BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Senator McGuire, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 942
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Liu |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|----------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------------|
|Version: |February 3, 2016 |Hearing |March 29, 2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|----------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Mareva Brown |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Dependency proceedings: relative caregivers
SUMMARY
This bill establishes additional procedures for the temporary
placement of a child with an able and willing relative under
circumstances in which the child has not yet been placed with a
relative prior to the initial child welfare detention hearing.
It requires a social worker to conduct an assessment, and
establishes a seven-day timeline in which to report the results
of the assessment to the court. This bill additionally requires
that a criminal records check be conducted within a specified
timeframe. If the county fails to meet those timeframes, this
bill authorizes a judge to make a placement of a child in a home
in which an exemption would be required prior to receipt of the
exemption if the county is found to have abused its discretion
by not conducting a timely assessment, as specified. The bill
imposes additional time frames and court review on the
assessment process and requires the county to actively assist a
person in locating and obtaining any documents required for the
exemption.
ABSTRACT
Existing law:
1) Under federal statute, vests responsibility for caring
for a child who has been removed from home and placed in
foster care with the state and any public agency which is
SB 942 (Liu) PageB
of?
administering the foster care plan with the state. (42
U.S.C. 672 (a)(2)(B))
2) Under state statute, places the care of a child who has
been removed from his or her parents or guardian under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court and defines abuse and
neglect criteria for such removal. (WIC 300 et seq)
3) Defines the steps and timelines the county must take
after detaining a child, including creating a preference
for the child to be placed temporarily with an able and
willing relative or nonrelated extended family member
(NREFM), as defined. (WIC 309)
4) Requires at the detention hearing the court take certain
steps to evaluate the case, determine whether the child can
be returned home safely, and, if not, to ensure the child
is placed in an appropriate placement, with priority
consideration for family members and NREFM. (WIC 319)
5) Establishes criteria for approving a relative or NREFM
home for the placement of a child, including a home visit
and the submission of fingerprints for a state and federal
criminal background check. Requires the county to prohibit
placement with anyone who has an arrest or conviction for a
serious or violent felony, as specified. (WIC 361.4)
6) Prohibits placement of the child in a home until an
exemption is granted by the county, if an adult in the home
has an exemptible criminal history. (WIC 361.4 (d))
This bill:
1) States Legislative findings and declarations that
placement with able and willing relatives at the earliest
point in time is in the best interest of a child in the
dependency system. Further states that research has shown
that a child in the dependency system tends to be more
emotionally well off when placed with his or her relatives,
and reunification with his or her parents is routinely
enhanced by placement with those relatives.
2) Requires the court to order a social worker to conduct
an assessment of a willing relative that requests temporary
SB 942 (Liu) PageC
of?
placement of a child if that child is not placed with a
relative at the time of the initial detention hearing.
3) Requires that within seven calendar days, the social
worker shall provide the results of the assessment to the
court, the parent or guardian, the child's attorney, and
the child, if the child is 10 years of age or older.
4) Permits the child or his or her parent or guardian to
request a hearing to consider the recommendations of the
social worker based on the assessment. Requires the court
to hold a hearing not later than 10 court days after such a
request is made.
5) Establishes that setting of the court hearing shall not
be construed to limit the social worker's authority to
place a child in the home of an appropriate relative or
nonrelative extended family member pending receipt of the
results of the assessment or the hearing.
6) Requires a county, to the extent possible, actively
assist a person requesting an exemption relating to a
criminal background check result to help the person to
locate and obtain any documents required, including having
a social worker contact any other government entity
directly to obtain any required arrest reports or court
dispositions.
7) Requires the county to complete the assessment process,
including any exemptions and waivers, within 30 calendar
days.
8) Permits a court to set a hearing to determine why the
assessment is not completed within 30 days and specifies
that the denial of an exemption or waiver due to the
failure of the county to obtain necessary governmental
documents shall not be considered completion of the
assessment process.
9) Permits the court to conduct a hearing 60 calendar days
after the court order to consider granting the exemption or
waiver, and permits the court to order the child to be
placed with the person.
