BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1060 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 21, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mark Stone, Chair SB 1060 (Leno) - As Amended May 31, 2016 As Proposed to be Amended SENATE VOTE: 31-7 SUBJECT: POSTADOPTION CONTACT: SIBLINGS OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN OR WARDS KEY ISSUE: GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE ADOPTED, SHOULD ADDITIONAL EFFORTS BE MADE TO FACILITATE POSTADOPTION SIBLING CONTACT? SYNOPSIS The bond between siblings, especially those in foster care, cannot be underestimated. In 2008, Congress passed the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which, among other things, made it a priority that siblings entering the foster care system be placed together by requiring states to use "reasonable efforts" to place siblings together, unless such placement is contrary to their safety or well-being. SB 1060 Page 2 If the siblings are not placed together, the Act requires that visitation between them must occur frequently, unless the visitation is contrary to their safety or well-being. Likewise, California law has repeatedly recognized the importance of maintaining and developing sibling relationships for children in foster care, as reflected in numerous legislative efforts to maintain and facilitate those relationships. Existing law seeks to ensure that social workers and courts protect the relationship between siblings throughout the foster care process. For example, a social worker is required to place a foster child together with his or her siblings or half-siblings who are also removed from parental custody, whenever possible and appropriate. If not possible or appropriate, the social worker is required to describe continuing efforts to place the siblings together, or to explain why placing them together is inappropriate. Existing law also requires a court, after ordering removal of a child from the physical custody of a parent, to consider whether there are any siblings under the court's jurisdiction, and the appropriateness of maintaining those sibling relationships. When siblings are not or cannot be placed together, existing law requires visitation between a foster child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety and well-being of either child. Finally, existing law allows a court to include in a final adoption order a postadoptive sibling contact agreement. In its original form, this bill required a court, in an adoption proceeding for a dependent child, to convene a child and family team meeting to determine whether to voluntarily enter into a postadoptive sibling contact agreement before the adoption is finalized. As most recently amended, however, the bill is more narrow in scope. As currently in print, the bill requires a court, in an adoption proceeding for a dependent child, to do the following: (1) Inquire into the status of the development of a voluntary postadoptive sibling contact agreement before the adoption is finalized; and (2) Include, in any court order permanently placing the minor, a specification of the nature and SB 1060 Page 3 frequency of visiting arrangements with the sibling. Finally, as currently in print, the bill requires, to the extent practicable, the county placing agency to convene a meeting with the child, the sibling or siblings of the child, the prospective adoptive parent or parents, and a facilitator for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement and allows counsel for the child to attend such a meeting. As explained in the analysis, this "requirement" is not really a requirement at all and county placing agencies are free to ignore it. The author proposes clarifying amendments that would, among other things, leave that language in place, but specify two reasons why a county placing agency is not required to convene a meeting and allow a child to petition the court to order the county placing agency to convene a meeting. Those amendments are reflected in this analysis. A large number of foster care, youth advocacy, and civil rights organizations support the bill, either as now in print, or in its former iterations. Sponsored by California Youth Connection, the bill has no opposition on file. Should this bill be approved by this Committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Human Services Committee. SUMMARY: Requires a court, in an adoption proceeding for a dependent child to inquire into the status of the development of a voluntary postadoptive sibling contact agreement before the adoption is finalized. Specifically, this bill: 1) Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the benefit of continuing contact between some adoptive children and their siblings and the importance of postadoption contact agreements, which can be beneficial to adoptive children under certain circumstances. 2) States that nothing in the adoption laws of this state shall be construed to prevent the adopting parent or parents of a child from entering into a voluntary agreement with the child's birth relatives, including any siblings of the child, to permit continuing contact between the child and the birth SB 1060 Page 4 relatives, including any siblings if the agreement is found by the court to have been executed voluntarily and to be in the best interests of the child at the time the adoption petition is granted. 3) Requires that any court order permanently placing the minor shall include a specification of the nature and frequency of visiting arrangements with the sibling. 4) Requires a court, at the time when it considers an adoption petition, to inquire into the status of the development of a voluntary postadoption sibling contact agreement. 5) Requires, to the extent practicable, the county placing agency to convene a meeting with the child, the sibling or siblings of the child, the prospective adoptive parent or parents, and a facilitator for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement on a date after termination of parental rights and prior to finalization of the adoption. 