BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 68
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
SB
68 (Liu) - As Amended June 2, 2015
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
SUBJECT: Minor parents: reunification services
KEY ISSUE: IN ORDER TO BETTER SUPPORT MINOR PARENTS with
children IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM AND HELP THEM, when
possible, REUNIFY WITH THEIR CHILDREN, SHOULD THE JUVENILE COURT
BE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER the PARTICULAR BARRIERS THAT THESE
PARENTS EXPERIENCE AND, IF APPROPRIATE and IN LIMITED
CIRCUMSTANCES, PROVIDE THEM with AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS OF
reunification SERVICES?
SYNOPSIS
When a court orders the removal of a child from the custody of
his or her parent because of abuse or neglect, the court is
generally required to return the child to his or her parent,
unless the court finds that return of the child would create a
substantial risk to the well-being of the child. If the child
SB 68
Page 2
is not returned, the court must order family reunification
services for the child and the child's parent, unless specified
circumstances exist. Like parents who are incarcerated,
detained or deported with children in the child welfare system,
teen parents face particular barriers that make successful
reunification with their children more difficult. Over the last
several years, the Legislature has allowed the juvenile court to
provide incarcerated, detained and deported parents who are
making progress toward reunifying with their children with
additional time for reunification services. This bill, as
proposed to be amended, seeks to give that same extra help to
teen parents and nonminor dependent parents.
In support of the bill the author notes that, in addition to the
other hurdles they must overcome, teen parents in the child
welfare system must navigate a complicated legal process with
court-ordered treatment programs that are not necessarily
designed for the needs of young parents. This bill is sponsored
by the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers and supported by, among
others, the Alliance for Children's Rights, the Children's Law
Center of California, the Family Law Section of the State Bar,
the Juvenile Court Judges of California and the National
Association of Social Workers. It has no known opposition.
SUMMARY: Increases the time reunification services may be
available to minor parents and nonminor dependent parents whose
children are dependents of the court in consideration of the
barriers faced by those parents. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the juvenile court, at the permanency hearing when
deciding whether to return a child to his or her parent, to
consider the efforts or progress made by the parent, taking
into account the particular barriers that a minor parent or a
nonminor dependent parent may have in accessing reunification
services and maintaining contact with the child.
SB 68
Page 3
2)Allows the court to extend services to support the
reunification of a child with his or her minor parent or
nonminor dependent parent (based on the parent's age at the
initial hearing) for up to an additional six month - up to a
period of 18 or 24 months from the date the child was
originally removed - if the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the
child to have the time extended, the parent is making
significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe
home for the child's return, and there is a substantial
probability that the child can safely return to the parent
during the extended timeframe or reasonable services have not
been provided to the parent.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that a minor who has been abused or neglected may be
removed from the custody of his or her parents and become a
dependent of the juvenile court, as specified. (Welfare &
Institutions Code Section 300. Unless stated otherwise, all
further statutory references are to that code.)
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. (Sections 202 and
300.2.)
3)Requires the court to consider at several points during the
dependency process 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
access services and maintain contact with the child, and the
SB 68
Page 4
parent's significant and consistent progress in establishing a
safe home for the child's return. (Sections 366.21 and
366.22.)
4)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. If it is in the best interests of the child to have the
time extended and there is a substantial probability that the
child can safely return to the parent during the extended
timeframe or reasonable services have not been provided to the
parent, current law allows the court to extend family
reunification services 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 specific findings. (Sections
361.5.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: Like parents who are incarcerated, in residential
substance abuse programs, detained, or deported and have
children in the child welfare system, teen parents face
particular barriers that make successful reunification with
their children more difficult. Over the last several years, the
Legislature has allowed the juvenile court to provide
incarcerated, detained and deported parents who are making
progress toward reunifying with their children with additional
time for reunification services. This bill, as proposed to be
amended, seeks to give that same extra help to teen parents and
nonminor dependent parents.
In support of the bill, the author writes about the barriers
SB 68
Page 5
faced by teen parents:
Minor parents must navigate an already complicated legal
process which presumes the parent or legal guardian has
ready access to court-ordered treatment programs. Many of
these existing programs are not necessarily adaptable to
the needs of a minor parent.
Minor parents are also enrolled in school or pursuing other
educational opportunities, which limits their chances to
effectively utilize parenting skills enhancement programs
within the time frame normally allotted by statute. Minor
parents face substantial legal barriers that prevent access
to full-time employment, appropriate child care,
transportation, and adequate housing.
Minor parents must overcome these systemic barriers while
also demonstrating a full-time commitment to their
parenting responsibilities.
This bill extends for six month reunification services for
minor parents who are making significant progress in a
court-ordered reunification plan. The bill also recognizes
the unique challenges faced by teenage parents.
Previous Legislation Has Provided Parents Who May Have Barriers
in Accessing Child Welfare Services With Extra Assistance. The
child welfare system seeks to ensure the safety and protection
of children, and, where possible, preserve and strengthen
families through visitation and family reunification. Over the
years, the Legislature has enacted a number of laws requiring
the court to take into consideration specific circumstances that
create barriers to family reunification when trying to create a
permanency plan for a child, including in appropriate cases
SB 68
Page 6
allowing an extra six months of reunification services for
parents who, for no fault of their own, may have a harder time
accessing services. AB 2070 (Bass), Chap. 482, Stats. 2008,
required courts to consider the particular barriers to accessing
court-mandated services faced by institutionalized and
incarcerated parents. SB 1064 (De León), Chap. 845, Stats.
