BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  June 21, 2016


                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY


                                  Mark Stone, Chair


          SB  
          942 (Liu) - As Amended June 15, 2016


                                  PROPOSED CONSENT


          SENATE VOTE:  39-0


          SUBJECT:  DEPENDENT CHILDREN: TEMPORARY RELATIVE PLACEMENT


          KEY ISSUE:  IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF FOSTER CHILDREN AND  
          ENHANCE REUNIFICATION EFFORTS, SHOULD THE CHILD WELFARE AGENCY  
          AND THE COURT IMPROVE THE PROCESS FOR EARLY ASSESSMENT AND  
          PLACEMENT OF FOSTER CHILDREN WITH RELATIVES? 


                                      SYNOPSIS


          Research has repeatedly shown that placing vulnerable foster  
          children with willing and able relatives is most often the best  
          placement for these children and, as a result, state law  
          provides a placement priority for relatives.  However, far too  
          often, states the author, "too many of California's foster  
          children remain in shelters or foster homes for extended periods  
          of time even after an appropriate relative has requested  
          placement.  Many times postponements of relative placements are  








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  2





          the result of unwarranted delays in the assessment process or in  
          securing required exemptions for criminal histories."  This  
          bill, sponsored jointly by the Alliance for Children's Rights,  
          the Children's Law Center of California and the Juvenile Court  
          Judges of California, seeks to improve procedures for the  
          temporary placement of a child with an able and willing relative  
          prior to the initial child welfare detention hearing by  
          requiring a social worker to conduct an assessment, including  
          requiring a criminal records check be conducted within a  
          specified timeframe, and establishing procedures to hold a  
          hearing for consideration of recommendations based on that  
          assessment.  If the county fails to meet those required  
          timeframes, this bill authorizes a judge to make a finding that  
          the county has abused its discretion.  This bill also requires  
          the county to actively assist a person in locating and obtaining  
          any documents required for the criminal records exemption.  This  
          bill is supported by children's advocates and the Los Angeles  
          Unified School District, and has no reported opposition.


          SUMMARY:  Requires an early assessment of a relative home for  
          placement of a dependent child, and provides for court oversight  
          if that early assessment does not occur timely.  Specifically,  
          this bill:  


          1)States legislative findings that placement of a dependent  
            child with able and willing relatives at the earliest point in  
            time is in the child's best interest.  Clarifies the  
            legislative preference for relative placement by stating that  
            research has shown that foster children tend to be more  
            emotionally well off when placed with their relatives, and  
            reunification with their parents is routinely enhanced by  
            placement with those relatives.


          2)Requires the court to order a social worker to immediately  
            conduct an assessment of a willing relative who requests  
            temporary placement of a child, if that child is not placed  








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  3





            with a relative at the time of the initial detention hearing.   



          3)Requires a county, to the extent possible, to actively assist  
            a person seeking placement of a dependent child and 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.


          4)Requires the county to complete the assessment process,  
            including any exemptions and waivers, within 30 calendar days.  
             Permits a court to set a hearing to determine why the  
            assessment is not completed within 30 days.  Permits the  
            court, if the assessment process is not complete, or an  
            exemption or waiver is denied, or any administrative process  
            is not complete with 60 days of the court ordering the county  
            to conduct the assessment, to conduct a hearing to determine  
            if the county has abused its discretion.


          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 as the result of abuse or neglect, as specified.   
            (Welfare & Institutions Section 300.  Unless stated otherwise,  
            all further statutory references are to that code.)
          2)Requires the social worker to immediately release a child in  
            temporary custody to the child's parent, guardian or  
            responsible relative, unless specified conditions exist.   
            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 a nonrelated extended family member (NREFM), as  








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  4





            defined.  (Section 309.)


          3)Requires the court, at the detention hearing, to 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 relatives and NREFM.  Defines "relative" as  
            an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or  
            affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including step  
            relatives, relatives whose status is preceded with "great,"  
            "great-great" or "grand" or the spouse of any of these  
            persons.  Provides that only grandparents, aunts, uncles or  
            siblings are eligible for preferential consideration for  
            placement.  (Section 319.)


          4)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, and requires the county to prohibit  
            placement with anyone who has an arrest or conviction for a  
            serious or violent felony, as specified.  (Section 361.4.)


          5)Prohibits placement of the child in a home where an adult in  
            the home has a criminal history until an exemption is granted  
            by the county.  (Section 361.4 (d).)


          FISCAL EFFECT:  As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.