6) Allows the agency to comply with the requirement in #5, above, by allowing a nonprofit organization authorized to provide permanency placement and postadoption mediation for adoptive and birth families to facilitate the meeting and develop the agreement. 7) Provides that the county placing agency is not required to convene a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement in one of the following two circumstances: (a) If the agency determines that such a meeting or postadoption sibling contact agreement would be contrary to the safety and well-being of the child, or (b) The child requests that a meeting does not occur. SB 1060 Page 5 8) Allows the child to petition the court for an order requiring the county placing agency to convene a meeting and provides that if the court determines by a preponderence of the evidence that a postadoption sibling contact agreement or a meeting for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute such an agreement is contrary to the safety and well-being of the child, the reasons for the determination shall be noted in the court order, and the meeting is not required to occur. 9) Clarifies that no child, sibling, or other party is required to attend a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement pursuant to Section 8616.5 of the Family Code and that a county placing agency may convene a meeting if not all of the parties are secured to attend. 10)Requires counsel to the child and counsel to the siblings who are dependents of the court to be notified of, and may attend, both the meeting and the hearing described above. 11)Clarifies that after the adoption petition has been granted by the court, the adoption cannot be set aside due to the failure to comply with a postadoption sibling contact agreement. EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires, pursuant to federal law, states to use "reasonable efforts" to place siblings together, unless such placement is contrary to their safety or well-being; if the siblings are not placed together, visitation between them must occur SB 1060 Page 6 frequently, unless it is contrary to their safety or well-being. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 671 (a).) 2)States that it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that siblings who are removed from the home will be placed in foster care together, unless the placement is contrary to the safety or well-being of any sibling. (Welfare & Inst. Code Section 16002. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.) 3)Requires a social worker, where possible and appropriate, to place a child, who has been removed from his or her parents or guardian because of abuse or neglect, together with his or her siblings or half-siblings also being removed, or to describe continuing efforts to place them together if they are not initially placed together, or to explain why placing them together is inappropriate. (Section 306.5.) 4)Requires, when the court has ordered removal of a child from the physical custody of a parent, the court to consider whether there are any siblings under the court's jurisdiction, and the appropriateness of maintaining those sibling relationships. (Section 361.2.) 5)Requires any order placing a child in foster care to provide for visitation between a child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety and well-being of either child. (Section 362.1.) 6)Allows any person to petition the juvenile court to assert a sibling relationship by blood, adoption, or through affinity SB 1060 Page 7 with a legal or biological parent with a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court, and to request visitation with that child. (Section 388.) 7)Allows a court to include in a final adoption order a postadoptive sibling contact agreement. (Sections 366.26, 366.29.) 8)Authorizes a parent to terminate a postadoptive sibling contact agreement if it is determined by the parent that sibling contact poses a threat to the health, safety, or well-being of the adopted child. (Section 366.26.) 9)Requires that if a minor has continuing involvement with a parent or legal guardian, that the parent or legal guardian shall be involved in the planning for permanent placement and that any court order permanently placing the minor shall include a specification of the nature and frequency of visiting arrangements with the parent or legal guardian. (Section 727.3.) FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal. COMMENTS: In 2008, Congress passed the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (Act), which, among other things, made it a priority that siblings entering the foster care system be placed together by requiring states to use "reasonable efforts" to place siblings together, unless such placement is contrary to their safety or well-being. If the siblings are not placed together, the Act requires that visitation between them must occur frequently, unless the visitation is contrary to their safety or well-being. SB 1060 Page 8 Prior to passage of the Act, California was one of the first states to pass legislation promoting sibling visitation for foster children as early as 1999. (See AB 740 (Steinberg), Chap. 805, Stats. 1999.) Since then California has enacted several additional statutes to expand legal protections for sibling relationships. These laws have served to promote sibling relationships when both children are in the dependency system, but recent, unpublished cases indicate that courts will not grant visitation in the rare case where one sibling is in the foster system and the other remains in the legal custody of the parent. California Law has Long Recognized the Importance of Maintaining Sibling Relationships. California law has repeatedly recognized the importance of maintaining and developing sibling relationships for children in foster care. Key legislation in this area includes AB 743 (Portantino), Chap. 560, Stat. 2010, which required greater notice if siblings are to be separated; AB 705 (Steinberg), Chap. 747, Stats. 