BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 12 (Beall)
Version: April 7, 2015
Hearing Date: April 14, 2015
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Foster youth
DESCRIPTION
This bill would permit a nonminor who is between the age of 18
and 21, and who was subject to an order for foster care
placement, either as a dependent or a ward, to petition the
court to resume jurisdiction and enter extended foster care if
he or she: (1) exited foster care at or after the age of
majority; (2) was subject to an order for foster care placement
any time after reaching the age of 14, was adjudged a ward, and
the last custody order of the court did not return the child to
the physical custody of his or her parent; or (3) was subject to
an order for foster care placement, and was adjudged a ward, and
was a ward at 18 years old in secure confinement.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
Committee.)
BACKGROUND
Each year in California, about 5,000 youth emancipate from
foster care, which is by far the largest number of any state in
the union. According to data from the state's Child Welfare
Services/Case Management System, about 52,000 Californians
emancipated from foster care between 1999 and 2009. The
immediate outcomes for these young adults are sobering. Studies
have shown that former foster youth, when compared to other
young adults of the same age and race, are less likely to
complete high school, attend college, or be employed. They are
also at a higher risk for becoming homeless and arrested or
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 2 of ?
incarcerated. (See Foster Care in California, Public Policy
Institute of California, 2010.)
In October 2008, the federal government enacted the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (Public Law
110-351) which offers states the opportunity to opt-in to new
federal funding streams if they choose to provide
kinship-guardianship benefits to relative guardians or provide
foster care to 18 to 21-year-old youth. AB 12 (Beall and Bass,
Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010), the California Fostering
Connections to Success Act (Act), authorized the juvenile courts
to exercise jurisdiction over and extend foster care benefits to
nonminor dependents between the ages of 18 to 21 if they meet
the specified criteria. One year later, the Legislature enacted
AB 212 (Beall, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2011) to aid in the
implementation of the Act. AB 1712 (Beall, Chapter 846,
Statutes of 2012) and AB 787 (Stone, Chapter 487, Statutes of
2013) further clarified specific issues related to that
implementation, including clarifying that former nonminor
dependents (NMD) who reached permanency, but whose guardian,
relative, or adoptive parent died before their 21st birthday,
may reenter extended foster care.
Children who emancipate from the delinquency system are
generally not eligible for extended foster care. The two
systems are distinct in that juvenile dependency deals with
abused and neglected children, whereas juvenile delinquency
deals with violations of law by a minor. However, research
shows that youth who have contact with both the dependency and
delinquency systems, typically because of illegal activity while
under the care of the child welfare system, are the state's
"most vulnerable youth," in part because of the likelihood that
these children will experience mental health and substance abuse
problems. (Nell Bernstein, Cal. State Library, Helping Those
Who Need it Most: Meeting the Mental Health Care Needs of Youth
in the Foster Care and Juvenile Justice Systems 3 (2005),
available at
http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/cafis/reports/05-01/05-01.pdf [as
of April, 2, 2015].)
Prior to 2005, all California counties exercised "exclusive
jurisdiction" over these youth, meaning a child could only
receive services from either the dependency or delinquency
system. Thus, in cases where the court terminated dependency
jurisdiction after the child violated the law, the child lost
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 3 of ?
child welfare benefits, such as drug rehabilitation services,
mental health counseling, and court-appointed parental
supervision, in exchange for probation. (Jessica Springer,
Orange County's Answer to the Dual Jurisdictional Dilemma,
November 2014, 56 Orange County Lawyer 30.) Recognizing the
needs of this particular population, the Legislature passed AB
129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004) which gave counties
the discretion to exercise either dual or exclusive jurisdiction
over crossover youths. Despite this authority, only nine
counties have adopted protocols in response to AB 129 and thus
most still operate under an exclusive jurisdiction system. In
those counties operating under an exclusive jurisdiction system,
a former dependent youth who crossed over into the delinquency
system is not eligible for extended foster care benefits. This
bill seeks to address that issue by ensuring that dual status
youth, as specified, are eligible for extended foster care.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the California Fostering Connections to Success
Act (Act), is a voluntary program for youth who meet specified
work and education participation criteria. The Act provides,
among other things, for the extension of transitional foster
care benefits to eligible youth up to age 21, as specified.
(Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 11403 et seq.)
Existing law defines a "nonminor dependent" as a current or
former foster child between the ages of 18 and 21 who is in
foster care under the responsibility of the county welfare
department, county probation department, or an Indian tribe, and
is participating in a transitional independent living plan.
(Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 11400.)
Existing law provides for the voluntary continuation or reentry
into foster care for nonminor dependents who meet general Aid to
Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC)
requirements, and when the nonminor youth has signed a voluntary
mutual agreement and one or more of the following conditions
exist:
the nonminor is working toward their high school education or
an equivalent credential;
the nonminor is enrolled in a postsecondary institution or
vocational education program;
the nonminor is participating in a program or activity
designed to promote or remove barriers to employment;
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 4 of ?
the nonminor is employed for at least 80 hours per month;
and/or
the nonminor is incapable of doing any of the activities
described above, due to a medical condition, and that
incapability is supported by regularly updated information in
the case plan of the nonminor. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
11403.)
Existing law allows a former nonminor dependent or delinquent
who turned 18 years of age while under the order of a foster
care placement and who is under the age of 21 to petition the
court to resume dependency jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code
Sec. 388.)
Existing law defines "nonminor former dependent or ward" as
either:
a nonminor who reached 18 years of age while subject to an
order for foster care placement, for whom dependency,
delinquency, or transition jurisdiction has been terminated,
and who is still under the general jurisdiction of the court;
or
a nonminor who is over 18 years of age and, while a minor, was
a dependent child or ward of the juvenile court when the
guardianship was established, as specified, and the juvenile
court dependency or wardship was dismissed following the
establishment of the guardianship. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
11400 (aa).)
Existing law provides that nonminor former dependents are
generally not eligible for reentry into extended foster care as
nonminor dependents of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code
Sec. 11403.)
Existing law provides that a nonminor former dependent whose
guardian or adoptive parent died or no longer provides ongoing
support to, and no longer receives benefits on behalf of, may
reenter extended foster care if he or she is between the age of
18 and 21. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 11403(c).)
This bill would permit a nonminor who is between the age of 18
and 21, and who was subject to an order for foster care
placement, either as a dependent or a ward, and who meets any of
the following conditions to petition the court to resume
jurisdiction and enter extended foster care:
exited foster care at or after the age of majority;
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 5 of ?
was subject to an order for foster care placement any time
after reaching the age of 14, was adjudged a ward, and the
last custody order of the court did not return the child to
the physical custody of his or her parent; or
was subject to an order for foster care placement, and was
adjudged a ward pursuant to section 725 of the Welfare &
Institutions Code, and was a ward at 18 years old in secure
confinement.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill:
According to the author:
[T]he California Fostering Connections to Success Act-provides
foster youth with the opportunity to remain in foster care for
up to three additional years up until age 21. The goal of
Fostering Connections was to assist foster youth, or nonminor
dependents as they are referred to in statute, in their
transition into adulthood. Research has shown that extending
foster care to age 21 can be a valuable tool in countering the
dismal outcomes-including high rates of homelessness,
incarceration, reliance on public assistance, teen pregnancy,
and low rates of high school and postsecondary
graduation-faced by youth who are forced to leave the foster
care system at age 18 and helping them to achieve stability
and education and career goals. However, due to Fostering
Connections' complexity, follow-up legislation has been needed
each year since its adoption to help ensure successful
implementation.
New legislation is needed to ensure that we correct our
statutory oversight and ensure several very small but
vulnerable populations of former foster youth are included in
and able to voluntarily re-enter extended foster care? The
populations that are excluded include youth who ? have an
order for foster care placement after their 14th birthday, are
involved in juvenile delinquency system, [but] do not reunify
with their parents or legal guardianships before they turn 18
and ? youth who have crossed over from the dependency system
to the delinquency system and are in secure confinement when
they turn 18.
Our obligation to these youth is the same as any parent, to
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 6 of ?
ensure that youth who have spent their formative years
parented by the child welfare system receive ongoing support
in navigating adult life.
