BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
SB 1056 (Liu)
Version: March 31, 2016
Hearing Date: April 12, 2016
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Juveniles: family reunification
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require the court to consider whether lack of
housing is the sole impediment to family reunification, and if
the child can be returned to the parent upon the parent securing
appropriate housing. If the parent is in substantial compliance
with the court-ordered case plan and lack of housing is the sole
impediment to family reunification, this bill would authorize
the court to order that the child be returned to the parent's
physical custody within five days after the parent has secured
appropriate housing.
This bill would also add parental homelessness and minor status
to the considerations the court must take into account when
deciding whether to provide family reunification services, as
specified. This bill would additionally require a county to
report what services it offers to assist a parent in securing
appropriate housing, if a parent's lack of housing is the sole
impediment to reunifying the parent with a dependent child.
BACKGROUND
Economic security and safe, stable, and affordable housing are
critical to the wellbeing of children. Research shows a link
between poverty, homelessness or substandard housing, and
involvement with the child welfare system. (Courtney, McMurtry,
and Zinn (2004) Housing Problems Experienced by Recipients of
Child Welfare Services, Child Welfare, 83, 389-392.) Families
with children are confronting harsh economic realities - high
rates of unemployment and underemployment, scarce availability
of jobs, limited support networks, and a shortage of affordable
SB 1056 (Liu)
Page 2 of ?
housing options. Thousands of homeless children are at risk of
entering the child welfare system because of their family's
inability to provide adequate housing. In addition, many
parents become homeless when housing assistance provided by
CalWORKs is lost due to the removal of their child by the court.
Some studies show that as many as 30 percent of all dependent
children could be reunited with their parents if their parents
had access to safe housing. (Y.A. Doerre, 1996 Home Sweet Home,
Washington DC: Children's Welfare League of American Press.) The
child welfare system seeks to ensure the safety and protection
of children who have been removed from the custody of their
parents, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families
through visitation and family reunification.
Over the years, the Legislature has enacted a number of laws
which require the court to take into consideration specific
circumstances that present a barrier to family reunification
when trying to create a permanency plan for a child. AB 2070
(Bass, Ch. 482, Stats. 2008) required courts to assess, among
other factors, the particular barriers to accessing
court-mandated services for institutionalized and incarcerated
parents. Similarly, SB 977 (Liu, Ch. 219, Stats. 2014) required
the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the
custody of his or her parent in a certified substance abuse
treatment facility. Last year, SB 68 (Liu, Ch. 284, Stats. 2015)
addressed some of the particular barriers facing minor parents
whose children are in foster care.
Similarly, this bill seeks to address the issues related to
family reunification and homelessness, and would require the
court to consider a parent's homeless status, if the parent is
otherwise in compliance with the court-ordered case plan. This
bill would also help ensure that homeless parents are connected
with services that will help them secure housing, and would
provide the court with a mechanism whereby they may reunify a
child with his or her parent very quickly after the parent
secures adequate housing.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law provides that a minor may be removed from the
physical custody of his or her parents and become a dependent
of the juvenile court for serious abuse or neglect, or risk of
serious abuse or neglect, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code
SB 1056 (Liu)
Page 3 of ?
Sec. 300.)
Existing law provides that unless certain exceptions apply,
the primary objective of the juvenile dependency system is
reunification of the minor with his or her family, and the
court must order the social worker to provide services to
reunify children legally removed from a parent. (Fam. Code
Sec. 7950, Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 202, 300.2, 361.5.)
2.Existing law provides that children and families in the child
welfare system should typically receive a full six months of
reunification services if the child is under three years of
age, and twelve months if the child is over three years of
age. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.)
Existing law allows for court ordered services in pursuit of
family reunification to be extended from 12 to 18 or 24
months, as specified, for parents who are incarcerated,
institutionalized, or ordered into a resident substance abuse
program if the court makes particular findings. (Welf. & Inst.
Code Sec. 361.5(a)(3)-(4).)
