BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 942
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Susan Bonilla, Chair
SB
942 (Liu) - As Amended June 15, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: Dependency proceedings: relative caregivers
SUMMARY: Requires an early assessment of a relative home for
placement of a dependent child, provides for court oversight if
that early assessment does not occur in a timely manner, as
specified, and requires county welfare agencies to assist
persons filing for criminal records exemptions with locating
pertinent documents.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes Legislative findings and declarations regarding the
benefits of placement with able and willing relatives for a
child in the dependency system.
2)Requires the court to order a social worker to conduct an
assessment, as specified, of an able and willing relative who
is available and requests temporary placement of the child, if
the child is not placed with a relative at the time of the
SB 942
Page 2
initial hearing.
3)Requires a county welfare agency, to the extent possible, to
assist a person in locating and obtaining any documents
required for a criminal records exemption, as specified.
4)Requires a county welfare agency to complete the assessment
process of a willing and able relative, including any
exemptions and waivers, within 30 calendar days.
5)Allows the court to set an order to show cause hearing if the
assessment process is not completed within 30 calendar days of
the court order.
6)Allows the court to conduct a hearing to determine if the
county has abused its discretion if the assessment process is
not complete, an exemption or waiver is denied, or any
administrative process is not complete within 60 calendar days
of the court ordering the county to conduct an assessment of
an able and willing relative.
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. (WIC
300)
2)Requires a 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 a county must take, and associated
SB 942
Page 3
timelines, 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 defined. (WIC 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. (WIC 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. (WIC 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. (WIC 361.4 (d).)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations analysis
on May 27, 2016, this bill may result in the following costs:
1)Social worker activities: Potentially major increase in
social worker workload, potentially in the millions of dollars
SB 942
Page 4
(General Fund*) annually to meet the specified timeframes to
complete up to two in-home assessments, background checks,
exemptions, and document assistance, as well as reporting to
the court and participation at additional court hearings.
2)Court hearings: Potentially significant increase in state
court costs (General Fund) to conduct additional hearings both
mandatory and discretionary.
3)Department of Justice (DOJ): Minor workload increase (Special
Fund) to complete background checks, to be reimbursed through
fees.
4)Proposition 30*: Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement
for realigned responsibilities for "public safety services"
including the provision of child welfare services, however,
legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an
overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a
local agency for public safety services apply to local
agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual
funding for the cost increase. The provisions of Proposition
30 have not been interpreted through the formal court process
to date, however, to the extent the local agency costs
resulting from this measure are determined to be applicable
under the provisions of Proposition 30, could result in
additional costs to the State.
COMMENTS:
Child Welfare Services: The purpose of California's Child
Welfare Services (CWS) system is to protect children from abuse
and neglect and provide for their health and safety. When
children are identified as being at risk of abuse, neglect or
abandonment, county juvenile courts hold legal jurisdiction and
SB 942
Page 5
children are served by the CWS system through the appointment of
a social worker. Through this system, there are multiple
opportunities for the custody of the child, or his or her
placement outside of the home, to be evaluated, reviewed and
determined by the judicial system, in consultation with the
child's social worker, to help provide the best possible
services to the child. The CWS system seeks to help children
who have been removed from their homes reunify with their
parents or guardians, whenever appropriate, or unite them with
other individuals they consider to be family. There are
currently over 62,000 children and youth in California's child
welfare system.
Dependency Court Procedure: When a child is removed from the
custody of his or her parent(s), he or she is temporarily placed
within the jurisdiction of the child welfare system until a
determination about the child's welfare is made. Within 48
hours after a child is taken into temporary custody, the county
social worker must file a petition with the court requesting
that a detention hearing take place in order to determine if
further detention of the child is necessary. If a petition to
declare the child a dependent of the court is filed by the
county social worker, then the detention hearing must be held
within 48 hours of the petition being filed. At the detention
hearing, the social worker outlines the allegations of abuse or
neglect made against the parent and why it is necessary to
remove the child from the custody of his or her parent(s). If
the court determines that removing the child from his or her
parents' custody is in the best interests of the child, the
child is then removed. Permanent placement of the child is
determined at a later date.
Once a child has been removed from the custody of his or her
parents, a jurisdictional hearing must take place within 15
days. It is at the jurisdictional hearing that the court
determines whether the allegations outlined in the social
worker's petition are true. If the allegations are deemed to be
SB 942
Page 6
true, then the child is determined to be within the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court and a dispositional hearing must be held
within 60 days of the initial detention hearing in order to
determine the permanent placement of the child. At the
dispositional hearing the court determines the parameters of the
family reunification plan, which includes where and with whom
the child will live, be it with relatives or in a foster family
home.
Reunification services: When a child is removed from his or her
parents' custody and it is determined by the courts and in
speaking with the child's social worker that the child would
ultimately benefit from being returned to the family, the court
may order reunification services in order to address the
underlying issues or needs of the family that led to the child's
removal in the first place. Reunification services include but
are not limited to: family therapy, parenting classes, drug and
alcohol abuse treatment, respite care, parent support groups,
home visiting programs, and services deemed necessary in order
to facilitate a child's reunification with his or her parents.
