefs
Association and the Los Angeles Professional Peace Officers
Association. It has no opposition.
SUMMARY: Permits a court to deny reunification services to the
AB 1702
Page 3
parent of a dependent child who participated in or consented to
the child's sexual exploitation, except as provided.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Permits a court to deny reunification services to a parent or
guardian if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence,
that the parent or guardian had participated in, or consented
to, the sexual exploitation of the child, as defined.
However, provides that this exemption from reunification
services does not apply if the parent or guardian was coerced
into consenting to, or participating in, the sexual
exploitation of the child.
2)Provides that the court, at the hearing to determine whether
to order reunification services, may not order reunification
for a parent or guardian described in #1), above, unless the
court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that
reunification is in the child's best interest.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes that the purpose of the dependency system is the
maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being
abused, neglected, or exploited. Provides that the focus is on
the preservation of the family, as well as the safety, protection,
and physical and emotional well-being of the child. (Welfare &
Institutions Code Section 300.2. Unless stated otherwise, all
further statutory references are to that code.)
2)If at the initial hearing the juvenile court orders a child
removed from his or her parent due to abuse or neglect, requires
the court to order that child welfare reunification services be
provided to the family as soon as possible in order to reunify the
child with his or her family, if appropriate. (Section 319 (e).)
AB 1702
Page 4
3)Requires the court, at a dispositional hearing, to order a social
worker to provide child welfare services to a child who has been
removed from his or her parents' custody and to the parents in
order to support the goal of reunification, for a specified time
period, except under certain circumstances. Provides that
children and families in the child welfare system should typically
receive a full six months of reunification services if the child
is under three years of age, and twelve months if the child is
over three years of age, but that may be extended up to 18 or 24
months, as provided. (Section 361.5 (a).)
4)Provides that reunification services under #3, above, need not be
provided if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence,
that specified conditions exist, including:
a) The parent is suffering from a mental disability that
renders the parent incapable of using the reunification
services;
b) The parent has caused the death of another child through
abuse or neglect;
c) The child or a sibling has been adjudicated a dependent as
the result of several physical or sexual abuse;
d) The parent has been convicted of a violent felony; or
e) The parent has a history of drug or alcohol abuse and has
failed to comply with treatment programs as provided. (Section
361.5 (b).)
AB 1702
Page 5
5)Prevents a court from ordering reunification services for a parent
in specified situations, including the situations set forth in
#4), (b)-(e), above, unless the court finds, by clear and
convincing evidence, that reunification is in the child's best
interest. (Section 361.5 (c).)
6)Allows any party to petition the court to terminate
reunification services early, and allows the court to
terminate those services after finding, by clear and
convincing evidence, that:
a) Circumstances now exist that, had they previously
existed would have led the court to bypass or not order
reunification services; or,
b) The action or inaction of the parent creates a
substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur,
including but not limited to the parent's or guardian's
failure to visit the child, or the failure to participate
regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered
treatment plan. (Section 388 (c).)
7)Defines "sexual exploitation" and "commercial sexual
exploitation" of a child. (Penal Code Section 11165.1 (c),
(d).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: California's child welfare system is responsible for
ensuring the protection and safety of children at risk of abuse,
neglect or abandonment. When it is necessary for the state to
remove a child from his or her parents, the primary objective of
the child welfare system is to safely reunify the child with his
or her family. To support that objective, in most cases the
juvenile court orders reunification services, such as counseling
or treatment, for the child and the child's parents. If the
child is under the age of three, these reunification services
AB 1702
Page 6
are offered for a period of six months. If the child is over
the age of three, the services are offered for twelve months.
In some circumstances, the time period for reunification
services can be extended up to 24 months.
However not all children can safely be reunited with their families
and the Welfare & Institutions Code allows judges to forgo
reunification services when the court finds, by clear and convincing
evidence, that one of 16 specific situations exist. These
situations include a parent who caused the death of another child
through abuse or neglect or a parent with a history of drug or
alcohol abuse who has failed to comply with required treatment
programs. This bill creates a 17th circumstance in which a court
can deny reunification services to a parent -- when the parent has
consented to, or participated in, the sexual exploitation of the
child. The author explains the need for the new exception from
reunifications services:
This narrow, targeted law change will provide additional
legal protections to foster youth who have been the victim
of commercial sexual exploitation at the hands of their own
parent or guardian. This bill will also provide new
protections in state law that ensure foster youth who have
been commercially sexually exploited by their parent or
guardian are not placed at risk of further exploitation by
the very system that is supposed to protect them.