Existing law requires the court to consider at several points
during the dependency hearings after removal of the child from
the home, and in certain circumstances the social worker to
document, the special circumstances of parents who are minor
or non-minor dependent parents, parents who are incarcerated,
institutionalized, detained, deported, or court-ordered to
residential substance abuse treatment, including barriers to
service access and to maintaining contact with the child, and
the parent's significant and consistent progress in
establishing a safe home for the child's return. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Secs. 366.21, 366.22, and 366.25.)
This bill would add homelessness and minor status to the list
of reasons that a court may extend reunification services
beyond the initial 12 months, provided that the homeless or
minor parent has made regular contact with the child, and has
met other conditions, as specified.
This bill would also add parental homelessness to the existing
list of considerations for a court deciding whether to grant
an extension of services to the family during status,
permanency, and review hearings. Specifically, this bill
SB 1056 (Liu)
Page 4 of ?
would:
require the court to consider whether the parent is
in substantial compliance with the court-ordered case
plan, whether lack of housing is the sole impediment to
family reunification, and whether the child can be
returned to the parent upon the parent securing
appropriate housing;
require the court, in making its determination, to
review and consider the referral and coordination of
services provided by the county, and the efforts,
progress, or both demonstrated by the parent, and the
extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of
services provided, as specified; and
permit the court to order that the child be returned
to the parent's physical custody within five days after
the parent has secured appropriate housing, if lack of
housing is the sole impediment to family reunification.
1.This bill would define appropriate housing to include housing
provided through rapid rehousing, transitional or permanent
housing programs, and funded by federal, state or county
sources, or through various nonprofit organizations.
This bill would add supportive services for homeless parents
of dependent children, as specified, to the types of services
that may be provided under family preservation services.
This bill would also state the legislative intent to reduce
the length of stay in out-of-home care and hasten
reunification when it can be safely accomplished, and the
intent to provide housing and supportive services to parents
who are in substantial compliance with their case plans, and
make other conforming changes.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
Many parents have become homeless when housing assistance
provided by CalWORKs is lost due to the removal of their child
by the juvenile court system. Under existing law, homeless
parents who do not have physical custody of their children are
SB 1056 (Liu)
Page 5 of ?
not eligible to receive public assistance to obtain family
housing. In turn, this lack of assistance in securing housing
prevents parents from reunifying with their children, and
counties then shoulder the financial costs associated with
placing these children in the foster care system.
2.Requiring courts to consider barriers unique to homeless
parents
Akin to the considerations a court must take into account when
determining whether to return a child to a parent or ordering
reunification services for incarcerated, institutionalized,
deported or detained parents, and minor or nonminor dependent
parents, this bill would require the court to consider a
parent's homelessness status, as long as he or she is in
substantial compliance with the court-ordered case plan.
Similar to the policy consideration of whether a parent and
child should be forever separated based on a parent's inability
to participate in reunification services while incarcerated,
this bill would appropriately require the court to consider
whether a child would be best served by being placed with a
parent once that parent is able to establish adequate housing.
Further, this bill would place additional duties on the county
to help homeless parents coordinate and secure decent housing.
In support, Hillsides, a nonprofit child welfare provider,
writes:
While the foster care system plays a critical role in ensuring
the protection and care of vulnerable children, state and
federal law has established that the goal of the system should
be to provide the services needed to reunify families that
have been separated whenever, and as soon as, it is possible
to do so safely. As such, provided parents have been in
compliance with their case plan and completed all of the
necessary steps to be reunified with their children, counties
should ensure that factors outside the control of the
families-including poverty and a lack of stable housing-are
being addressed through a robust social service system.
SB 1056 (Liu)
Page 6 of ?
Staff notes that this bill does not define "homelessness," which
may present a problem for the courts that would be required to
evaluate the homelessness status of a parent at a hearing.
Therefore, in order to help ensure courts are making consistent
orders, the author may wish to define "homelessness" for the
purposes of this bill. There are two federal definitions which
we commonly refer to in state laws, the McKinney-Vento
definition and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) definition. The McKinney-Vento definition is
substantially broader than the HUD definition, and would
therefore provide additional protections, in the form of
extended timelines and services, to parents and families in
vulnerable housing situations.
