BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 942
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 942
(Liu) - As Amended August 1, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|10 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Human Services | |7 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires an early assessment of a relative's 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:
SB 942
Page 2
1)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
initial hearing.
2)Requires a county welfare agency, 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.
3)Requires a county welfare agency to complete the assessment
process, including any exemptions and waivers, within 30
calendar days. Permits the court, if the assessment process is
not complete within 60 calendar days, or an exemption or
waiver is denied, to conduct a hearing to determine if the
county has abused its discretion.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Potentially major increase in social worker workload,
potentially in the millions of dollars (GF*) annually to meet
the specified timeframes to complete in-home assessments,
background checks, exemptions, and document assistance, as
well as reporting to the court and participation at additional
court hearings.
2)Unknown, but potentially significant increase in state court
costs (GF) to conduct additional hearings.
SB 942
Page 3
3)Minor workload increase (special fund) to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) to complete background checks, to be reimbursed
through fees.
*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:
1)Purpose. 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
SB 942
Page 4
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."
2)Background. 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 workers 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 steps have been taken to ensure that the
unique needs of relative caregivers are addressed.
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
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
SB 942
Page 5
jurisdiction in which the crime was committed.
3)Current Legislation. This bill works in collaboration with
two other bills being considered by the Legislature this
session.
a) SB 316 (Mitchell), pending in the Assembly Rules
Committee, clarifies and simplifies rules for criminal
background checks for foster care placements and makes the
rules consistent with federal law. That bill is similar to
SB 1201 (Mitchell) which was held on the Senate
Appropriation Committee's Suspense File earlier this year.
b) SB 1336 (Jackson), pending referral to this Committee,
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.
1)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.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 942
Page 6