BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 68| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 68 Author: Liu (D) Amended: 3/26/15 Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/7/15 AYES: Jackson, Vidak, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen SUBJECT: Minor parents: reunification services SOURCE: Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. DIGEST: This bill requires the court in making its determination whether to return a child, who was removed from his or her parent's custody, back to the physical custody of his or her parents, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Provides that a minor may be removed from the physical custody of his or her parents and become a dependent of the juvenile court for serious abuse or neglect, or risk of serious abuse or neglect, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.) SB 68 Page 2 2)Provides that unless certain exceptions apply, the primary objective of the juvenile dependency system is reunification of the minor with his or her family, and requires the court to order the social worker to provide services to reunify children legally removed from a parent. (Fam. Code Sec. 7950, Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 202, 300.2, 361.5.) 3)Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and twelve months if the child is over three years of age. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.) 4)Allows for court ordered services in pursuit of family reunification to be extended from 12 to 18 or 24 months, as specified, for parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, or ordered into a resident substance abuse program if the court makes particular findings. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(a)(3)-(4).) 5)Requires the court to consider at several points during the dependency hearings after removal of the child from the home, and in certain circumstances the social worker to document, the special circumstances of parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, deported, or court-ordered to residential substance abuse treatment, including barriers to service access and to maintaining contact with the child, and the parent's significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child's return. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 366.21 and 366.22.) This bill requires the court to consider the special circumstances of a minor parent, including barriers to service and to maintaining contact with the child, and authorizes 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. SB 68 Page 3 Background The United States has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world, although this rate has been declining since 1990, when it peaked at 12 percent of adolescent girls. Teenage girls in the dependency system are twice as likely to become pregnant before turning 19 than teenage girls who are not in foster care. The Guttmacher Institute argues that the circumstances that led these girls to be placed in foster care in the first place, along with the experience of being in foster care, seem to make them particularly vulnerable. (Boonstra, Heather D., Teen Pregnancy Among Young Women In Foster Care: A Primer, Spring 2011, Volume 14, Number 2.0, Guttmacher Policy Review.) Additionally, research has shown that adolescence is a period of poor control over behavior and emotions, and teenagers are likely to exhibit high levels of emotional arousal and reactionary decision-making. (Tucker, Gargi, Decision-making is Still a Work in Progress for Teenagers, March 2013, Brain Connection.) Regarding parenting foster youth, the John Burton foundation recently noted: Parenting foster youth fall into the double cross-hairs of foster care and teen parenthood. Educationally, they fall far behind their peers, with a rate of high school graduation 13 percent lower than non-parenting foster youth and 25 percent lower than their non-foster youth peers. As young, often single parents, two out of three will live at, or below the poverty line in adulthood. Most troubling, children of parenting foster youth are a full five times more likely to be maltreated and placed into foster care themselves. (Lemley, Amy; Moving Parenting Foster Youth Out of the Shadows, March 13, 2013, The John Burton Foundation.) The child welfare system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. Over the years, the Legislature has enacted a number of laws which require the court to take into consideration specific circumstances that present a barrier to family reunification when trying to create a permanency plan for a child. AB 2070 (Bass, Chapter 482, Statutes of 2008) required courts to assess, SB 68 Page 4 among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services for institutionalized and incarcerated parents. Similarly, SB 977 (Liu, Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014) required the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent in a certified substance abuse treatment facility. This bill seeks to address some of the particular barriers facing minor parents whose children are placed in foster by providing for the extension of reunification services for an additional six months for minor parents who are making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child. Comments The sponsor writes: Teen parents should be treated at least in the same manner which the State has recognized particular barriers to reunification for incarcerated parents, immigrant parents, and those in court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment programs. As with these other classes of parents, teen parents, who make consistent progress in establishing a safe home for their children's return, should receive an additional six months of reunification services in order for them to have a chance at successful reunification with their children. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:NoLocal: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill will result in costs as follows: 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 SB 68 Page 5 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. SUPPORT: (Verified6/2/15) Alliance for Children's Rights Children's Law Center of California Dependency Legal Services Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar First Place for Youth National Association of Social Workers San Francisco Counsel for Families and Children OPPOSITION: (Verified6/2/15) None received Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 6/2/15 21:19:25 **** END **** SB 68 Page 6