Author's amendment:
Define "homelessness" in the Welfare & Institutions Code by
reference to the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11302).
3.A child need not be placed in a parent's custody during
reunification services
A good faith plan for reunifying the child with his or her
parents is required by statute and by due process. In addition,
the approach taken to reunify the child with his or her family
should not be mechanical; instead, a reunification plan "must be
appropriate for each family and be based on the unique facts
relating to that family." (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal. 4th 1768,
1777.) An appropriate plan will contain time frames and time
limits that suit the circumstances. For example, not every
parent needs a full-time drug program, or 52 weeks of domestic
violence classes, or a parenting class. Visitation, however, is
a vital component of reunification, and must typically be
provided if the child is placed in foster care after the
dispositional hearing and the court provides the parent with
reunification services. (In re Alvin R. Jr. (2003) 108 Cal.
4th 962, 972.)
Accordingly, the fact that reunification services are ordered or
extended does not necessarily mean that the child will be
returned to the custody of the parent before the parent has
secured adequate housing. The court has routinely emphasized
SB 1056 (Liu)
Page 7 of ?
that compliance with the case plan and the ordering of
reunification services is a different issue than the child's
best interest, which is always the court's primary focus and
what it looks to when determining whether to return a child to
the parent's custody. (See In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal. 4th
819; Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. 4th 689, 704;
and Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal. 4th 1738, 1748.)
This bill would appropriately permit a court to extend
reunification services (i.e., visitation) between a parent and
child while that parent works to secure housing. In addition,
because courts would only be able to extend timelines for
homeless parents who are otherwise in substantial compliance
with the court-ordered case plan, this bill would appropriately
only benefit families with parents that are making consistent
and substantial progress towards reunification.
Staff notes that as drafted, the bill could arguably allow the
court to place a child in a home after a parent, who is in
compliance with the court-ordered case plan and housing is the
sole impediment to reunification, claims to have secured
appropriate housing. The California Welfare Directors
Association writes that they would support this bill if amended
to specify that "the five day timeframe be counted from the date
the county verifies that the housing secured by the parent is
safe and adequate." The following amendment would clarify that
the court may only place a child in the home after the county
child welfare agency has confirmed that the parent has indeed
secured safe and adequate housing, and would add consistency by
clarifying that the county may coordinate supportive services
for families in maintaining housing.
Author's amendment:
Page 21, line 30, strike "appropriate" and insert "safe
and adequate"
Page 21, line 30, after "housing" insert ", as confirmed
by the county child welfare agency,"
Page 21, strike line 31 and insert "and may order the
county to assist the family in maintaining housing with
referral to and coordination of supportive services."
Page 21, line 32, strike "maintain housing."
SB 1056 (Liu)
Page 8 of ?
Support : Hillsides; Juvenile Court Judges of California;
Opposition : None known
HISTORY
Source : Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers
Related Pending Legislation : None known
Prior Legislation :
SB 68 (Liu, Ch. 284, Stats. 2015) requires the juvenile court,
in evaluating whether to return a dependent child to a parent,
to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent
or a nonminor dependent parent.
SB 977 (Liu, Ch. 219, Stats. 2014) required social workers to
include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental
report a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned
to the custody of his/her parent who is enrolled in a certified
substance abuse treatment facility, and required the court to
consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of
his/her parent in these situations, as specified.
SB 1064 (De León, Ch. 845, Stats. 2012) authorized the court to
extend the review hearing periods for reunification following
consideration of a parent's ability to comply with court ordered
services where a child has been removed from the custody of a
parent and the parent has been arrested and issued an
immigration hold, detained, or deported to his or her country of
origin.
AB 2070 (Bass, Ch. 482, Stats. of 2008) required that courts
take into consideration, among other factors, the particular
barriers to accessing court-mandated services for
institutionalized and incarcerated parents.
Prior Vote : Senate Human Services Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 0)
**************
SB 1056 (Liu)
Page 9 of ?