BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 68|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 68
Author: Liu (D)
Amended: 6/24/15
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
SENATE FLOOR: 40-0, 6/3/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,
Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner,
Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Minor or nonminor dependent 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 or nonminor dependent parent.
SB 68
Page 2
Assembly Amendments expand this bill to also apply to nonminor
dependent 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.)
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
SB 68
Page 3
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 or nonminor dependent 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 or nonminor dependent parent is
making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a
safe home for the child.
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:
SB 68
Page 4
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,
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 or nonminor dependent parents whose children are
placed in foster by providing for the extension of reunification
services for an additional six months for minor or nonminor
dependent parents who are making significant and consistent
progress toward establishing a safe home for the child.
Comments
SB 68
Page 5
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
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: (Verified8/20/15)
SB 68
Page 6
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. (source)
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: (Verified8/20/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly,
Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/21/15 11:32:34
**** END ****
SB 68
Page 7