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  ****