          COMMENTS:  When abused or neglected children are taken from the  
          custody of their parents, social workers are required to release  
          a child temporarily to a responsible parent, guardian, or  
          relative, unless a specified condition exists.  These  
          placements, at least initially, are temporary while the social  
          worker develops a case plan to present to the court according to  








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  5





          the following priorities: 1) maintain the child within his or  
          her home; 2) remove the child but with the goal of reuniting the  
          parent and child; or 3) find a permanent placement for the  
          child.  There is a strong preference to place the child with  
          relatives.


          Existing law requires, prior to placing a child in the home of a  
          relative or any other prospective guardian, that the social  
          worker visit the home to ascertain the appropriateness of the  
          placement and run a criminal records check on all persons over  
          18 years of age living in the home, or any other person who may  
          have significant contact with the child, including those with a  
          familial or intimate relationship with any person living in the  
          home.  If a criminal record check shows that a person has been  
          convicted of a crime for which there is an exemption, the child  
          cannot be placed in the home until the county does in fact grant  
          that exemption.  An exemption 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, the Department of Social Services 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.  During this exemption  
          process the child is potentially waiting in a shelter or foster  
          home for clearance before he or she can be placed with the  
          relative. 


          Seeking to expedite this process and thereby place children in  
          the homes of relatives more quickly, this bill requires that  
          social workers immediately assess willing relatives.  This bill  
          also authorizes the court to conduct a hearing to determine if  








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  6





          the county has abused its discretion if the assessment process  
          is not completed within a specified timeframe, and would  
          additionally require the county, to the extent possible, to  
          actively assist a person in locating and obtaining any documents  
          required for a criminal records exemption.   


          In support of the bill, the author writes: 


            The advantages of relative placements are well recognized in  
            law and policy, as are the benefits of this placement  
            occurring as quickly as possible after removal from a parent.  
            Longer stays in care, frequent placement disruptions, and  
            placements with nonrelative caregivers or in residential  
            facilities have been found to have a negative effect on child  
            functioning and child welfare permanency outcomes.


            Timely placement in a stable environment with relatives is  
            also directly linked to educational success.  Foster students  
            in kinship and guardianship placements were among the most  
            likely to graduate from high school.  Students with one  
            placement were most likely to graduate, while students with  
            three or more placements were least likely to graduate.


            Yet, in spite of current law, too many of California's foster  
            children remain in shelters or foster homes for extended  
            periods of time even after an appropriate relative has  
            requested placement.  Many times postponements of relative  
            placements are the result of unwarranted delays in the  
            assessment process or in securing required exemptions for  
            criminal histories. Those unwarranted delays may stem from  
            things like records lost in hurricane Katrina or family  
            members who have no familiarity with the complexities of the  
            criminal background check process being asked to personally  
            research and secure decade's old data from distant  
            jurisdictions.  An unfortunately common cause for delays  








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  7





            listed by both dependency court judges and attorneys in our  
            examination of this issue is the inability of older  
            grandparents to provide usable fingerprints due wrinkled  
            fingers which caused social workers to be unable to process  
            the prints.  This resulted in requiring these grandparents to  
            return over and over again to be fingerprinted until a usable  
            set of prints was achieved.  In other cases, months can go by  
            between when relatives have completed required home  
            modifications and when the home condition is reassessed for  
            approval.    


            In situations like these the long delays associated with the  
            inability to complete exemptions or waivers may result in the  
            child being shuffled through multiple placements, lingering in  
            foster homes, congregate care settings or shelters for  
            extended periods of time, even after an appropriate relative  
            has requested placement.  When moved from their placement  
            after long delays in placing children with relatives, the  
            child is often re-traumatized as they are removed from their  
            familiar surroundings and bonds that have developed with  
            caregivers are severed. 


            There is currently no remedy in the law to address these  
            extended delays.  (Citations omitted.)


          Preference for Placement with Relatives.  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.  Writing in the  
          National Journal for the Court Appointed Special Advocates for  
          Children (CASA), retired Santa Clara Juvenile Court Judge Len  
          Edwards underscored the benefits of placing children with  
          relatives:

                 Children in relative care tend to be just as safe as, or  
               safer than, children placed in foster care.








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  8







                 Relative placements provide more stability than  
               placement with foster families, and if the child has to  
               move, it is likely he or she will move from the home of one  
               relative to another.


                 Siblings more often remain together in relative care,  
               and are more likely to visit one another even if they  
               reside in separate relative homes.


                 Relative caregivers are more likely to continue the ties  
               with the child's birth family.


                 Children in relative care are more likely to remain  
               connected to their community, including their school.


                 Relative caretakers facilitate parent-child visitation  
               more easily since the caregivers will likely favor  
               reunification and will be less likely than foster parents  
               to compete with the parents for permanent custody of the  
               child.


                 Relatives are more likely to invest time and care for a  
               child who shares a blood tie.  This includes a willingness  
               to care for the child for as long as needed.


