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 28, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSPENSE FILE. AS AMENDED.
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 (as approved May 28,
2015):
6-month services extension : Potential future increase in
child welfare services costs (General Fund*) for the 6-month
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
SB 68 (Liu) Page 1 of
?
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.
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
SB 68 (Liu) Page 2 of
?
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
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.
SB 68 (Liu) Page 3 of
?
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.
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,
SB 68 (Liu) Page 4 of
?
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.
Committee amendments (as adopted May 28, 2015): Delete Section
1 of the bill, which requires 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.
-- END --