Current law states that for six months for children under three
years of age, reunification services are offered, and for twelve
months for children over the age of three. Extensions of
services are available if the court determines that there is
substantial probability that a child will return to his or her
parents' custody within the extended time period.
Relative placement: Historically, it has been the policy of
California that when a child is removed from his or her parents'
custody, preserving familial ties is of the utmost importance.
As such, social works and county welfare agencies are often
tasked with finding appropriate placements with relative
caregivers, including another parent, grandparents, siblings or
non-relative extended family members (NREFM). Recent policy
changes through Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) have highlighted
the importance of relative caregivers and placement with
relatives when a child is placed in the child welfare system and
SB 942
Page 7
steps have been taken to ensure that the unique needs of
relative caregivers are addressed.
Multiple studies have demonstrated that children in the child
welfare system who are placed with relatives instead of with
strangers in foster homes or in congregate care experience
increased benefits compared to their counterparts who are not
placed with relative caregivers. According to retired Santa
Clara Juvenile Court Judge Len Edwards, writing in the National
Journal for the Court Appointed Special Advocates, such benefits
include: increased safety, greater stability, stronger sibling
bonds, stronger ties to the community and school, and stronger
cultural and family identity, among others.
Obstacles to placing children with relatives do apply, however.
Judge Edwards has also noted that without rigorous social work
immediately following the removal of a child from their parents'
custody, preferential consideration of a relative as a placement
option means little. The sooner a social worker is able to
ascertain who a child's relatives are and encourage them to
become involved in the child protection case, the more likely
that relatives will become engaged. Delays in relative
engagement often mean that relatives may not be selected as
placement for the child, and because fact-finding hearings may
take months, relatives who arrive late may find that the foster
family of a child is the preferred placement option due to the
bonds formed between the child and foster family. Judge Edwards
notes that effective implementation of relative preference
requires early identification and engagement of relatives, as
well as opportunities for relatives to participate in decision
making.
Current law requires that, prior to placing a child in the home
of a relative or any other caregiver, the social worker must
visit the home in order to assess the appropriateness of the
placement, as well as run a criminal records check on all
SB 942
Page 8
persons over the age of 18 living in the home. If a criminal
record check shows that a person has been convicted of a crime
for which an exemption is not offered, the social worker is
unable to place the child in that home. Currently, exemptions
are not offered for crimes such as rape, sex offenses, murder,
or fiscal malfeasance. If a person was convicted of a crime for
which an exemption is offered, DSS is required to process an
exemption only if requested by the applicant. Federal and state
law require a county to do a thorough investigation and
evaluation of the applicant. The process is often cumbersome
and requires the use and review of original case documents,
which can be difficult to obtain from the original jurisdiction
in which the crime was committed.
Need for this bill: According to the author, "Placement with a
relative is generally the best and preferred option for children
who cannot safely reside with their parents. The advantages of
relative placements are well recognized in law and policy.
Residing in the home of a loving and familiar relative can
reduce the trauma of foster care and provide greater stability,
increased contact with birth parents, a higher likelihood of
placement with siblings, and ongoing connections to extended
family and cultural heritage. 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. Postponements of
relative placements are often the result of unwarranted delays
in the assessment process or in securing required exemptions for
past criminal history while the children languish in foster or
congregate care. Unwarranted delays further traumatize children
when they begin to bond with a caregiver when delays have
finally been resolved. [This bill] ensures that children who
have been removed from their parents' homes are placed
expediently with appropriate relatives by: (1) creating
timelines for court ordered assessment of relatives and (2)
specifying a procedure for the court to oversee as necessary the
relative assessment and placement process."
SB 942
Page 9
Staff comments: It is widely acknowledged that social workers
are responsible for handling large caseloads and are tasked with
meeting the needs of children in the child welfare system -
which involves performing a variety of tasks - with limited
resources. This bill will require social workers, in addition
to existing responsibilities, to assist relative caregivers in
obtaining necessary documents for criminal records exemptions,
to the extent possible. Should this bill move forward, the
author may wish to consider the impact that this bill may have
on already high social worker caseloads and responsibilities.
PRIOR AND RELATED LEGISLATION:
SB 316 (Mitchell), 2016, clarifies and simplifies rules for
criminal background checks for foster care placements and makes
the rules consistent with federal law. This bill has been
referred to the Senate Rules Committee.
SB 1336 (Jackson), 2016, 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. This bill is currently
in the Assembly Human Services Committee.
AB 1761 (Hall), Chapter 765, Statutes of 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 10
SECOND COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE . This bill was previously heard
in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on June 21, 2016 and was
approved on a 10-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Advokids
Alliance for Children's Rights
Children Now
Children's Advocacy Institute
Children's Law Center of California
Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the California
State Bar
Foster Care Counts
John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes
SB 942
Page 11
Juvenile Court Judges of California
Los Angeles Unified School District.
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers
National Association of Social Workers
Public Counsel Children's Rights Project
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Kelsy Castillo / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089