2001, which ensured that sibling relationships are considered at all appropriate hearings and siblings are placed together when appropriate; AB 1987 (Steinberg), Chap. 909, Stats. 2000, which recognized the importance of sibling relationships and required the court to consider the existence, nature and impact of a dependent child's sibling relationships on the child's placement and planning for legal permanence; and AB 740 (Steinberg), Chap. 805, Stats. 1999, which expedited the procedure for permanent placement of a sibling group. The bond between siblings, especially those in foster care, cannot be underestimated: Sibling relationships are emotionally powerful and critically important not only in childhood but over the course of a lifetime. As children, siblings form a child's first peer group, and they typically spend more time with SB 1060 Page 9 each other than with anyone else. Children learn social skills, particularly in sharing and managing conflict, from negotiating with brothers and sisters. Sibling relationships can provide a significant source of continuity throughout a child's lifetime and are likely to be the longest relationships that most people experience. . . . In many families involved with child welfare, sibling relationships take on more importance because they can provide the support and nurture that are not consistently provided by parents. For children entering care, siblings can serve as a buffer against the worst effects of harsh circumstances. While sibling relationships in particular families experiencing adverse situations do not always compensate for other deficits, research has validated that, for many children, sibling relationships do promote resilience. (Child Welfare Information Gateway, Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption 4-5 (Jan. 2013).) Despite Legal Recognition of the Importance of Sibling Relationships, California's Foster Care System Continues to Separate Siblings in Too Many Cases: Recent data reveal that children in foster care are often not placed with all their siblings. Foster children in California are placed together with all their siblings in only slightly over half of all cases. Slightly older data reveal that in only about 29 percent of cases, foster youth have been separated from all of their siblings. (Legislative Analyst's Office, Protecting Children From Abuse and Neglect: Trends and Issues 29 (Aug. 2013); B. Needell et al., Child Welfare Services Reports for California (2008).) This Bill Seeks to Further Ensure that Courts Protect a Foster Child's Relationship With His or Her Siblings, Including After the Child is Adopted. Existing law seeks to ensure that social SB 1060 Page 10 workers and courts protect the relationship between siblings throughout the foster care process. For example, a social worker is required to place a foster child together with his or her siblings or half-siblings who are also removed from parental custody, whenever possible and appropriate. (Section 306.5.) If not possible or appropriate, the social worker is required to describe continuing efforts to place the siblings together, or to explain why placing them together is inappropriate. (Ibid.) Existing law also requires a court, after ordering removal of a child from the physical custody of a parent, to consider whether there are any siblings under the court's jurisdiction, and the appropriateness of maintaining those sibling relationships. (Section 361.2.) When siblings are not or cannot be placed together, existing law requires visitation between a foster child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety and well-being of either child. (Section 362.1.) Finally, existing law allows a court to include in a final adoption order a postadoptive sibling contact agreement. (Sections 366.26, 366.29.) In its original form, this bill required a court, in an adoption proceeding for a dependent child, to convene a child and family team meeting to determine whether to voluntarily enter into a postadoptive sibling contact agreement before the adoption is finalized. As most recently amended, however, the bill is far more narrow in its scope. As currently in print, the bill would make a number of changes in exiting law to ensure that sibling relationships are considered and facilitated, even after a foster child is adopted. It would require a court, in an adoption proceeding for a dependent child, to inquire into the status of the development of a voluntary postadoptive sibling contact agreement before the adoption is finalized. The bill also requires a court to include, in any court order permanently placing the minor, a specification of the nature and frequency of visiting arrangements with the sibling. Finally, as SB 1060 Page 11 currently in print, the bill requires, to the extent practicable, the county placing agency to convene a meeting with the child, the sibling or siblings of the child, the prospective adoptive parent or parents, and a facilitator for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement. The language for this "requirement" is very weak because of the phrase "to the extent practicable," which is reasonably read to allow a county placing agency to convene a meeting if it wished to do so or not convene a meeting for any reason (or no reason at all). Also, the current language provides no exceptions to the meeting "requirement" in situations where it may not be in a child's best interest to have contact with his or her sibling(s), perhaps because of abuse or the child's preference. Nor is there a mechanism for a child (and a court) to review a county placing agency's failure to convene a meeting, or to ensure that counsel to the child or siblings may attend both the meeting and the hearing. Therefore, the author proposes a number of clarifying amendments (on Page 16, starting at line 26) that leave the weak "requirement" language in place, but make the following clarifications and improvements to the bill: Allow the county placing agency to delegate the responsibility for convening a meeting to a nonprofit organization authorized to provide permanency placement and postadoption mediation for