BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 316|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 316
Author: Mitchell (D), et al.
Introduced:2/23/15
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Jackson, Vidak, Anderson, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Dependency proceedings: counsel
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill prohibits counsel representing a child or
nonminor dependent in dependency proceedings from having a
caseload that exceeds 77 clients, unless the counsel has the
assistance of a social worker or investigator, as specified, in
which case the caseload shall not exceed 188 clients. This bill
additionally strikes a requirement that the Judicial Council
promulgate rules of court to establish caseload standards.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Authorizes the juvenile court to adjudge minor children
"dependents" of the court in response to allegations of abuse
SB 316
Page 2
or neglect, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300 et
seq.)
2)Requires the court to appoint counsel for children or nonminor
dependents in dependency proceedings who are not represented
by counsel, unless the court finds that the child would not
benefit from that appointment. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
317(c).)
3)Provides the appointed counsel shall have a caseload and
training that ensures adequate representation of the child or
nonminor dependent, and requires the Judicial Council to
promulgate rules of court that establish caseload standards,
training requirements, and guidelines for appointed counsel
for children and nonminor dependents, as specified. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Sec. 317(c).)
This bill:
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.
Background
Every year, due to abuse or neglect, children are removed from
their home and placed in the juvenile dependency system. The
court is required to appoint minor's counsel, unless the child
would not benefit from counsel. In 2000, the Legislature
enacted SB 2160 (Schiff, Chapter 450, Statutes of 2000) which
presumed that children entering the dependency system would
benefit from counsel and required appointed counsel to have
caseloads and training that ensure adequate representation.
Under that bill, the Judicial Council was required to promulgate
SB 316
Page 3
rules establishing caseload standards. To that end, 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.)
Subsequent studies modified that caseload standard to a maximum
of 188 clients per attorney if the attorney had the assistance
of a half-time social worker or investigator. (Id at 8.) The
Judicial Council adopted the revised caseload standard in 2007,
but noted that "although a caseload standard has been formally
adopted, there is widespread recognition that there is not
currently sufficient funding available to implement that
standard." (Id.)
This bill establishes, in statute, a caseload standard of 77
clients, or 188 clients if counsel has the assistance of a
social worker or investigator, as specified, per minor's
counsel, and removes the requirement that the Judicial Council
promulgate caseload standards.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
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 effective
representation for children in dependency proceedings and more
efficient court processes.
SUPPORT: (Verified5/29/15)
SB 316
Page 4
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
Children's Advocacy Institute
Children's Law Center
Legal Advocates for Children & Youth
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
National Center for Youth Law
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/29/15)
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Children's Law Center, a
nonprofit legal services organization that represents over
32,000 foster children, writes in support, "Each of our
attorneys represents, on average, 300 child clients. This is
drastically higher than the caseload standard as recommended by
a 2008 American Humane Society caseload study. That study
concluded that the optimal caseload for a dependency attorney is
77 clients, while the maximum is 188 (when assisted by a social
work investigator.) Currently, 32 counties throughout California
are not sufficiently funded to meet even the maximum caseload
standard. In 15 California counties, attorneys are so
under-resources that caseloads are more than double that of the
maximum standard."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:The Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, who
represent parents in dependency proceedings, argue that this
bill, by imposing caseload limits on minors' counsel but not
parents' counsel, creates a rift in the dependency system. The
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers write that this bill "only solve
part of the plight of the underfunded and unconscionable high
caseloads of child and parent dependency lawyers. In fact what
is being proposed would significantly work to the detriment of
California children and families. ? Mandating smaller caseloads
only for children's counsel neglects the need for smaller
caseloads for parents (and guardians' counsel). This of course,
SB 316
Page 5
sends a direct message to parents, parents' and guardians'
counsel, other agencies and entities in the dependency system,
and the judiciary that parents are not as important as
children's counsel."
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
5/30/15 10:32:50
**** END ****