BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1336
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1336 (Jackson)
As Amended August 4, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 38-1
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Judiciary |8-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner, | |
| | |Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Ting | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Human Services |5-0 |Bonilla, Arambula, | |
| | |Lopez, Mark Stone, | |
| | |Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |19-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
SB 1336
Page 2
| | |Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, | |
| | |Obernolte, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood, Chu | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Clarifies when relatives must be considered for
placement of foster children. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the court, whenever a child is removed from his or
her parent's custody and made a dependent of the juvenile
court, to make a specified finding as to whether the social
worker exercised due diligence in conducting the required
investigation to identify, locate and notify a child's
relatives of the detention, and allows the court to consider
specified factors in making this finding.
2)Provides that, when no new placement is being considered for a
foster child but a relative identifies himself or herself
subsequent to the disposition hearing and while reunification
services are being provided, the county (the child welfare
agency) must determine, within 14 days, whether it is in the
child's best interest to assess and consider the relative for
placement, and must inform the court, the relatives and all
parties of its decision and the reason for that decision. In
determining whether to assess the relative, the county must
consider all known relevant factors, but this initial
determination does not require an assessment of the relative.
If the county chooses not to assess the relative for
placement, the child can get court review of the decision, a
party may seek court review or the court may do so on its own.
SB 1336
Page 3
Provides that a relative may also request a court hearing, as
specified. If the court does not order that an assessment be
done, it must state its reasons for the decision.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that a minor may be removed from the physical custody
of his or her parents and become a dependent of the juvenile
court as the result of abuse or neglect, as specified.
(Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 300. Unless stated
otherwise, all further statutory references are to that code.)
2)Requires a social worker to immediately release a child in
temporary custody to the child's parent or guardian. Defines
the steps and timelines a county must take after detaining a
child, including specific steps and timelines to search for
relatives. Requires assessment of relatives or nonrelated
extended family members (NREFMs) who seek placement of the
child. (WIC Section 309; Cal. Rule Ct. 5.695 (f), (g).)
3)Requires the court, at the detention hearing, to 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 relatives, as specified. (WIC Section 319.)
4)Requires that prior to determining the appropriate
disposition, the court shall receive in evidence the report of
the child made by the social worker. (WIC Section 358.)
5)Creates preferential consideration for a request by a relative
of a child for placement, and requires, in determining whether
the placement is appropriate, the county social worker and the
SB 1336
Page 4
court to consider a number of factors including the best
interests of the child, the wishes of the parent, placement of
siblings, and the nature of the relationship between the child
and the relative. Requires that whenever a new placement of
the child must be made, consideration for placement shall
again be to relatives who have not been found to be unsuitable
and who will fulfill the child's reunification or permanent
plan requirements. (WIC Section 361.3.)
6)Requires, when the sudden unavailability of a foster caregiver
requires a change in placement, that the county welfare agency
assess any able and willing relative or NREFM that requests
temporary placement of the child, and allows the child to be
placed in the home upon completion of the assessment. (WIC
Section 361.45.)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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
determinations and assessments that may result from this bill.
The extent of these costs is unknown.
COMMENTS: Abused and neglected children who have been removed
from their homes fall under the jurisdiction of the child
welfare system. This system seeks to ensure the safety and
protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and
strengthen families through services, visitation and family
reunification. After a child is taken from the custody of his
or her parents, social workers are required to release a child
temporarily to a responsible parent, guardian, or relative,
unless a specified condition exists. If that cannot be done,
the social worker is required to seek out relatives and find
another placement for the child, and throughout the child
welfare process, there is a strong preference that the child be
placed with relatives. This bill seeks to help children, when
SB 1336
Page 5
appropriate and in their best interest, be placed with relatives
by requiring court oversight of the relative finding process, so
that relatives can be found early and children placed with them
timely, and requiring that social workers and courts consider a
later relative placement if it is in the best interest of the
child, consistent with case law.
Case law, recognizing the importance of relative placement, is
consistent with this legislation. Precedential case law from
the Second and Fourth Appellate Districts (which include Los
Angeles, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) has
been quite clear that the statutory relative placement priority
applies at least through the reunification period (and even
beyond) and regardless of whether a new placement is required:
"[A]t 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).)
Very recently, an appeals court in the Fourth Appellate District
reiterated the relative placement preference in a case where the
child welfare agency refused to consider properly a grandmother
who had helped raise the foster child and had repeatedly asked
for placement, placing the child instead with a nonrelative
extended family member and refusing to move the child. In re
Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 708. The grandmother
finally had to bring her own motion for change of placement,
which requires proof of a change of circumstances. The court
first agreed with Joseph T., holding that the relative placement
preference applies after the dispositional hearing even if no
SB 1336
Page 6
new placement is required. The appellate court went on to hold
that a relative does not need to bring his or her own action for
placement in order to get assessed for placement. Rather, the
"obligation to assess a relative's home is triggered by the
relative's request for placement of the child." (Id. at 722.)
The court concluded that the relative placement preference
applied even after the reunification period and even when no new
placement is necessary. The court is still required "to give
preferential consideration to a request by the child's relative
for placement, including an assessment of whether placement with
a relative is in the child's best interest." (Id. at 723
(emphasis in original).)
A Legislative Counsel opinion to this bill's author affirms that
the relative placement preference applies even when no new
placement is needed: "It is our opinion that under Welfare &
Institutions Code section 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 an new placement is not otherwise
required..." (Legislative Counsel, Dependent Children:
Placement with Relatives, No. 1613338 (May 20, 2016).)
Analysis Prepared by:
Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN:
0003924
SB 1336
Page 7