2.Bill is narrowly tailored to capture a small population of
vulnerable youth
This bill is limited to nonminor youths who: (1) exited foster
care at or after the age of majority; (2) were subject to an
order for foster care placement any time after reaching the age
of 14, have been adjudged a ward, and the last custody order of
the court did not return the child to the physical custody of
their parent; or (3) were subject to an order for foster care
placement, and adjudged a ward, and were wards at 18 years old
in secure confinement.
The bill would allow a youth, described above, to petition the
court to resume dependency jurisdiction and thus enter extended
foster care. To be eligible for extended foster care, these
youths would be subject to the same requirements as other
nonminor dependents, including: the nonminor is working toward
his or her high school education or an equivalent credential;
the nonminor is enrolled in a postsecondary institution or
vocational education program; the nonminor is participating in a
program or activity designed to promote or remove barriers to
employment; or the nonminor is employed for at least 80 hours
per month. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 11403.)
Since the passage of AB 12 (Beall and Bass, Ch. 559, Stats.
2008) the Legislature has enacted significant subsequent
legislation to further achieve the goals of the Fostering
Connections to Success Act. (See Background.) This bill will
continue the Legislature's efforts to ensure the Act is properly
implemented by allowing certain nonminor dependents to enter
extended foster care. In support, the Coalition for Youth
writes, "This bill provides a support net to vulnerable former
foster youth under the age of 21 who were inadvertently excluded
in prior legislative efforts to extend foster care to youth who
require the assistance and protections of the child welfare
system in a healthy transition to adulthood."
3.Existing services for crossover youth
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 7 of ?
This bill seeks to address the needs of crossover youth by
allowing certain nonminors, who were at one time subject to both
dependency and delinquency jurisdiction, petition the court to
resume jurisdiction, thereby allowing them to enter extended
foster care. Under extended foster care, eligible youths are
provided up to three more years of housing and services, such as
mental health services and healthcare.
As background, when a child is removed from the physical custody
of his or her parent or guardian because of abuse, neglect or
endangerment, the child becomes a dependent child and the child
welfare system steps in to assume the role of parent. If that
child commits a crime and becomes a ward of the court, the
child's status, in all but nine counties, as a dependent is
terminated. He or she becomes a delinquent, subject to
probation. If the child successfully completes probation, he or
she will normally be returned to his or her parent or guardian.
However, it may not be safe for the child to return home. In
most counties, the court is often forced to send the child home
and wait for another report of abuse or neglect to be filed with
the child welfare services department to re-initiate a
dependency proceeding.
Staff notes that the majority of dependent youth who crossover
into the delinquency system are charged with "status" offenses
such as consumption of alcohol, truancy, or running away from
home, and misdemeanor offenses. Accordingly, in practice, these
youths who have been victims of abuse, lose the important
protections and support of the dependency system when they act
out in a typical and/or understandable adolescent fashion.
Youths who have the opportunity to be "dual status," in counties
that exercise simultaneous dependency and delinquency
jurisdiction, may continue receiving dependency protections,
even while the goals of the delinquency system are carried out.
Thus, once a child completes probation, he or she is provided
the protections of the dependency system, without first being
subject to additional abuse from his or her family. Without the
ability to connect these youth with services, the court must
choose which system will take jurisdiction over the youth. The
Chief Probation Officers (CPOC), who are sympathetic to the
concept of dual status and the goals of extended foster care,
oppose this bill because they feel they lack the resources to
implement it. In their letter of opposition, the CPOC describe
the role probation plays in the lives of these youth:
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 8 of ?
Probation should not keep a youth under probation supervision
who has successfully completed his or her probation term. It
is not a best practice nor does it truly allow the youth to
realize the significant accomplishment he or she has achieved.
In our view, if a youth on probation has successfully
completed his or her term of supervision and for whatever
reason his or her housing situati8on has become unstable, that
is an issue specific to the welfare of the child, not a
probation offense. The youth should not remain on probation
or return to probation supervision.
To address the needs of these youth, California passed AB 129
(Cohn, Ch. 468, Stats. 2004) which authorized counties to create
protocols for dual status children to remain under the
jurisdiction of both dependency and delinquency. However, the
vast majority of counties have not developed these protocols. A
recent law review article described California's law as failing
crossover youth:
The statutory allowance for dual status protocols, while
apparently more sympathetic to the plight of the foster child
coming into contact with the criminal justice system, fails to
secure the welfare of that child because it does not go far
enough. The main problem is that the law does not require
counties to develop dual status protocols; therefore, whether
or not they do so is voluntary, resulting in the small number
of counties (nine of fifty-eight) that have thus far done so.
