BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1336|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1336
Author: Jackson (D)
Amended: 4/14/16
Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4-0, 4/12/16
AYES: McGuire, Berryhill, Hancock, Liu
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/3/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg
SUBJECT: Dependent children: placement with relatives
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires the juvenile court to make a
finding as to whether the social worker exercised due diligence
in conducting his or her investigation to identify, locate, and
notify a dependent child's relatives. It states legislative
intent to clarify that, if a child is receiving reunification
services and a relative identifies himself or herself to a
county child welfare agency, that the relative be evaluated by
the county child welfare agency and a recommendation be made to
the court as to whether the relative should be considered for
placement.
ANALYSIS: Existing federal law vests responsibility for caring
for a child who has been removed from home and placed in foster
care with the state and any public agency which is administering
SB 1336
Page 2
the foster care plan with the state. (42 U.S.C. 672 (a)(2)(B))
Existing state law:
1) Places the care of a child who has been removed from his or
her parents or guardian under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court and defines abuse and neglect criteria for
such removal. (WIC 300 et seq.)
2) Defines the steps and timelines a county must take after
detaining a child, including creating a preference for the
child to be placed temporarily with a relative or nonrelated
extended family member (NREFM). (WIC 309)
3) Requires at the initial detention hearing the court take
certain steps to evaluate the case, determine whether the
child can be returned home safely, and, if not, to ensure the
child is placed in an appropriate placement, with priority
consideration for family members and NREFMs. (WIC 319)
4) Requires a juvenile court to hear evidence prior to making a
finding on the disposition of a child's case and permits the
court to continue the hearing to a later date, as specified
and according to statutory timelines. (WIC 358 (a))
5) Requires the court to read and consider the social study of
the child made by the social worker, any study or evaluation
made by a child advocate appointed by the court, and other
relevant and material evidence as may be offered, prior to
deciding the disposition of the case. This may include the
willingness of the caregiver to provide legal permanency for
the child if reunification is unsuccessful. (WIC 358 (b))
6) Requires that in any case in which a child is removed from
the physical custody of his or her parents, preferential
consideration must be given to a request by a relative of the
child for placement of the child with the relative,
regardless of the relative's immigration status. In
determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate,
the county social worker and court must consider a variety of
SB 1336
Page 3
factors, as specified, including the ability of the relative
to provide a safe, secure and stable environment for the
child and protect the child from his or her parents. (WIC
361.3. (a))
7) Requires that each relative be considered in any case in
which more than one appropriate relative requests
preferential consideration, as specified. States that,
consistent with the legislative intent for children to be
placed immediately with a responsible relative, this section
does not limit the county social worker's ability to place a
child in the home of an appropriate relative or an NREFM
pending the consideration of other relatives who have
requested preferential consideration. (WIC 361.3(b))
8) Defines "relative" to mean an adult who is related to the
child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree
of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all
relatives whose status is preceded by the words "great,"
"great-great," or "grand," or the spouse of any of these
persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or
dissolution. Requires that the only relatives to be given
preferential consideration for the placement of the child are
an adult who is a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or sibling. (WIC
361.3 (c)(2))
9) Requires that prior to placing a child in the home of a
relative, or the home of any prospective guardian or other
person who is not a licensed or certified foster parent, the
county social worker shall visit the home to ascertain the
appropriateness of the placement, as specified. (WIC 361.4)
10)Requires that when the sudden availability of a foster
caregiver requires a change in placement on an emergency
basis for a foster child, if an able and willing relative or
NREFM is available and requests temporary placement of the
child pending resolution of the emergency situation, the
county welfare department shall initiate an assessment of the
relative's or NREFM's suitability. Upon completion of this
assessment, the child may be placed in the home. (WIC
361.45.)
SB 1336
Page 4
This bill:
1) States uncodified legislative intent that if a child is
receiving reunification services and a relative identifies
himself or herself to a county child welfare agency, that the
relative be evaluated and a recommendation be made to the
court as to whether the relative should be considered for
placement.
2) Requires that, in making a decision in a dispositional
hearing, the court must consider whether the social worker
has exercised due diligence in conducting the investigation
to identify, locate, and notify the child's maternal and
paternal relatives.
3) Permits the court to consider whether the social worker took
the following actions in in determining whether due diligence
was used:
a) Asked the child, in an age-appropriate manner and
consistent with the child's best interest, about his or
her relatives.
b) Obtained information regarding the location of the
child's relatives.
c) Reviewed the child's case file for any information
regarding the child's relatives.
d) Telephoned, emailed, or visited all identified
relatives.
e) Asked located relatives for the names and locations of
other relatives.
f) Used Internet search tools to locate relatives
SB 1336
Page 5
identified as supports.
4) Removes the requirement that a county consider placing the
child with suitable relatives only at the time that a new
placement of the child must be made, so that a county is
required to consider placement with suitable relatives before
or at any point after the child's dispositional hearing.
Background
Child Welfare System. California's county-based child welfare
system protects children at risk of child abuse and neglect or
exploitation by providing intensive services to families to
allow children to remain in their homes, or by arranging
temporary or permanent placement of the child in the safest and
least restrictive environment possible. It is the legal "parent"
for children in the foster care system. As of October 1, 2015,
approximately 62,600 children were in the custody of the child
welfare system in California.
