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