BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 316 (Mitchell) - Dependency proceedings: counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 23, 2015 |Policy Vote: JUD. 6 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 27, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 316 would prohibit counsel representing a child or
nonminor dependent in dependency proceedings from having a
caseload that exceeds a specified number of clients. This bill
would delete the requirement that the Judicial Council
promulgate rules of court to establish caseload standards.
Fiscal
Impact:
Major ongoing costs of between $33.1 million and $92.4
million (General Fund) per year for additional attorneys to
meet the specified caseload standards ranging from the
maximum of 188 clients per attorney to the optimal standard
of 77 clients per attorney.
Unknown but potentially significant future cost savings
in child welfare services and court operations to the
extent additional dependency counsel results in more
SB 316 (Mitchell) Page 1 of
?
effective representation for children in dependency
proceedings and more efficient court processes.
Background: Existing law authorizes the juvenile court to adjudge minor
children "dependents" of the court in response to allegations of
abuse or neglect, as specified. (Welfare & Institutions Code
(WIC) § 300 et seq.)
Under existing law, the court is required to appoint counsel for
children or nonminor dependents that are not represented by
counsel in dependency proceedings, unless the court finds that
the child would not benefit from that appointment. (WIC §
317(c).)
SB 2160 (Schiff) Chapter 450/2000, required appointed counsel to
have caseloads and training that ensure adequate representation.
Under the provisions of the bill, the Judicial Council was
required to promulgate rules establishing caseload standards. As
a result, the Judicial Council conducted a study in 2002 and
recommended, "that a maximum caseload of 141 clients per
full-time dependency attorney be the base-level standard of
performance; a maximum caseload of 77 clients was identified as
necessary for an optimal, or best practice, standard of
performance." (Judicial Council of Cal., Admin Off. of Cts.,
Dependency Counsel Caseload Standards: A Report to the
California Legislature (Apr. 2008), p. 7.)
The Judicial Council adopted a revised caseload standard in
2007, based on subsequent studies that modified the caseload
standard to a maximum of 188 clients per attorney if the
attorney had the assistance of a half-time social worker or
investigator, but noted that there was not sufficient funding
available to implement that standard.
In its March 26, 2015, hearing agenda, Subcommittee No. 5 of the
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review, reported the following:
The Judicial Council currently allocates $103.7
million annually for dependency council. With
court-appointed counsel providing representation to
approximately 142,500 parents and children, the
current level of funding is sufficient to provide
representation at a rate of one attorney for
approximately 250 clients. The Judicial Council does
SB 316 (Mitchell) Page 2 of
?
not collect the data necessary to determine the
dependency counsel caseloads by county. However, they
have provided an estimate, based on the number of
child clients and the funding allocations. Below is a
breakdown of the estimated caseloads for the largest
counties in the state. (p.13)
Proposed Law:
This bill would make the following changes with respect to
counsel in dependency proceedings:
1) Deletes the requirement that the Judicial Council
promulgate rules of court to establish caseload standards.
2) Prohibits counsel representing a child or nonminor
dependent in dependency proceedings from having a caseload
that exceeds 77 child or nonminor dependent clients, unless
the counsel has the assistance of a social worker or
investigator who is employed at least on a half-time basis,
in which case the caseload shall not exceed 188 child or
nonminor dependent clients.
Prior
Legislation: SB 2160 (Schiff) Chapter 450/2000 required the
Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court by July 1, 2001,
providing for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and for
caseload standards for appointed counsel. The bill authorized
related rules of court regarding guidelines for appointment of
an attorney rather than a special advocate to represent a child,
and caseload standards for guardians ad litem.
Staff
Comments: According to the January 14, 2014, report of the
Chief Justice, "A Three-Year Blueprint for a Fully Functioning
Judicial Branch," it would cost $33.1 million per year to adjust
current dependency counsel caseloads of 250 clients per attorney
to meet the caseload standard of 188 clients per attorney.
Extrapolating from this estimate, reducing dependency counsel
caseloads to 77 clients per attorney would cost $92.4 million
annually.
SB 316 (Mitchell) Page 3 of
?
To the extent additional dependency counsel results in more
effective representation for children in dependency proceedings
and more efficient court processes, the state could potentially
realize significant future costs savings in child welfare
services and court operations.
-- END --