                 Placement with relatives will generally be less  
               traumatic than placement in an unfamiliar home because the  
               children will be living with someone they know and trust,  
               particularly if the non-relative differs racially or  
               ethnically from the child.         









                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  9






                 Placement with relatives supports the transmission of a  
               child's family identity, culture, and ethnicity.


                 Placement with relatives eliminates the unfortunate  
               stigma that many foster children experience.


                 Children fare better in relative care than in foster  
               care along numerous axes.


                 The child placed with relatives knows his or her own  
               family, sees family resemblances, and understands how he or  
               she fits into it.  (Judge Len Edwards, Examining the  
               Benefits and Challenges of Placing Children with Relatives  
               (CASA Nov. 2011).)

          But, Judge Edwards noted, there are barriers to placing children  
          with relatives: 

            Relative preference may be the law today, but significant  
            challenges remain.  . . . We must also identify, locate and  
            engage relatives.  Relative preference statutes mean little  
            without rigorous social work immediately following removal of  
            the child from parental care. The social worker must learn  
            from the parents who the child's relatives are, contact them,  
            and encourage them to become involved in the child protection  
            case.  The sooner this is accomplished, the more likely that  
            the relatives will become engaged. The law now gives relatives  
            the right to appear before the court and speak on behalf of  
            the child.  Just as importantly, relatives have the ability to  
            participate in group decision-making processes such as family  
            group conferences, team decision making, family team meetings,  
            and court-based mediation.  All of these group decision-making  
            processes have spread throughout the United States and have  
            been recognized as best practices in the resolution of the  
            difficult issues presented in child protection cases.








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  10







            Delay in relative engagement often means that they will not be  
            selected as placement for the child.  The child protection  
            system is notoriously slow.  Fact finding hearings may take  
            months to complete.  Placement issues may take over a year.   
            Yet in the meantime the child will be living with a family and  
            will naturally become strongly connected to that family.  The  
            late-arriving relative often finds that the foster family will  
            be preferred because of the connection between the child and  
            that family.


            Relative placement is good social and legal policy.  However,  
            effective implementation of relative preference requires early  
            identification and engagement.  It requires effective judicial  
            oversight of social worker actions regarding locating and  
            engaging fathers and relatives.  It also requires  
            opportunities for relatives to participate in decision making,  
            preferably through group decision-making processes.  Engaging  
            relatives is a best practice, one that will serve the best  
            interests of children separated from their parents.   
            (Examining the Benefits and Challenges of Placing Children  
            with Relatives, supra.)

          This bill expedites the court's ability to safely place foster  
          youth in the homes of relatives.  This bill is the result of  
          stakeholder meetings and discussions the author has conducted  
          with interested groups over the past several years.  In these  
          discussions, dependency judges expressed frustration about  
          delays in placement for children whose family members need to  
          obtain exemptions.  The bill addresses these concerns by  
          allowing courts to hold hearings to determine whether the  
          county, after failing to timely complete an assessment or when  
          an exemption or a waiver is denied, abused its discretion.  This  
          court oversight, combined with the requirement for immediate  
          assessment of a relative willing to take temporary placement of  
          a detained youth and the requirement to help assist relatives in  
          getting the documents necessary for a criminal record exemption,  








                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  11





          should ensure that the process of approving relative homes will  
          be expedited.  


          The Children's Law Center of California, co-sponsor, 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, also a  
          co-sponsor of the bill, state that this bill will ensure that  
          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."


          Related Pending Legislation:  This bill works in collaboration  
          with two other bills being considered by this Committee today.   
          SB 316 (Mitchell) clarifies and simplifies rules for criminal  
          background checks for foster care placements and makes the rules  
          consistent with federal law.


          SB 1336 (Jackson), consistent with case law, requires child  
          welfare agencies to consider willing relatives even when a new  
          foster care placement is not required and requires the court to  
          consider whether social workers have exercised due diligence in  
          conducting their investigation to identify, locate, and notify  
          the foster children's relatives. 


          Prior Legislation:  AB 1761 (Hall), Chap. 765, Stats. 2014,  
          clarified that the placement priority for relatives and NREFM  
          applies both prior to the detention hearing and also after the  
          detention hearing and prior to the dispositional hearing.









                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  12






          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:


          Support


          Alliance for Children's Rights (co-sponsor)


          Juvenile Court Judges of California (co-sponsor)


          Children's Law Center of California (co-sponsor)


          Children Now


          John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes


          Los Angeles Unified School District


          National Association of Social Workers


          Public Counsel Children's Rights Project


          Opposition


          None on file












                                                                     SB 942


                                                                    Page  13





          Analysis Prepared by:Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)  
          319-2334