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 --