BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 68 (Liu) - Minor parents: reunification services ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: March 26, 2015 |Policy Vote: JUD. 7 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: May 4, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: SB 68 would require a court to order reunification services for a parent under a number currently optional circumstances if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny services. This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to six months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent, as specified. Fiscal Impact: Mandated reunification services : Potential increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund*) for the provision of reunification services for 12 months to specified cases. While the number of potentially applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases that would have otherwise been denied services, annual costs would be about $100,000. 6-month services extension : Potential future increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund*) for the 6-month SB 68 (Liu) Page 1 of ? extension of reunification services to specified minor parent cases. While the total number of applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases granted extended services, costs would be about $50,000. Dependency caseload impact : Unknown, potential future cost savings (Local/State) in reduced time spent in dependent care to the extent youth are reunified with their parents sooner than otherwise would occur under existing law. Proposition 30* : Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement for realigned programs, however, legislation that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs including child welfare services, apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase. Background: Under existing law, when a court orders the removal of a child from the custody of his or her parent due to abuse or neglect, the court is generally required to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent, unless the court finds that the return of the child would create a substantial risk to the physical or emotional well-being of the child. Existing law further requires the court to order family reunification services to the child and parent(s), unless specified circumstances exist. The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis dated April 7, 2015, states, "Under existing law there are 16 circumstances that the Legislature has deemed so egregious that the court need not order reunification services. These exceptions to reunification demonstrate how the dependency system's primary goals of ensuring the safety of children and preservation of family are balanced. Thus, when a child has been severely physically or sexually abused by a parent, the court need not offer reunification services. Another situation where reunification services may not be ordered is where a child has entered the dependency system due to physical or sexual abuse (caused by the parent or another person because of the parent's negligence), and was returned home after the provision of reunification services, only to be abused again. Additionally, a parent whose whereabouts are unknown or who is suffering from a mental disability that leaves him or her incapable of caring for a child may not have reunification services ordered by the court. SB 68 (Liu) Page 2 of ? This bill seeks to address some of the particular barriers facing minor parents whose children are placed in foster care. Accordingly, this bill would require the court to consider the specific circumstances faced by a minor parent in trying to avail himself or herself to court-mandated services, and would require the court to order reunification services in specified situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred." Proposed Law: This bill would remove judicial discretion currently provided under existing law and require the court to order reunification services in the following situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred: the parent of the child has a history of drug or alcohol use, as specified, and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment; the parental rights of the parent over a sibling have been permanently severed, as specified; the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings of the child because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling, as specified; and that the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling because of severe abuse or neglect, as specified. This bill would additionally require the court to consider the special circumstances of a minor parent, including barriers to service and to maintaining contact with the child, and would authorize the court to continue the case for an additional six months for the provision of additional reunification services if the minor parent is making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child. Prior Legislation: SB 1064 (de Leon) Chapter 845/2012 authorized the SB 68 (Liu) Page 3 of ? court to extend the review hearing periods for reunification following consideration of a parent's ability to comply with court ordered services where a child has been removed from the custody of a parent and the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained, or deported to his or her country of origin. AB 2070 (Bass) Chapter 482/2008 required courts to take into consideration, among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services, and consideration of the likelihood of the parent's discharge within the reunification timeframe for incarcerated and institutionalized parents. Staff Comments: By increasing the circumstances in which reunification services must be provided by county welfare agencies, this bill could require a subvention of funds from the state as provided under Proposition 30 (2012). This bill would mandate the court to order reunification services in specified situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred. This bill would also allow for the provision of an additional six months of reunification services beyond the standard 12 months' time period, to a total of up to 18 months, for minor parents provided specified requirements are met and the court has determined that there is a substantial probability of reunification or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent. It is unknown how many cases would be impacted under the provisions of this bill. While the number of dependent minor parents that have children in the dependency system is estimated to be small (less than 50), it is unknown at this time how many non-dependent minor parents with dependent children would potentially be impacted by this bill. For every 10 cases that otherwise would have been denied reunification services due to the specified conditions in this bill, increased services costs for 12 months would cost approximately $100,000. Costs to extend reunification services for 10 cases for an additional six months to minor parent cases that are making significant progress would cost approximately $50,000. To the extent the actual number of impacted cases is greater or less, costs would be impacted accordingly. SB 68 (Liu) Page 4 of ? Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12, the state and counties contributed to the non-federal share of various social service programs. AB 118 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 40/2011 and ABX1 16 Chapter 13/2011 realigned state funding to the counties through the 2011 Local Revenue Fund (LRF) for various programs, including foster care and child welfare services. As a result, beginning in FY 2011-12 and for each fiscal year thereafter, non-federal funding and expenditures for these activities including child foster care and child welfare services are funded through the LRF. Proposition 30, passed by the voters in November 2012, among other provisions, eliminated any potential mandate funding liability for any new program or higher level of service provided by counties related to realigned programs. Although the provisions of this bill are a mandate on local agencies, any increased costs would not be subject to reimbursement by the state. Rather, Proposition 30 specifies that for legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs, which would include child welfare services and foster care, the provisions shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. To the extent the provision of extended reunification services to these cases results in additional cases of successful reunification, significant future cost savings could be realized to the extent youth have reduced lengths of stay in the dependency system. -- END --