AB 2869, as introduced, Chávez. Foster care: placement.
Existing law declares, among other things, that the state has a duty to care for and protect the children that the state places into foster care, and as a matter of public policy, the state assumes an obligation of the highest order to ensure the safety of children in foster care, and a judicial order establishing jurisdiction over a child placed into foster care supplants or limits parental or previous adult authority. Existing law also declares the intent of the Legislature to confirm the state’s duty to comply with all requirements of the federal Social Security Act that are relevant to the protection and welfare of children in foster care.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 16000.1 of the Welfare and Institutions
2Code is amended to read:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
4following:
P2 1(1) The state has a duty to care for and protect the children that
2the state places into foster care, and as a matter of public policy,
3the state assumes an obligation of the highest order to ensure the
4safety of children in foster care.
5(2) A judicial order establishing jurisdiction over a child placed
6into foster care supplants or limits parental or previous adult
7authority.
8(3) begin deleteNothing in this section is end deletebegin insertThis
section is not end insertintended to
9change the balance of liability between the state and the counties
10as it existed prior to the decision of the California Court of Appeal
11in County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court of Los Angeles: Real
12Party in Interest Terrell R. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 627, as
13established by the decision of the California Court of Appeal in
14Scott v. County of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 125.
15Furthermore,begin delete nothing in this section isend deletebegin insert this section is notend insert intended
16to increase or decrease the liability of the state as it existed prior
17to the Terrell R. case.
18(b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature thatbegin delete nothing inend delete
the
19decision of the California Court of Appeal in County of Los
20Angeles v. Superior Court of Los Angeles: Real Party in Interest
21Terrell R. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 627, shallbegin insert notend insert be held to change
22the standards of liability and immunity for injuries to children in
23protective custody that existed prior to that decision.
24(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to confirm the state’s duty
25to comply with all requirements under Part B of Title IV of the
26Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.begin delete 620end deletebegin insert 621end insert et seq.) and Part E of
27Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 670 et seq.)
28that are relevant to the protection and welfare of children
in foster
29care.
O
99