BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2813
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Susan Bonilla, Chair
AB 2813
(Bloom) - As Amended April 5, 2016
SUBJECT: Juvenile offenders: dual-status minors.
SUMMARY: Narrows the circumstances under which a probation
officer may decide to detain a youth who is the subject of a
petition to declare him or her a dependent of the juvenile
court. Specifically, this bill:
1)Removes the following circumstances as conditions under which
a probation officer may detain a minor who has been taken into
temporary custody:
a) The minor is in need of proper and effective parental
care or control, as specified;
b) The minor is destitute or is not provided with the
necessities of life or is not provided with a home or
suitable place of abode; and
c) The minor is provided with a home which is an unfit
place for him or her, as specified.
AB 2813
Page 2
d) The minor is physically dangerous to the public because
of a mental or physical deficiency, disorder, or
abnormality.
2)Prohibits a probation officer's decision to detain a minor who
is the subject of a petition to declare him or her a dependent
of the court, as specified, from being based on any of the
following:
a) The minor's status as a dependent of the juvenile court;
b) A determination that continuance in the minor's current
placement is contrary to the minor's welfare; or
c) The child welfare services department's inability to
provide a placement for the minor.
3)Requires that a probation officer immediately release a minor
who is the subject of a petition to declare him or her a
dependent of the juvenile court to the custody of the child
welfare system or his or her current foster parent, unless it
is demonstrated that continued detention is a matter of
immediate necessity for the protection of the person or
another, as specified.
4)Affirms a probation officer's authority to refer a minor to
child welfare services.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 2813
Page 3
1)Requires county child welfare departments and county probation
departments to jointly develop a written protocol regarding
minors who appear to come within both dependency jurisdiction,
pursuant to WIC 300 et seq., and delinquency jurisdiction,
pursuant to WIC 600 et seq. (WIC 241.1)
2)Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a
delinquent, the probation department and child welfare
services department must initially determine which status will
best serve the interests of the child and the protection of
society. Requires that the recommendations of both
departments be presented to the juvenile court, which
determines which status is appropriate for the child. A child
may not be designated simultaneously both a dependent child
and a ward of the court, unless certain exceptions are met, as
specified. (WIC 241.1.)
3)Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child
as a dependent child when that child is subject to abuse or
neglect. (WIC 300)
4)Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child
when that child has committed acts that trigger delinquency
jurisdiction rendering the child a ward of the court. (WIC
601 and 602)
5)Requires a probation officer to investigate the circumstances
of a minor in temporary custody and to immediately release the
minor to the parent, legal guardian or responsible relative
unless it is demonstrated to the court that continuance in the
home is contrary to the minor's welfare based on a finding of
specified circumstances making the home unfit or unsafe for
the minor. (WIC 628)
AB 2813
Page 4
6)Allows a probation officer to detain a minor if certain
conditions are met, as specified. (WIC 628)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Child Welfare Services: The purpose of California's Child
Welfare Services (CWS) system is to provide for the protection
and the health and safety of children. Within this purpose, the
desired outcome is to reunite children with their biological
parents, when appropriate, to help preserve and strengthen
families. However, if reunification with the biological family
is not appropriate, children are placed in the best environment
possible, whether that is with a relative, through adoption, or
with a guardian, such as a nonrelated extended family member, as
specified. In the case of children who are at risk of abuse,
neglect or abandonment, county juvenile courts hold legal
jurisdiction and children are served by the CWS system through
the appointment of a social worker. Through this system, there
are multiple stages where the custody of the child or his or her
placement are evaluated, reviewed and determined by the judicial
system, in consultation with the child's social worker to help
provide the best possible services to the child.
At the time a child is identified as needing child welfare
services and is in the temporary custody of a social worker, the
social worker is required to identify whether there is a
relative or guardian to whom a child may be released, unless the
social worker believes that the child would be at risk of abuse,
neglect or abandonment if placed with that relative or guardian.
