BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1702|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 1702
Author: Mark Stone (D) and Maienschein (R)
Amended: 6/16/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/2/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Juveniles: dependent children: reunification
services
SOURCE: County of Alameda
County Welfare Directors Association of California
DIGEST: This bill provides that reunification services need not
be provided when the court finds that the parent or guardian
knowingly participated in, or permitted, the sexual exploitation
of the child, except if the parent or guardian demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that he or she was coerced into
permitting, or participating in, the sexual exploitation of the
child.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that a minor may be removed from the physical custody
of his or her parents and become a dependent of the juvenile
court for serious abuse or neglect, or risk of serious abuse
AB 1702
Page 2
or neglect, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.)
2)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 Sec. 7950, Welf. &
Inst. Code Secs. 202, 300.2, 361.5.)
3)Allows the court to deny 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; 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).)
1)Provides that a finding of severe sexual abuse may be based
on, but is not limited to, sexual intercourse, or stimulation
involving genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or
oral-anal contact, whether between the parent or guardian and
the child or a sibling or half sibling of the child, or
between the child or a sibling or half sibling of the child
and another person or animal with the actual or implied
consent of the parent or guardian; or the penetration or
manipulation of the child's, sibling's, or half sibling's
genital organs or rectum by any animate or inanimate object
for the sexual gratification of the parent or guardian, or for
the sexual gratification of another person with the actual or
implied consent of the parent or guardian. (Welf. & Inst. Code
Sec. 361.5(b).)
AB 1702
Page 3
This bill adds to the list above by allowing the court to deny
reunification services if the court finds that the parent or
guardian knowingly participated in, or permitted the sexual
exploitation of the child unless the parent or guardian,
demonstrated by a preponderance evidence, that he or she was
coerced into permitting, or participating in, the sexual
exploitation of the child.
Background
Unless certain exceptions apply, the court must order a social
worker to provide services to reunify the family if a child is
legally removed from a parent and the parent has not voluntarily
relinquished parental rights. The heart of reunification is
Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5, which sets out the statutory
framework for reunification services and defines who receives
them. A good faith plan for reunifying the child with his or
her parents is required by both statute and due process. The
denial of services has a profound impact on the family, because
to deny parents reunification services is really an order
precluding the child's return. Thus, it is difficult to
exaggerate the importance of reunification to dependency
proceedings. (In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 678.)
That being said, there are 16 circumstances that the Legislature
has deemed so egregious that the court need not order
reunification services, including when a parent has caused the
death of another child through abuse or neglect, the child (or a
sibling of the child) has been adjudicated a dependent of the
court due to severe sexual abuse or severe physical harm, or
where a child under five years of age suffered severe physical
abuse by a parent. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(b).) This
bill, seeking to protect children who have been sexually
exploited at the hand of, or because of the consent of, a parent
adds the act of sexual exploitation of a child to the list of 16
situations where the court need not order reunification
services.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
AB 1702
Page 4
SUPPORT: (Verified6/17/16)
County of Alameda (co-source)
County Welfare Directors Association of California (co-source)
American Academy of Pediatrics
Butte County Department of Employment and Social Services
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
California Catholic Conference
California Coalition for Youth
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association
California State Association of Counties
County of Madera
County of San Bernardino
LIUNA Locals 777 & 972
Los Angeles Deputy Probation Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685
Los Angeles Professional Peace Officers Association
National Association of Social Workers
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Urban Counties of California
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/17/16)
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Alameda County Social Services Agency,
sponsor, writes in support:
[C]ounties have identified a gap in dependency law related to
family reunification efforts. Specifically, existing law
AB 1702
Page 5
requires counties to provide reunification services to a
parent or guardian even when they have knowingly engaged in,
or consented to, the sexual exploitation of their child. ?
AB 1702 creates a crucial protection for foster youth who
have suffered from sexual exploitation at the hands of their
parents or guardians.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children writes:
Courts already have a great deal of discretion in determining
to withhold reunification services-more than enough to ensure
that they are able to provide for children's best interests.
Adding to existing exemptions is not only redundant, it is
dangerous in that it gives courts-which have been
statistically proven to be more punitive with formerly
incarcerated parents and with parents of color-more latitude
to deny parents the ability to ever see their children again.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/2/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson,
Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Quirk, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark
Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Wood,
Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Beth Gaines, Roger Hernández, Ridley-Thomas,
Williams
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
6/17/16 15:03:54
**** END ****
AB 1702
Page 6