BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1060|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1060
Author: Leno (D), et al.
Amended: 8/1/16
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/12/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SENATE FLOOR: 31-7, 6/1/16
AYES: Allen, Bates, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller,
Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill,
Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire,
Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Nguyen, Pan, Pavley,
Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Gaines, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone,
Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Beall, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/18/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Postadoption contact: siblings of dependent
children or wards
SOURCE: California Youth Connection
DIGEST: This bill requires the county placing agency, to the
extent practicable, to convene a meeting with the child,
siblings of the child, prospective adoptive parent or parents,
and a facilitator for the purpose of deciding whether to
SB 1060
Page 2
voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement.
This bill provides that the meeting is not required to occur if
the court determines by a preponderance 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
and notes the determination in the court order.
Assembly Amendments require the court to review the status of a
dependent child for whom the court has ordered parental rights
terminated and who has been ordered placed for adoption, and
require the court to inquire into the into the status of a
voluntary postadoption sibling contact agreement at the first
review hearing.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires 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 frequently,
unless it is contrary to their safety or well-being. (42
U.S.C. Sec. 671(a).)
2) States 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, including requiring the state or
county to do the following after parental rights are
terminated and the court orders the dependent child to be
placed for adoption:
Include in training for prospective adoptive parents
information about the importance of maintaining sibling
SB 1060
Page 3
relationships;
Provide prospective adoptive parents with information
about the child's siblings, as specified; and
Encourage the prospective adoptive parents to make a
plan for facilitating postadoptive contact between the
child and any siblings. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 16002.)
1) 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.2.)
2) 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 362.1.)
3) Allows a court to include in a final adoption order a
postadoptive sibling contact agreement. (Welf. & Inst. Code
Secs. 366.26 and 366.29.)
4) 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
366.26.)
This bill:
1) Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the
SB 1060
Page 4
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
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 its first review conducted for a child
for whom the court has ordered parental rights terminated and
who has been ordered placed for adoption, 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
SB 1060
Page 5
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.
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 Family
Code Section 8616.5 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.
SB 1060
Page 6
Background
In October 2008, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
(Act) to promote permanent families for children and youth in
foster care by providing greater assistance to relative
caregivers and improving incentives for adoption. The Act also
extends assistance for foster children to age 21 and improves
education and health care for children and youth in foster care.
Further, the Act requires 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 frequently, unless
the visitation is contrary to their safety or well-being. (42
U.S.C. Sec. 671(a).)
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, Chapter 805,
Statutes of 1999.) Since then California has enacted several
additional statutes to expand legal protections for sibling
relationships. Creating another mechanism by which the court
may further protect sibling relationships, SB 1099 (Steinberg,
Chapter 773, Statutes of 2014) gave dependency courts the
authority to order visitation between dependent and
non-dependent siblings in specified circumstances. This bill
seeks to further protect sibling relationships by requiring the
county, as soon as parental rights are terminated and the court
orders the dependent child to be placed for adoption, to convene
a meeting with the relevant parties for the purpose of
discussing a postadoption sibling contact agreement. This bill
also, at the adoption proceeding, requires the court to inquire
into the status of the postadoption sibling contact agreement.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
SB 1060
Page 7
1)Minor state costs (General Fund* (GF)) for potential
additional meetings to determine whether to execute
postadoption sibling contact agreements.
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.
3)Minor workload impact and potentially future cost savings to
the extent the child and family team 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.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/17/16)
California Youth Connection (source)
SB 1060
Page 8
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California CASA Association
Children Now
Children's Law Center
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Families Now
Hillsides
National Association of Social Workers
Public Counsel
The John Burton Foundation
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/17/16)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Alliance of
Child and Family Services:
Approximately 20 percent of foster youth exit to adoption
each year in California. Every child deserves a permanent
family that provides a safe, enriching and loving home, not
just for a few months but forever. When reunification with
biological parents is no longer possible, adoption by a
relative or a nonrelative family gives our foster youth the
chance to grow up in a loving and permanent family. Findings
have found that healthy relationships with an adopted youth's
biological siblings are critical to the success of the
adoption being permanent. SB 1060 strengthens the efforts
of continued sibling connections by requiring a facilitated
meeting to create a post adoption sibling contact agreement
before the adoption is finalized between the adoptive
parents, the prospective adoptive child/children and the
siblings who will not be living together. All parties will
be allowed to decide whether to voluntarily enter into this
agreement. This meeting will elevate the importance of
sibling relationships within the adoption process and will
improve the lives of foster youth.
SB 1060
Page 9
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/18/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon,
Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines,
Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson,
Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark
Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams,
Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Roger Hernández, Kim
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/19/16 19:29:31
**** END ****