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