adoptive and birth families to facilitate the meeting and develop the agreement. Specify that the county placing agency is not required to convene a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement pursuant to Section 8616.5 of the Family Code for two specific reasons: (1) The county placing agency determines that a meeting or a postadoption sibling contact agreement would be contrary to the safety and well-being of the child, or (2) The child requests that a meeting does not occur. SB 1060 Page 12 Allow the child to petition the court for an order requiring the county placing agency to convene a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement pursuant to Section 8616.5 of the Family Code. Require counsel to the child and counsel to the siblings who are dependents of the court to be notified of, and allows them to attend, both the meeting and the hearing. Provide that no child, sibling, or other party is required to attend a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement pursuant to Section 8616.5 of the Family Code. These new provisions, especially the specific parameters for when a county placing agency is not required to convene a meeting for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement, will help ensure that sibling interaction and contact, and the agreements to facilitate such relationships, occur when appropriate. By specifying the two reasons why a county agency is not required to convene a meeting, the bill as proposed to be amended implies that a county placing agency is required to convene a meeting except in the case of one or both of those circumstances. This amendment significantly furthers the purpose of the bill and ensures that the mechanism to further that purpose, the meeting for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement, is likely to occur in appropriate circumstances (and not in circumstances where a meeting would be inappropriate, such as when a child objects to it). Author's Statement Regarding the Need for the Bill. According to the author: SB 1060 Page 13 Despite the clear intent of federal law, advocates have observed that implementation of programs to maintain sibling relationships are ultimately a function of state and local agencies. These agencies sometimes allow adoptions to move forward without full consideration of how best to maintain sibling connections in each specific case. . . . For an adoption to establish a lasting commitment between the child and adopting parents, these elements of healing and support are essential. Research also confirms that sustaining some of the relationships with the biological family, especially siblings, is most effective in combating the negative effects of being removed from one's family and placed into foster care. SB 1060 (Leno) will maintain sibling relationships through the adoption process by elevating the function of the post adoption contact agreement between siblings and prospective adoptive children prior to adoption finalization. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: California Youth Connection, the sponsor of SB 1060, writes the following in support of the bill: Despite the protections already in statute meant to encourage and strengthen sibling connections within the foster care system, we see a shocking decline of urgency as a child or youth approaches the adoption process. Consequently, siblings in foster care are being separated. By no fault of their own, older siblings who do not live with their younger siblings are being shut out of the adoption process. This gap in the system is reflective of both poor communication and a lack of coordinated services for the adoptee and where many sibling relationships are severed. SB 1060 Page 14 Specifically, SB 1060 (Leno) will address this gap and elevate the importance of sibling relationships within the adoption process. This is vital to support the well-being for both the adoptee and siblings involved. SB1060 will maintain sibling relationships throughout the adoption process by empowering the child welfare counties to convene a meeting to negotiate the creation of a post adoption contact. RECENT SIMILAR LEGISLATION: SB 1099 (Steinberg, Ch. 773, Stats. 2014) required the court to consider relationships between dependent and non-dependent siblings, required additional documentation related to sibling relationships in social workers' reports, and authorized a dependent child to request sibling visitation, as specified. AB 743 (Portantino, Ch. 560, Stats. 2010) made changes to the standards for sibling visitation, interaction, and placement for children in foster care to conform with the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. AB 408 (Steinberg, Ch. 813, Stats. 2003) made changes in dependency law to help achieve permanency for older children, including authorizing the court to make orders to ensure that sibling relationships are maintained. AB 705 (Steinberg, Ch. 747, Stats. of 2001) ensured that sibling relationships are considered at all appropriate hearings and siblings are placed together when appropriate. AB 1987 (Steinberg, Ch. 909, Stats. 2000) recognized the importance of sibling relationships and required the court to consider the existence, nature, and impact of a dependent child's sibling relationships on the child's placement and SB 1060 Page 15 planning for legal permanence. AB 740 (Steinberg, Ch. 805, Stats. 1999) expedited the procedure for permanent placement of a sibling group. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support - as amended May 31, 2016 California Youth Connection (sponsor) California Alliance of Child and Family Services Children Now County Welfare Directors Association of California John Burton Foundation National Association of Social Workers Support - as introduced (February 16, 2019) or amended April 19, 2016 Alliance for Boys and Men of Color SB 1060 Page 16 California CASA Association Children's Law Center of California Families Now Public Counsel Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by:Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334