BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1060
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1060
(Leno) - As Amended August 1, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|9 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Human Services | |7 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY: This bill requires the court, when considering an
adoption petition, to inquire about development of a voluntary
postadoption sibling contact agreement, and requires the county
placing agency, when parental rights are terminated and the
court orders a child be placed for adoption, to the extent
practicable, to convene a meeting for the purpose of determining
whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact
agreement, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
SB 1060
Page 2
1)Adds direct reference to siblings in a number of provisions
related to postadoption contact between an adoptive child and
his or her birth relatives.
2)Requires the court, at the time of the first review hearing,
to inquire into the status of the development of a voluntary
postadoption sibling contact agreement, as specified.
3)Requires the court order for the permanent placement of a ward
of the court, as specified, to include specification of the
nature and frequency of visiting arrangements with any
siblings.
4)Requires, when parental rights are terminated and the court
orders a dependent child or ward to be placed for adoption,
the county placing agency to convene a meeting with the child,
sibling(s) of the child, prospective adoptive parent(s), and a
facilitator for the purpose of determining whether to
voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement.
5)States that the county placing agency is not required to
convene a meeting to determine whether to voluntarily execute
a postadoption sibling contact agreement if it determines that
such a meeting or agreement would be contrary to the safety
and well-being of the child, or the child requests that a
meeting not occur.
6)Permits a child to petition the court for an order requiring
SB 1060
Page 3
the county placing agency to convene a meeting regarding a
postadoption sibling contact agreement, and further states
that if the court determines by a preponderance of the
evidence, such a meeting or agreement is contrary to the
safety and well-being of the child, the reasons for that
determination must be noted in the court order, and the
meeting is not required to occur.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Potentially significant state costs (GF*) for additional
meetings to the extent the meetings consist of child and
family team (CFT) members. Estimated costs assuming only 50%
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 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.
2)Unknown, but potentially significant state costs (GF*) 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 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), among other factors.
SB 1060
Page 4
3)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.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "For an adoption to
establish a lasting commitment between the child and adopting
parents, elements of healing and support are essential.
Research confirms that sustaining relationships with the
biological family, especially siblings, is effective in
overcoming any negative effects of being removed from one's
family and placed into foster care. This bill 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
SB 1060
Page 5
adoption finalization."
2)Background. 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.
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.
State law recognizes the benefits often derived from adoptive
children having either direct or indirect contact with birth
relatives after being adopted, and provides for the
development of postadoption contact agreements. These
agreements are intended to establish ongoing contact between a
child who has been adopted and his or her birth relatives;
they are voluntarily entered into by birth relatives and
adoptive parents. The purview of these agreements is limited
to, but does not need to include, provisions for visitation,
future contact, and sharing of information about the child in
the future.
California state law requires a social worker, to the extent
that it is practical and appropriate, to place a minor
together with any siblings or half-siblings who are also
detained or include in the case report a statement of his or
her continuing efforts to place the siblings together or why
SB 1060
Page 6
those efforts are not appropriate.
3)Related Legislation. AB 1997 (Stone), 2016, pending in the
Senate Appropriations Committee, adopts changes to further
facilitate implementation of Continuum of Care Reform (CCR)
recommendations to better serve children and youth in
California's child welfare services system.
4)Prior Legislation.
a) AB 403 (Stone), Chapter 773, Statutes of 2015,
implemented CCR recommendations to better serve children
and youth in California's child welfare services system.
b) SB 1099 (Steinberg), Chapter 773, Statutes of 2014,
encouraged visitation with siblings for children in the
dependency and juvenile justice systems.
c) AB 743 (Portantino), Chapter 560, Statutes of 2010, made
changes to the standards for sibling visitation,
interaction, and placement for children who are placed
out-of-home, in foster care, or adoption, to conform with
language in the federal Fostering Connections Act.
d) AB 705 (Steinberg), Chapter 747, Statutes of 2001,
ensured that sibling relationships are considered at all
appropriate hearings and siblings are placed together when
appropriate.
e) AB 1987 (Steinberg), Chapter 909, Statutes of 2000,
required the juvenile court to consider the existence and
nature of sibling relationships in all placement,
visitation and permanency hearings.
SB 1060
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081