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