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