BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1060 (Leno) - Postadoption contact: siblings of dependent
children
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 19, 2016 |Policy Vote: JUD. 6 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 9, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1060 would require a court in an adoption
proceeding for a dependent child to order the convening of a
child and family team (CFT) meeting, unless otherwise specified
by the court, regarding postadoptive contact with the siblings
of the child. This bill would require the court to additionally
include in its order for permanent placement of a ward of the
juvenile court, a specification of the nature and frequency of
visiting arrangements with siblings of the ward.
Fiscal
Impact:
CFT meetings : Potentially significant increase in state costs
(General Fund*) for additional CFT meetings. Estimated costs
assuming only 50 percent of the 6,400 annual dependent
adoptions require a CFT meeting could cost in the range of
$850,000 to over $1.7 million annually based on the average
duration of 3.7 hours per CFT meeting and the attendance of
SB 1060 (Leno) Page 1 of
?
one or two local agency representatives. These costs do not
include any additional time CFT members may incur to identify
and notify non-dependent siblings to coordinate these
meetings. Actual costs could be substantially higher to the
extent the proportion of dependents with siblings is higher
than assumed above, or more than two CFT members representing
local agencies are in attendance at the meeting.
Sibling visitation : Potentially significant increase in state
costs (General Fund*) for local agencies to facilitate
additional sibling visits for dependent siblings of adopted
minors resulting from postadoptive sibling contact agreements.
Annual costs would be dependent on numerous factors that are
unknown at this time, including but not limited to the number
of adopted children with dependent siblings for which
postadoptive sibling contact agreements will be ordered, the
frequency of visits provided for in the agreements, and the
time involved for the social worker to provide for this
sibling visitation in each case (distance and duration).
Court impact : Minor workload impact and potentially future
cost savings to the extent the CFT meetings result in less
time spent during the court hearing on sibling visitation
issues.
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.
Background: Existing law provides for the formation of "child and family
teams," convened by the placing agency to engage the child, the
child's family, and other people important to the family and
child in meeting the goals of safety, permanency, and well-being
of the child. The CFT provides input into the development of a
child and family plan that is strengths-based, needs-driven, and
culturally relevant. The CFT additionally provides input into
the placement decision made by the placing agency and the
SB 1060 (Leno) Page 2 of
?
services to be provided in order to support the child or youth.
(Welfare and Institutions Code § 16501.)
This bill would require the court, in adoption proceedings for a
dependent child, to order the convening of a CFT meeting with
attendance at a minimum to include the prospective adoptive
parent(s), the siblings (or their caretakers) of the child, and
an adoption facilitator, to decide whether to voluntarily enter
into a postadoptive sibling contact agreement before the
adoption is finalized.
A postadoptive contact agreement provides for contact between a
child and his or her birth parents and other birth relatives,
including siblings. Postadoption contact agreements are intended
to ensure children maintain an achievable level of continuing
contact when contact is beneficial to the child, and the
agreements are voluntarily entered into by the parties. (Family
Code § 8616.5.)
Proposed Law:
This bill would require a court in an adoption proceeding for a
dependent child to order the convening of a CFT meeting, unless
the court finds that such a meeting may be detrimental to the
child, to consider postadoptive contact with the siblings of the
child, including but not limited to siblings under the court's
jurisdiction. Specifically, this bill:
Requires the CFT meeting to be attended by at least a
facilitator, the siblings or their respective caregivers,
and the prospective adoptive parent(s), for the purpose of
deciding whether to voluntarily enter into a postadoptive
sibling contact agreement before the adoption is finalized.
With regard to minors in foster care who have been
declared a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to WIC §§
601 or 602, requires the court order placing the minor in a
permanent placement to include specification of the nature
and frequency of visiting arrangements with the minor's
siblings, if any.
SB 1060 (Leno) Page 3 of
?
Prior
Legislation: SB 1099 (Steinberg) Chapter 773/2014 required the
court to consider relationships between dependent and
non-dependent siblings, required additional documentation
related to sibling relationships, and authorized a dependent
child to request sibling visitation, as specified.
Staff
Comments: The provisions of this bill requiring courts to order
the convening of a CFT meeting will likely not pose a
significant fiscal burden on the courts, and could, in fact,
result in cost savings to the extent the CFT meeting facilitates
the time spent in hearing on these matters.
The requirement to add in its orders for permanent placement of
wards of the court to include specification of the nature and
frequency of visiting arrangements with the siblings of the
minor would be an expansion of existing procedures already in
place for visiting arrangements with parents/guardians, and are
not estimated to incur significant new costs on the courts.
This bill requires the court to order CFT meetings in adoption
proceedings of dependent children unless the meeting would be
detrimental to the child. By imposing additional duties on local
agencies that participate as CFT members, this bill could result
in significant ongoing increases in case management costs.
Based on the number of annual adoptions reported on the
Department of Social Services report, Agency Adoption Program
Quarterly Statistical Report (AD 56A), over 6,400 agency
adoptions were finalized in 2015. It is unknown how many of the
dependents to be adopted will have siblings that would prompt a
CFT meeting under the provisions of this bill. It is estimated
there are over 30,000 dependents with siblings in out-of-home
care. Additionally, some dependents will have non-dependent
siblings that would additionally prompt a CFT meeting to be
convened. Assuming 50 percent of the adoptions require a CFT
meeting, estimated costs based on the average CFT meeting
duration of 3.7 hours (2016-17 Governor's Budget assumption) for
over 3,200 cases could cost in the range of $850,000 to over
$1.7 million.
This estimate assumes one or two CFT members representing local
SB 1060 (Leno) Page 4 of
?
agencies attend the meeting. However, to the extent additional
CFT members representing local agencies attend the meeting,
costs could be significantly greater. Staff notes that as
defined, WIC §16501(a)(4)(B) provides that the CFT includes
representatives who provide formal supports to the child or
youth and family when appropriate, including, but not limited
to, the caregiver, the placing agency caseworker, a
representative from a foster family agency or short-term
residential treatment center with which a child or youth is
placed, a county mental health representative, a representative
from the regional center when the child is eligible for regional
center service, and a representative of the child's or youth's
tribe or Indian custodian, as applicable. As appropriate, the
CFT may also include other formal supports, such as substance
use disorder treatment professionals and educational
professionals.
Proposition 30 was passed by the voters in November 2012, and
among other provisions, eliminated any potential mandate funding
liability for any new program or higher level of service
mandated on the counties related to realigned programs,
including child welfare services. Rather, legislation enacted
after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of
increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for
programs or levels of service mandated by 2011 Realignment only
apply to local agencies to the extent that the state provides
annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies are not
obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by
legislation above the level for which funding has been provided.
To the extent it is determined that the provisions of this bill
result in an increase in overall costs already borne by counties
for the provision of child welfare services, the state could
potentially elect to, but not be required to, provide funding
for the cost increase.
Although the participation of the dependent child in the CFT
meeting may be implied, staff notes the bill is silent on the
issue of the dependent child's attendance at the meeting.
Attendance of the dependent child may or may not be appropriate
at this meeting, depending on the age of the dependent child.