State law also lays out the conditions under which a court may
deem a child a dependent or ward of the court, including when
the parent has been incarcerated or institutionalized and is
unable to arrange for care for the child, such as placement with
AB 2813
Page 5
a known relative or nonrelative extended family member. If the
child is deemed a dependent or ward of the court, the court may
maintain the child in his or her home, remove the child from the
home but with the goal of reunifying the child with his or her
family, or identify another form of permanent placement. Unless
the child is unable to be placed with the parent, the court is
required to give preference to a relative of the child in order
to preserve the child's association with his or her family.
Associated with the placement, the assigned social worker shall
develop a case plan for the child, which outlines the placement
for the child, sets forth services necessary for the child, and
outlines the provision of reunification services, if necessary
and appropriate.
Dual-status youth: It has been acknowledged that youth involved
in the juvenile justice system and the child welfare system face
greater challenges and adversity as they move into adulthood.
They often face challenges that youth involved in only one of
the systems or youth involved in neither of the systems face,
and their outcomes are often poorer and require greater supports
and services to address their needs, reduce recidivism and
foster rehabilitation. The State of California has passed
legislation and authorized various pilot projects in an attempt
to address the needs of these youth, but a comprehensive
statewide approach to meet those needs and help youth
successfully transition to adulthood does not yet exist.
Counties are enabled to adopt dual status protocols in order to
allow for better oversight and provision of services to youth
who are involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice
systems. Dual status for children who are both wards of the
court and dependent children allow for better oversight and
coordination between the child welfare services and probation
systems. Counties that elect to participate in this voluntary
program are tasked with creating a dual status protocol to
permit a youth who meets specified criteria to be designated as
both a dependent child and a ward of the court simultaneously.
AB 2813
Page 6
However, according to the Judicial Council website, only 18 of
California's 58 counties have elected to develop these
protocols. Still, the counties that have elected to participate
include: Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Clara, Riverside, and
San Bernardino Counties, so that most youth involved with both
the dependency and delinquency systems in California today live
in dual-status jurisdictions.
Need for this bill: According to the author, "Foster youth do
not have the same statutory protection that other children in
our state have and are often needlessly arrested and detained in
juvenile halls. Children who enter the juvenile justice system,
even briefly, are more likely to engage in deviant behavior and
more likely to get arrested as adults. Therefore, it is
imperative that foster youth not be unfairly detained. Existing
law requires minors to be released to their parent or guardian
unless they are a public safety risk or flight risk and requires
that a court's decision to detain a minor not be based on their
status as a foster youth; however that same statutory protection
does not exist for the probation officer's decision to detain a
foster youth. This bill will extend that statutory provision to
probation officers and will require that a probation officer's
decision to detain a foster youth not be based on their status
as a dependent of the court."
Supporters of the bill assert that this previous legislation, AB
388 (Chesbro), Chapter 760, Statutes of 2014, addressed the
over-detention of foster youth at the detention hearing stage by
requiring that the court's decision to detain not be based on a
youth's status as a dependent, the bill did not apply to a
probation officer's initial decision to detain prior to the
court hearing. This bill, according to those who support the
bill, will harmonize the criteria for detention probation with
those used by the court at the detention hearing, ensuring that
no foster youth is held in a juvenile hall because they are a
AB 2813
Page 7
foster youth. Detention can negatively impact a young person's
mental and physical well-being, their education, and their
employment opportunities. Time spent in detention can increase
a youth's likelihood to recidivate and spend time in detention
as an adult.
PRIOR LEGISLATION:
AB 1911(Eggman), 2016, requires the development and
implementation of standardized definitions and defined goals for
dual status youth. This bill will be heard in the Assembly Human
Services Committee on April 12th.
AB 388 (Chesbro), Chapter 760, Statutes of 2014, specified that
a dependent ward of the juvenile court is not necessarily
subject to detention or other sanctions because of their status
as a dependent of the court.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Advokids
Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE)
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
AB 2813
Page 8
California Catholic Conference
Children Now
National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter (NASW-CA)
National Center for Youth Law (NCYL)
Public Counsel's Children's Rights Project
W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI)
Youth Law Center - sponsor
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Kelsy Castillo / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
AB 2813
Page 9