Parents generally offered reunification services, but exemptions
exist in order to protect foster children from further abuse. Since
the goal of the dependency system is, whenever possible, to reunite
children with their families, parents are generally provided
services in order to safely reunify with their children in foster
care. These services are designed to address the circumstances that
caused the child to be removed from the parents in the first place,
such as drug or alcohol treatment, anger management counseling or
parenting classes, so that the child can be safely returned to his
AB 1702
Page 7
or her home. However, there are currently 16 instances when a
parent or guardian can be denied reunification services, generally
because the parent's or guardian's behavior is such that denial of
services is necessary in order to protect children from further
harm. In particular, if the juvenile court finds, by clear and
convincing evidence, that one of the following specified instances
exists reunification services can be denied:
1. The parent cannot be located;
2. The parent is suffering from a mental disability that
renders the parent incapable of using the reunification
services;
3. The child or a sibling had previously been adjudicated a
dependent as the result of physical or sexual abuse and the
child is now being removed due to additional physical or sexual
abuse;
4. The parent caused the death of another child through abuse
or neglect;
5. The child was made a dependent under the age of five as the
result of severe abuse inflicted by the parent or a person
known to the parent, as provided;
6. The child or a sibling has been adjudicated a dependent as
the result of severe physical or sexual abuse;
7. The parent is not receiving reunification services for a
sibling of the child because of #'s 3, 5 or 6, above;
8. The child was conceived as the result of rape or incest with
a minor and the parent seeking services committed the rape or
incest;
9. The parent willfully abandoned the child;
10. The court previously terminated reunification services, and
the parent has not made subsequent efforts to address the
parent's underlying problems;
11. The parent's parental rights for another child have been
terminated, and the parent has not made subsequent efforts to
treat the problems that led to the termination;
12. The parent has been convicted of a violent felony;
13. The parent has a history of drug or alcohol abuse and has
failed to comply with treatment programs as provided;
AB 1702
Page 8
14. The parent has told the court that she or he is not
interested in receiving services;
15. The parent willfully abducted the child or a sibling; or
16. The parent is a registered sex offender. (Section 361.5
(b).)
However, even in these cases, a court may still choose to grant
reunification services to the parent if the court determines that it
is appropriate. In most cases, though, the court may only do so if
it finds, again by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification
is in the child's best interest. (Section 361.5 (c).) Foregoing
reunification services generally speeds up the timeframe for finding
an alternative permanency plan for the child, whether adoption or
tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or even long-term foster
care.
Process exists to petition the court to change, modify or set aside
a court order, including an order for reunification services. A
juvenile court can change reunification services after holding a
hearing based on a petition to change, modify or set aside an
existing order in light of a change of circumstance or new evidence.
(Section 388.) In particular, courts can terminate reunifications
services early if the actions or inactions of the parent or guardian
make reunification impossible. This helps ensure a reasonable
balance between trying to reunify the parent and child -- and giving
the parent every opportunity to do so -- and not letting the child
languish in foster care for any more time than is absolutely
necessary. For example, if a parent has, after 10 months of
reunification services, shown absolutely no willingness to comply
with the terms of the reunification plan, the court may, upon a
motion under Section 388, terminate services.
Unfortunate existence of commercial sexual exploitation of children
in the foster care system. The child welfare system's strong
preference for reunification exists against the backdrop that all
too frequently, across America and throughout California, children
AB 1702
Page 9
are being sexually exploited for commercial gain:
Every day of the year, thousands of America's children are
coerced into performing sex for hire. Some of these
children are brutally beaten and raped into submission.
Others are literally stolen off the streets, then isolated,
drugged, and starved until they become "willing"
participants. Some children are alternately wooed and
punished, eventually forming trauma bonds with their
exploiters, similar to cases of domestic or intimate
partner violence. Still others are living on the streets
with no way to survive, except by exchanging sex for food,
clothing and shelter. The people who sexually exploit
children have built increasingly sophisticated criminal
enterprises around the sale of vulnerable young boys and
girls. This is a multi-billion dollar commercial industry
that preys on children as young as ten, and it is happening
to tens of thousands of American children in or near our
own neighborhoods. (California Child Welfare Council,
Ending the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: A
Call for Multi-System Collaboration in California 5.)