[http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare]
Court process. The process for determining the path through a
child welfare case is prescribed by a series of dependency court
hearings. When a child is first detained, the judge reviews the
facts and decides whether to remove the child from his or her
parents or to return the child home, typically with instructions
that parents participate in services. At this hearing, the court
will also try to identify any suitable relatives who may be able
to care for the child while the case is pending. The second
hearing is a "jurisdictional hearing," in which the merits of
the case are decided, this may include a trial on the facts. If
the court decides that the allegations are true, there will be a
subsequent dispositional hearing, where the judge will decide
whether to return the child home or to remove the child from
parental custody. Subsequent hearings evaluate the status of the
parents' attempts to reunify with the child and the child's
well-being.
Outcomes of Children in Foster Care. Numerous national studies
have documented the poor outcomes of children and youth who are
removed from their homes into the child welfare system. Children
have increased rates of chronic health problems, developmental
SB 1336
Page 6
delays and disabilities, mental health needs, and substance
abuse problems.
[http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/files/upload-docs/report_fina
l_ April_2.pdf] Many youth have experienced traumatic events
that lead to symptoms such as depression, behavior problems,
hypersensitivity, and emotional difficulties. Twenty-five
percent of youth who age-out of care experience Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder-double the rate of U.S. war veterans. Studies
have shown that being removed from one's home is, in itself, a
traumatic event, leading to the separation from family, friends,
and neighbors.
Placement with relatives. State and federal statutes state a
preference to place children in out-of-home care with relatives.
State law provides an expedited approval process for family
members and NREFMs who step forward when the child is detained
in order to quickly place the child in a familiar home.
Studies have demonstrated significant benefit to children in the
child welfare system who are placed with relatives rather than
with strangers in foster homes or in group care. A 2008 study in
the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that
children placed into kinship care had fewer behavioral problems
three years after placement than children who were placed into
foster care. Researchers also found that children placed with
relatives were more likely to remain in their same neighborhood,
be placed with siblings, and have consistent contact with their
birth parents than children in foster care.
Recent efforts to encourage relatives to care for children in
the foster care system have resulted in several initiatives. The
Resource Family Approval Program (WIC 16519.5) was established
in 2012 as a five-county pilot project and designed to be a
unified, family friendly, child centered single process to
approve foster family homes, relative homes for foster care and
to approve families for legal guardianship or adoption. It
replaces multiple processes for licensing and approving homes of
relative and nonrelative caregivers. The 2015 passage of the
Continuum of Care Reform package, AB 403 (Stone, Chapter 773,
Statutes of 2015), made the pilot statewide.
SB 1336
Page 7
The Approved Relative Caregiver funding program (SB 855, Chapter
29, Statutes of 2014) was established, initially as a county
option, to provide funding to family caregivers in an amount
equal to the basic foster care rate. The program, which was made
mandatory by the passage of AB 403, remedies a rate inequity
that left many low income relatives with support payments from
the CalWORKs program only, which are significantly less than the
basic foster care rate.
Continuum of Care Reform. The California Department of Social
Services (CDSS) is in the midst of a significant reform effort
focused on diminishing the number of foster children in
long-term congregate care, such as group homes. A 2015 report,
"California's Child Welfare Continuum of Care Reform," outlines
a comprehensive reform of services including new models of care
for foster youth, more intensive services, and providing needed
treatment and services in homes rather than in group care. AB
403 began enacting these reforms.
Related Legislation
AB 381 (Calderon, 2015) would have deleted the provision that
consideration for placement with a relative after the
disposition hearing be triggered by a new placement for the
foster child, similar to the current bill. It additionally would
have required the social worker to consider the length of time a
child was in placement and relationship with the non-relative
caregiver in deciding whether to move the child to a relative's
home. The bill died in the Assembly Human Services Committee.
AB 2391 (Calderon, 2014), in an identical deletion to SB 1336,
would have required that consideration for placement with a
relative subsequent to the disposition hearing be given without
regard to whether a new placement of a child must be made. The
bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SB 1336
Page 8
SUPPORT: (Verified5/24/16)
Alliance for Children's Rights
Children's Advocacy Institute
Children's Law Center of California
Dependency Legal Services
East Bay Children's Law Offices
Families NOW
Juvenile Court Judges of California
National Association of Social Workers
OPPOSITION: (Verified5/24/16)
Advokids
California State Association of Counties
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Urban Counties of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Children's Law Center of California
writes that current law requires a social worker to locate kin
to determine whether they are willing to temporarily care for
the child, however practice varies from county to county and
dependency court judges apply differing levels of scrutiny in
determining "due diligence" in the search for relatives. "By
clarifying how and when preferential treatment of relatives is
considered SB 1336 will help to ensure that a relative is
considered for placement whenever he or she identifies him or
herself to a county child welfare agency," according to the
organization.
The author states that a relative who comes forward after the
child's dispositional hearing may be considered for placement
whenever a new placement of the child must be made. The author
notes that some counties have interpreted this clause to mean
that a relative may not be considered until a new placement is
needed for the child, and that some counties have denied
children their right to have their relative considered as a
placement solely because a particular hearing has passed and a
'new' placement is not being made.
SB 1336
Page 9
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The County Welfare Directors
Association of California states this bill creates unnecessary
work in an already overburdened system by requiring the
assessment of every new relative and consideration of their
suitability, even if the child is in a stable environment and no
other placement change is being contemplated. "There already are
many, at times competing, legal requirements that child welfare
staff must follow, and more work in a day than most can
contemplate. Adding this new requirement, to little end, would
redirect staff time away from these other efforts."
Prepared by:Mareva Brown / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524
5/25/16 13:50:28
**** END ****