2012, did the same for detained and deported parents. Along
those same lines, SB 977 (Liu), Chap. 219, Stats. 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 Recognizes the Special Hurdles Faced by Teen Parents,
and Helps Provide Them, in Appropriate Circumstances, With Extra
Time to Reunify With Their Children. Teen parents with children
in the child welfare system face particular barriers to
successful reunification with their children. In addition to
being young and inexperienced while navigating the adult world,
they likely have financial, transportation, and time barriers
that limit their access to required reunification services.
Additionally, research shows 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, Decision-Making is Still
a Work in Progress for Teenagers, Brain Connection (March
2013).) Added together, these issues make parenting more
challenging for teen parents, and, for those teens who have had
their children removed to the foster care system, can make
reunifying with their children much more difficult.
Thus this bill, recognizing those difficulties, requires the
court to consider the particular barriers that teen parents have
in accessing court-mandated reunification services and in
maintaining contact with their children. And, similar to the
considerations a court must take into account when ordering
reunification services for incarcerated, institutionalized,
deported, or detained parents, this bill specifically allows up
SB 68
Page 7
to six additional months of reunification services for minor
parents who are making significant progress in their
court-ordered reunification plan. The bill does not mandate
that the court grant the additional time. It only requires that
the court consider the special barriers faced by young parents
and that the court consider allowing additional time if the
court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is
in the best interests of the child to have the time extended,
the parent is making significant and consistent progress in
establishing a safe home for the child, and there is a
substantial probability that the child can safely return to the
parent during the extended timeframe or reasonable services have
not been provided to the parent.
Given the Additional Hurdles Faced by Parenting Foster Youth,
the Author Rightly Proposes to Expand the Extra Assistance in
this Bill to Nonminor Dependent Parents as Well as Minor
Parents. While parenting can present any young parent with
significant challenges, those challenges are far greater for
foster youth:
Parenting youths in foster care are among the most
vulnerable respondents in neglect and abuse proceedings.
Not only are they in foster care, but also, as parents and
expectant parents, they are subject to a heightened level
of scrutiny by virtue of living in a highly structured
environment staffed with mandated reporters.
Our youth-in-care clients almost always face allegations by
foster parents or staff members in congregate care
settings, such as mother-child placements or maternity
residences. Some common allegations against young mothers
in foster care are being missing from care-or "awoling"-
either with or without the subject child and either prior
to or during pregnancy; missing curfew either with or
without the subject child and either prior to or during
SB 68
Page 8
pregnancy; taking the child to homes or locations not
cleared and approved by the agency; failing to follow
directives or suggestions on the care of the subject child
from an agency staff member or a foster parent; failing to
attend school, a General Educational Development program,
or job training; behaving in a difficult-to-control manner
in a congregate care facility or a foster home; and not
complying with recommended therapeutic treatment or
medication management or both for a mental health diagnosis
such as bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, or posttraumatic
stress disorder. (Horwitz, Protection v. Presentment, When
Youth in Foster Care Become Respondents in Child Welfare
Proceedings, 45 Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty
Law and Policy Numbers 9-10, 421, 426 (Jan.-Feb. 2012)
[footnotes omitted].)
As a result, the author rightly proposes to slightly expand the
bill to provide the extra reunification support not just to
minor parents, but also to nonminor dependent parents who are
still young and face continued hurdles to successfully parenting
their children based on the abuse or neglect they suffered as
children and the time they spent in foster care.
The amendments adding nonminor dependents are as follows:
1. On page 19, line 17, after "parent" insert: , or a nonminor
dependent parent,
2. On page 22, line 25, after "parent" insert: , or a nonminor
dependent parent,
3. On page 30, line 4, after "parent" insert: , or a nonminor
dependent parent,
SB 68
Page 9
4. On page 31, line 34, delete "minor"
5. On page 31, line 34, after "parent" insert: who was either
a minor or a nonminor dependent
6. On page 31, line 34, after "at" insert: the time of
Related Pending Legislation: AB 260 (Lopez) provides special
support and protections for parenting minor and nonminor
dependents. This bill passed the Assembly and is awaiting
hearing in the Senate Human Services Committee and the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation: SB 977 (Liu), Chap. 219, Stats. 2014,
required social workers to include in each social study,
evaluation, and supplemental report a factual discussion of
whether a child can be returned to the custody of his or her
parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment
facility, and required the court to consider whether a child can
be returned to the custody of his or her parent in these
situations, as specified.
SB 1064 (De León), Chap. 845, Stats. 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.
AB 2070 (Bass), Chap. 482, Stats. 2008, required that courts
SB 68
Page 10
take into consideration, among other factors, the particular
barriers to accessing court-mandated services for
institutionalized and incarcerated parents and allowed courts to
extend reunification services, as specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers (sponsor)
Alliance for Children's Rights
Children's Law Center of California
Dependency Legal Services
Family Law Section of the State Bar
First Place for Youth
Juvenile Court Judges of California
National Association of Social Workers
San Francisco Counsel for Families and Children
SB 68
Page 11
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334