And the risks of sexual exploitation are only magnified for children
in the foster care system who studies have shown are more vulnerable
to this horrific abuse, despite being under the care and oversight
of the child welfare agency and the juvenile court:
Youth in the child welfare system are particularly
vulnerable to CSE [commercial sexual exploitation]. Abuse
and neglect, unstable placements, and lack of positive
relationships create vulnerabilities that exploiters
target. "One recovered youth told me that, 'being in
foster care was the perfect training for commercial sexual
exploitation. I was used to being moved without warning,
without any say, not knowing where I was going or whether I
was allowed to pack my clothes. After years in foster
AB 1702
Page 10
care, I didn't think anyone would want to take care of me
unless they were paid. So, when my pimp expected me to
make money to support 'the family', it made sense to me.'"
. . .
The children who fall prey to exploiters frequently have
prior involvement with the child welfare system, including
contact through child protective service investigations or
placement in foster care. A study of Los Angeles County's
Succeeding Through Achievement and Resilience (STAR) Court,
a specialty juvenile court working with exploited youth,
revealed a strong link between CSE and the local child
welfare agency. Among the seventy-two girls involved with
the court, fifty-six have had prior contact with the
Department of Children and Family Services. Within this
group, forty-two were or are formally supervised by the
dependency court, four had voluntary family maintenance,
and five had several unsubstantiated child abuse referrals.
In Oakland, two organizations that serve CSEC
[commercially sexual exploited children] in Oakland found
that of the 200 youth they served, fifty-three percent
reported having lived in a foster care group home. Outside
of California, other jurisdictions are recognizing similar
associations-one study found that at least eighty-five
percent of all CSEC in New York had a child welfare
background, and seventy-five percent of those residing in
New York City had spent time in the foster care system.
These figures reflect the vulnerabilities of children
within the child welfare system: neglected and abused youth
are leading targets for exploiters and pimps. (Id.at 5-11
(footnotes omitted).)
This bill helps reduce risk of further abuse to foster youth who
have been sexual exploited by allowing a court to deny reunification
services to parents who have sexually exploited their children. To
help combat the devastation caused by the sexual exploitation of
children in the child welfare system and help these children avoid
AB 1702
Page 11
further abuse and begin to heal, this bill creates a new permissible
exception to the requirement that each dependent child's parents or
guardian be offered reunification services: when parents are
involved in the sexual exploitation of their children. Under this
exception, parents can be denied services if the court finds, by
clear and convincing evidence at a dispositional hearing, that the
parent (or guardian) participated in, or consented to, the sexual
exploitation of the child, as defined under the Penal Code.
However, in order to ensure that parents who themselves are victims
of abuse can be helped, this bill rightly exempts from this
exception parents who were coerced into consenting to, or
participating in, the sexual exploitation of the child. This
recognizes the reality that commercial sexual exploitation can be
inter-generational and that parents can be victims of sexual
exploitation, along with their children. This should help ensure
that victim-parents can get the services they need to protect both
themselves and their children from further abuse.
Like other exceptions from reunification services, the exception
added by this bill will still allow a judge to provide
reunification services to parents who have participated in, or
consented to, the sexual exploitation of their children, but
only if the judge finds, again by clear and convincing evidence,
that reunification is in the child's best interest. This will
help ensure that courts have needed flexibility to order
reunification services when such an order is truly the right
thing to do for a particular child and a particular family.
Technical amendments clarify the definition of sexual exploitation.
In order to properly define sexual exploitation, the author rightly
proposes that the bill be amended to include in the definition of
sexual exploitation under this bill, both "sexual exploitation" and
"commercial sexual exploitation" of a child as defined in the Penal
Code. The following amendment accomplishes that change:
AB 1702
Page 12
On page 9, line 33, after "(c)", insert: or (d)
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
County of Alameda (co-sponsor)
County Welfare Directors Association of California (co-sponsor)
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Police Chiefs Association
Los Angeles Professional Peace Officers Association
Urban Counties of California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 1702
Page 13