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 ****