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