SB 942 (Liu) PageD
of?
10) If an exemption or waiver is denied, and any
administrative process is not complete within 60 calendar
days of the court ordering the county to conduct the
assessment, the court may conduct a hearing to determine if
the county has abused its discretion. At the end of that
hearing, the court may order the child to be placed with
the person if it finds that the county abused its
discretion, the placement is appropriate, and the placement
is in the best interest of the child.
FISCAL IMPACT
This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the bill:
According to the author, this bill will address the long delays
associated with an inability to complete criminal exemptions for
appropriate relatives which result in foster children remaining
in shelters or foster homes. By instituting timelines for the
process of assessments and waivers, this bill provides
dependency court judges the ability to examine the facts that
have been gathered within the timeline and move the placement
forward if the placement is appropriate and in the best interest
of the child, according to the author.
The author cites numerous studies which show that children fare
better when placed with relatives than they do in an unfamiliar
home or group setting. The author states. "Many times
postponements of relative placements are the result of
unwarranted delays in the assessment process or in securing
required exemptions for criminal histories." As example, the
author cites records lost in Hurricane Katrina or family members
who are challenged to personally research and secure decades old
data from distant jurisdictions.
Background:
California's child welfare system protects children at risk of
child abuse and neglect or exploitation through an integrated
service system. It provides intensive services to families
focused on establishing sufficient child safety, permanency and
SB 942 (Liu) PageE
of?
well-being to allow families to stay together in their own
homes. However, If county social workers, through the oversight
of local juvenile courts, determine that out-of-home placement
is the only safe option for a child, the child welfare agency
arranges for and monitors temporary or permanent placement of
the child in the safest and least restrictive environment
possible.
Approximately 62,600 children were in the custody of the child
welfare system in California as of October 1, 2015, according to
data produced by UC Berkeley's Child Welfare Indicators
website.<1> Some 22,000 of those children - or roughly 35
percent - were placed with relatives, according to the same
report. Data released with the Governor's budget in January 2016
indicates average monthly caseloads of 45,000, children who
experienced abuse or neglect, with an anticipated increase in
coming months.
Outcomes of Children in Foster Care
Numerous national studies have documented the poor outcomes of
children and youth who are removed from their homes into the
child welfare system. These children have increased rates of
chronic health problems, developmental delays and disabilities,
mental health needs, and substance abuse problems, according to
a 2013 report by the Children's Aid Society and the Community
Service Society entitled "Foster Care and Disaffected Youth: A
Way Forward for New York." <2> Many youth have experienced
traumatic events that lead to symptoms such as depression,
behavior problems, hypersensitivity, and emotional difficulties.
Being removed from one's home is, in itself, a traumatic event,
leading to the loss of and separation from family, friends, and
neighbors. Twenty-five percent of youth who age-out of care
experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder-double the rate of
U.S. war veterans, according to the report. Nationally, the
birth rate for teen girls in foster care is more than double
that for those outside the foster care system.
Additionally, the report says the education of youth in foster
care is more likely to be disrupted because they frequently move
---------------------------
<1>http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
<2>
http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/files/upload-docs/report_final
_April_2.pdf
SB 942 (Liu) PageF
of?
from school to school. Former foster youth are less likely to
graduate high school, attend a community or four-year college,
or to receive a postsecondary degree. In addition, they are less
likely to obtain a GED than their peers who dropped out of high
school and more likely to experience suspension or expulsion,
the report said.
Placement with relatives
State and federal statutes state a preference to place children
in out-of-home care with relatives. State law provides an
expedited approval process for family members and nonrelative
extended family members (NREFM) who step forward when the child
is detained in order to quickly place the child in a familiar
home.
Studies have demonstrated significant benefit to children in the
child welfare system who are placed with relatives rather than
with strangers in foster homes or in group care. A 2008 study in
the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that
children placed into kinship care had fewer behavioral problems
three years after placement than children who were placed into
foster care.
