BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1336
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 10, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1336
(Jackson) - As Amended August 4, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|8 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Human Services | |5 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY: This bill requires the juvenile court to make a
determination as to whether or not a social worker exercised due
diligence in conducting an investigation to identify, locate,
and notify relatives of a child placed in the child welfare
system, and requires a county welfare agency to evaluate
relatives who come forward as a placement option for a child
receiving reunification services. Specifically, this bill:
SB 1336
Page 2
1)Requires that, when a child is removed from his or her
parent's or guardian's custody, the court make a finding as to
whether or not the social worker has exercised due diligence
in identifying, locating, and notifying the maternal and
paternal relatives of the child, as specified.
2)Authorizes the court to consider a number of actions as
examples of due diligence on behalf of the social worker, as
specified.
3)Clarifies that whenever a relative identifies himself or
herself to the county and is not found to be unsuitable and
who will fulfill the child's reunification or permanent plan
requirements, a county welfare agency must determine within 14
calendar days whether it is in the best interest of the child
to assess and consider a relative for placement, and inform
the court, the relative, and all parties to the case of its
decision, including the reason.
4)Authorizes, when the county makes a determination to not
assess a relative for placement, actions the court may take
regarding ordering an assessment and setting a hearing, as
specified.
5)Resolves chaptering out conflicts with AB 1997 (M. Stone).
FISCAL EFFECT:
To the extent that some counties are not interpreting current
law in the manner described in this bill, those counties may
incur additional county social workers costs for the
SB 1336
Page 3
determinations and assessments that may result from this bill.
The extent of these costs is unknown.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the Alliance for Children's Rights, "By
clarifying how and when preferential treatment of relatives is
considered, this bill 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. It would also
provide dependency court judges additional statutory tools to
help ensure that appropriate and effective steps are being
made to find and recruit relatives early in the dependency
proceeding to improve reunification with the child's parents
and permanent ties to the child's relatives."
2)Background. Historically, it has been the policy of
California that when a child is removed from his or her
parents' custody, preserving familial ties is of the utmost
importance. As such, social works and county welfare agencies
are often tasked with finding appropriate placements with
relative caregivers, including another parent, grandparents,
siblings or non-relative extended family members (NREFM).
Recent policy changes through Continuum of Care Reform (CCR)
have recognized the importance of relative caregivers and
placement with relatives when a child is placed in the child
welfare system, and steps have been taken to ensure that the
unique needs of relative caregivers are addressed.
Current law requires a social worker to, within 30 days of the
child's removal from the home, locate any known adults who are
related to the child and notify them that the child has been
removed from his or her parent's custody, this is not always
SB 1336
Page 4
done. Practice varies county to county, and dependency court
judges apply differing levels of scrutiny when determining
whether the social worker exercised 'due diligence' in the
search for relatives. Without some level of uniformity of
what is considered 'due diligence,' the identification and
recruitment of relatives varies widely by county.
Further, even when a relative comes forward, some counties are
not considering his or her request for placement because of a
clause in current law, which states that 'whenever a new
placement of the child must be made, consideration for
placement shall again be given? to relatives who have not been
found to be unsuitable...'.
Although contrary to case law, some counties have interpreted
this clause to mean that a relative may not be considered
until a new placement is made for the child. This has allowed
some counties to deny 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.
3)Precedential case law. Recent case law from the Second and
Fourth Appellate Districts (which include Los Angeles, San
Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) has stated that
relative priority placement applies throughout the
reunification period regardless of whether or not a new
placement is required:
SB 1336
Page 5
"At least through the reunification period, when a relative
voluntarily comes forward at a time when a new placement is
not required, the relative is entitled to the preference and
the court and the social worker are obligated to evaluate the
relative...Appellate court decisions have consistently held
that the relative placement preference applies at least
through the family reunification period. During the
reunification period, the preference applies regardless of
whether a new placement is required or is otherwise being
considered by the dependency court." (In re Joseph T. (2008)
163 Cal. App. 4th 787, 794-95 (citations omitted).)
4)Legislative Counsel Opinion. In May 2016, this bill's author
received an opinion from Legislative Counsel in which was
posed the question of whether or not a social worker is
required to assess each relative who requests placement of a
child in foster care after the dispositional hearing through
the family reunification period, even if a new placement is
not otherwise required, as is written in current law. In
their opinion, Legislative Counsel stated that with regards to
Welfare & Institutions Code 361.3, "?a social worker is
required to assess each relative who requests placement of a
child in foster care after the dispositional hearing through
the family reunification period, even if a new placement is
not otherwise required as described in subdivision (d) of that
section."
5)Related Legislation.
a) SB 316 (Mitchell), pending in the Assembly Rules
Committee, clarifies and simplifies rules for criminal
background checks for foster care placements and makes the
SB 1336
Page 6
rules consistent with federal law. That bill is similar to
SB 1201 (Mitchell) which was held on the Senate
Appropriation Committee's Suspense File earlier this year.
b) SB 942 (Liu), 2016, pending in this Committee,
establishes additional procedures for the temporary
placement of a child with an able and willing relative,
requires that a criminal records check be conducted within
a specified timeframe, and authorizes the court to conduct
a hearing if the assessment process is not complete, as
specified.
1)Prior Legislation.
a) AB 1761 (Hall), Chapter 765, Statutes of 2014, clarified
that the placement priority for relatives and NREFM applies
both prior to the detention hearing and also after the
detention hearing and prior to the dispositional hearing.
b) AB 2391 (Calderon) 2014, would have required the county
social worker and the court, when determining whether
placement with a relative is appropriate, to consider
specified factors, and would have required that
consideration for placement with a relative subsequent to a
disposition hearing be given again without regard to
whether a new placement of a child must be made. This bill
was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 1336
Page 7