?
The goals of the dependency and delinquency systems are
distinct: the child welfare system wants to protect the child
as victim by providing a safe and nurturing home for the
child, while the juvenile delinquency system wants to punish
and rehabilitate the youth as offender by legally forcing the
youth to accept responsibility for her transgressions. The
institutional separateness of the dependency and delinquency
systems detracts from the state's ability to provide, and the
troubled and vulnerable foster child's ability to receive,
services to either prevent or best deal with delinquent
conduct. Adjusting its treatment of foster children at risk of
delinquency by avoiding abandoning them will allow the state
to better serve its children's vast needs. Foster young people
and their greater communities will benefit. (Lisa Beth
Greenfield Pearl, Using Storytelling to Achieve a Better
Sequel to Foster Care than Delinquency; 2013, New York
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 9 of ?
University Review of Law & Social Change, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. &
Soc. Change 553.)
4.Author's amendments
To better reflect the intent of this bill, the author offers
the following clarifying amendment:
In the third category of qualifying criteria for a youth under
this bill, require that the youth was subject to an order for
foster care placement at the time the petition to adjudge him
or her a ward pursuant to section 725 was filed and was in
secure confinement at age 18.
Support : Advokids; Alliance for Children's Rights; California
Coalition for Youth; California Youth Connection; Children Now;
Children's Defense Fund; Children's Rights Project at Public
Counsel; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice;
Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children of Santa Cruz
County; Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children of
Ventura County; East Bay Children's Law Offices; East Bay
Community Law Center; First Place for Youth; Frontier High
School in the Whittier Union School District; Junior Leagues of
California State Public Affairs Committee; Legal Services for
Children; National Center for Youth Law; National Foster Youth
Institute
Opposition : Chief Probation Officers of California
HISTORY
Source : Youth Law Center
Related Pending Legislation : AB 885 (Lopez) would delete the
requirement that a parent or guardian no longer receive aid on
behalf of the nonminor before a juvenile court may resume
dependency jurisdiction.
Prior Legislation :
AB 2454 (Quirk-Silva, Chapter 769, Statutes of 2014) permitted a
nonminor former dependent who previously received extended
Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) or Adoption
Assistance Payment, but whose former guardians are no longer
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 10 of ?
providing support, to petition the court to resume dependency
under the extended foster care program.
AB 2573 (Stone, 2014) would have authorized a court to assume or
resume transition jurisdiction over a nonminor who attained 18
years of age while subject to an order for foster care placement
without consideration of whether the rehabilitative goals of the
nonminor ward, as set forth in the case plan, had been met. This
bill was held on suspense in Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 787 (Stone, Chapter 487, Statutes of 2013) among other
provisions, allows re-entry into nonminor dependency for
nonminor former dependents who reached permanency and whose
guardian died before their 21st birthday.
AB 985 (Cooley, 2013) would have expanded eligibility for
extended state Kin-GAP benefits to age 21 to youth who attain 18
years of age while receiving federal or state benefits and who
entered the program prior to reaching the age of 16, subject to
specified criteria. This bill was held on suspense in Senate
Appropriations Committee.
AB 1712 (Beall, Chapter 846, Statutes of 2012) expanded the
definition of relative caregiver to include nonrelative extended
family members and made other technical and clarifying changes
to the California Fostering Connections to Success Act.
AB 212 (Beall, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2011) made technical and
clarifying changes to the California Fostering Connections to
Success Act.
AB 12 (Beall and Bass, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010)
established the California Fostering Connections to Success Act,
which extended transitional foster care services to eligible
youth between ages 18 and 21 and required California to seek
federal financial participation for the Kin-GAP.
AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004) which gave counties
the discretion to develop protocols in order to exercise dual
jurisdiction over crossover youths who fall within the
jurisdiction of both the dependency and delinquency systems.
Prior Vote : Senate Human Services Committee: (Ayes 5, Noes 0)
**************
SB 12 (Beall)
Page 11 of ?