"Our study demonstrated a protective effect of
kinship care on the early behavioral outcomes of a
nationally representative cohort of children entering
out-of-home care. Compared to children entering
foster care, children entering kinship care had a
lower estimated risk of behavioral problems, even
after accounting for their lower baseline risk and
increased placement stability. Even children who
moved to kinship care after sustained periods of
foster care showed some benefit. The magnitude of
this association between placement setting and later
behavioral problems should reassure a child welfare
community that has increasingly moved children toward
kinship placements in recent years."<3>
The authors cited other studies showing that "a large body of
---------------------------
<3> Rubin, David, et al. "The Impact of Kinship Care on
Behavioral Well-being for Children in Out-of-Home Care,"
Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, June 2008, pgs
550-556.
SB 942 (Liu) PageG
of?
research acknowledges the evidence that children in kinship care
are less likely to change placements, benefiting from increased
placement stability compared to children in general foster
care." Children in kinship care are also more likely to remain
in their same neighborhood, be placed with siblings, and have
consistent contact with their birth parents than children in
foster care.
Background checks
State and federal<4> statutes require CDSS to perform background
checks on applicants, licensees, adult residents, employees and
some volunteers of community care facilities who have contact
with clients. Included in the definition of community care
facilities are foster homes, both public and private, group
homes and homes that serve individuals who are elderly or have
developmental disabilities. Individuals must submit their
fingerprints, through a LiveScan machine, for criminal
background clearance. Even with the expedited home survey,
close relatives with a criminal history cannot be cleared to
receive a foster child.
If a criminal record check shows a conviction of any crime other
than a minor traffic violation, the person is not permitted to
work or be present in any community care facility unless they
receive a written criminal record exemption from CDSS. Recent
legislation grants counties the ability to issue exemptions,
upon receiving permission from the state. A criminal background
clearance cannot be provided if the individual has been
convicted of a non-exemptible crime, such as rape, a sex
offense, murder, or fiscal malfeasance.
In cases where an applicant has been convicted of an exemptible
crime, DSS is required to process an exemption only if requested
by the applicant. Both federal and state laws and regulations,
require the state to conduct a thorough investigation and
evaluation of the applicant.
This process can be cumbersome, requiring the review of original
case documents, which can be difficult to obtain from distant
jurisdictions or in decades-old cases. In the case of new foster
care providers, this time lag takes place during the application
phase, before a child is identified for placement in the home.
But in the case of a family member, who is identified when, or
---------------------------
<4> The Adam Walsh Act (P.L. 109-248)
SB 942 (Liu) PageH
of?
soon after, a child is removed from home, the exemption process
happens while the child is waiting potentially in a shelter or
foster home for clearance to be placed with the relative.
Continuum of Care Reform
Following a three-year stakeholder process to reconsider how and
when California places foster children in long-term congregate
care, the state outlined a comprehensive reform of the system of
placements and services directed at youth in foster care.
"California's Child Welfare Continuum of Care Reform,"
envisioned new models of care for foster youth, including more
intensive services, providing needed treatment and services in
homes rather than in group care, and a significant decrease in
reliance on group homes. AB 403 (Stone, Chapter 773, Statutes of
2015) began enacting these reforms. As a result, CDSS, the
county welfare directors and advocates say there is a
significantly increased need for foster families to care for
these children.
Related legislation:
SB 1201 (Mitchell, 2016) moves consideration of an exemption for
specified crimes into the resource family approval process in
the context of other elements, such as the psychosocial
assessment, among other changes.
AB 403 (Stone, Chapter 773, Statutes of 2015) enacted the
continuum of care reform.
AB 1761 (Hall, chapter 765, Statutes of 2014) expanded the
placement preference language for relatives and NREFM from
being a priority prior to the detention hearing to also being a
priority after the detention hearing and prior to the
dispositional hearing.
COMMENTS
This bill is the result of a series of foster youth roundtables
and town halls that the author has conducted with stakeholders
over the past several years. Discussions with dependency court
judges at one of these events led to further conversations which
led to development of this bill. These judges and others express
SB 942 (Liu) PageI
of?
frustration about delays in placement for children whose family
members need to obtain exemptions. However, there is concern
about whether it is safe or appropriate to place a child into
the home of an adult whose exemption is pending, in part due to
safety concerns and in part because it increases the potential
for a child to be removed and relocated if the exemption is
denied.
Arguments in Support:
The Children's Law Center of California, which represents foster
children in Los Angeles and Sacramento county dependency courts
and is a sponsor of this bill, writes: "Too often we see our
clients lingering in foster homes, congregate care settings or
shelters for extended periods of time, even after an appropriate
relative has requested placement."
The Juvenile Court Judges of California, a sponsor of the bill,
write that this bill ensures children who have been removed from
their parents' homes are placed expediently with appropriate
relatives by creating a timeline by which an assessment must
occur and specifying a procedure for the court to oversee as
necessary the relative assessment and placement process. "These
important safeguards will help to reduce the re-traumatization
of abused and neglected children who enter the foster care
system."
Concerns:
The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) cites several
concerns with the bill, including:
The 7-day timeline for initial assessment of a family
home is "insufficient" if a criminal records check
indicates a hit.
New language requiring the assessment in WIC 319, which
governs the initial petition, is duplicative of
requirements in WIC 309, which requires the social worker
to assess family members when a child is brought into care,
and through the child's disposition hearing.
A requirement for the social worker to help the person
obtain necessary records from other governmental entities
SB 942 (Liu) PageJ
of?
to facilitate an exemption is confusing - it is permissive
in one section and appears to be sanctionable if not
performed later in the bill.
The bill permits a judge to place a child with a
relative whose exemption is pending, which is contrary to
federal law and has potential to place children in a
dangerous situation.
1. To address concerns raised by CWDA, the author
recommends the following amendments:
WIC 319 (f)(4) If the child is not placed with a relative at
the time of the initial hearing and an able and willing relative
is available and requests temporary placement of the child, the
court shall order the social worker to conduct an assessment
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 309.
Within seven calendar days, the social worker shall provide the
results of the status of the assessment as defined, including
CLETS, CACI, and walk through of the home, of up to two
relatives to the court, the parent or guardian, the child's
attorney, and the child, if the child is 10 years of age or
older. The child or his or her parent or guardian may request a
hearing to consider the recommendations of the social worker
based on the assessment. The court shall hold a hearing not
later than 10 court days after a request is made pursuant to
this paragraph. Consistent with the Legislature's intent that a
child be placed immediately with a responsible relative, this
paragraph shall not be construed to limit the social worker's
authority to place a child in the home of an appropriate
relative or nonrelative extended family member pending receipt
of the results of the assessment or the hearing.
2. Additionally staff recommends the following amendment in
order to reduce the potential of a child being placed with
a not-yet-exempted adult who ultimately does not receive an
exemption:
WIC 361.4 (d)(3)(C) If a court orders the county to assess a
person described in subdivision (a), the county shall complete
the assessment process, including any exemptions and waivers,
within 30 calendar days. If the process is not complete within
SB 942 (Liu) PageK
of?
30 calendar days of the court order, the court may set an order
to show cause hearing. The denial of an exemption or waiver due
to the failure of the county to obtain necessary governmental
documents shall not be considered completion of the assessment
process. Sixty calendar days after the court order to assess the
person, the court may conduct a hearing to consider granting the
exemption or waiver , and the court may order the child to be
placed with the person. If the assessment is not completed, an
exemption or waiver is denied, and / or any administrative
process is not complete within 60 calendar days of the court
ordering the county to conduct the assessment, the court may
conduct a hearing to determine if the county has abused its
discretion. At the end of that hearing, the court may order the
child to be placed with the person if it finds that the county
abused its discretion, the placement is appropriate, and the
placement is in the best interest of the child.
POSITIONS
Support:
Alliance for Children's Rights (Co-Sponsor)
Juvenile Court Judges of California (Co-sponsor)
Children's Law Center of California (Co-Sponsor)
Advokids
Children's Advocacy Institute
Children Now
Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State
Bar
Foster Care Counts
John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes
National Association of Social Workers
Public Counsel Children's Rights Project
SB 942 (Liu) PageL
of?
Oppose:
None received.
-- END --