BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Senator Milton Marks, Chair
1995-96 Regular Session S
B
SB 1734 (Kelley) 1
As introduced 7
Hearing date: April 9, 1996 3
Welfare and Institutions Code 4
ALA:ll
JUVENILE JUSTICE: PARENT LIABILITY FOR HOME SUPERVISION OR
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
HISTORY
Source: San Diego County
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Probation, Parole and Correctional
Association; California State
Association of Counties
Opposition: None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD CURRENT LAW BE REVISED TO MAKE PARENTS EXPRESSLY LIABLE FOR THE COSTS
TO THE COUNTY OF HOME SUPERVISION OR ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE FOR DELINQUENT
MINORS, AS SPECIFIED?
(More)
SB 1734 (Kelley)
Page 2
(More)
SB 1734 (Kelley)
Page 3
PURPOSE
Current statute generally provides that parents can be liable
for the costs of probation supervision for their children who
are subject to an order of the juvenile court.<1> The
monthly or daily charge for this supervision is established
by the county board of supervisors.<2>
This bill would expressly add ohome supervision, or
electronic surveillanceo to this provision. This bill also
makes additional technical, nonsubstantive changes to this
section.
The purpose of this bill is to permit juvenile courts to
-------------------------------
<1> Welfare and Institutions Code ? 903.2 (oThe juvenile
court may require that the father, mother, spouse, or other
person liable for the support of a minor person, the estates
of such persons, and the estate of such minor person, shall
be liable for the cost to the county of the probation
supervision of the minor person pursuant to the order of the
juvenile court, by the probation officer. The liability of
such persons (in this article called relatives) and estates
shall be a joint and several liability.o); but see In re
Nathaniel Z. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1140, footnote 11
(oWe also question the constitutionality of imposing
probation expenses on parents of minors detained in the home,
yet denying reimbursement to the county for comparable
services provided to an incarcerated minor. In the latter
situation, the minor must still be supervised, albeit the
owatchdogo is a Youth Authority or juvenile hall employee
rather than a probation officer.o).
<2> Welfare and Institutions Code ? 904 (oThe monthly or
daily charge, not to exceed cost, for care, support, and
maintenance of minor persons placed or detained in or
committed to any institution by order of a juvenile court,
the cost of legal services referred to by Section 903.1, the
cost of probation supervision referred to by Section 903.2,
and the cost of sealing records referred to by Section 903.3
shall be determined by the board of supervisors.o)
(More)
SB 1734 (Kelley)
Page 4
impose parental liability for probation home supervision and
electronic surveillance costs.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill.
The author states:
The costs of juvenile crime and the dire
financial status of counties and probation
departments are what prompted this legislation.
2. Background.
The County of San Diego, sponsor of this bill, states that
the county ohas between 130 and 190 minors on home
supervision on any given day -- as many as 30 of these minors
are under
(More)
SB 1734 (Kelley)
Page 5
electronic surveillance. Using an average daily caseload of
145, the unit cost of providing home supervision and
electronic monitoring is $9 per day -- or an annual cost of
approximately $476,000.o
3. Would This Bill be Constitutional?
If enacted, this measure would authorize the juvenile court
to make certain persons related to a minor liable for the
cost to the county of home supervision or electronic
surveillance of the minor. By imposing financial
responsibility on parents or other responsible persons for
costs undertaken for the protection of society or the
rehabilitation of the minor, this bill may violate
constitutional guarantees of equal protection. (14th Amdt.,
U.S. Const.; Sec. 7, Art. I, Cal. Const.; see County of San
Mateo v. Dell J. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1236, 1250 -1252; In re
Jerald D. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 1, 6; and In re Nathaniel Z.
(1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1140. In 1988 the Supreme Court
stated:
[F]undamental principles of equal protection
preclude a statutory scheme for reimbursement of
public assistance from requiring a class of
responsible relatives (here the parents) to alone
bear the costs of confinement, treatment,
rehabilitation or supervision of a dependent
(here the minor) whose custody is removed from
the family, voluntarily or pursuant to court
order, in whole or in part for the benefit and
protection of society. In contrast, where a
preexisting legal obligation of support of the
dependent is established, there is no
constitutional impediment to the state seeking
reimbursement from the responsible family members
of the reasonable costs of support and
maintenance of such dependent for the duration of
(More)
SB 1734 (Kelley)
Page 6
his placement outside the family home, where such
uniform costs can be identified and segregated
out from nonallowable costs, allocated amongst
similarly situated dependents in a reasonable
manners, and where the responsible relativeso
liability is subject to reduction according to
their reasonable ability to pay.<3>
(More)
-------------------------
<3> County of San Mateo v. Dell J., supra, at 1252.
WOULD THIS MEASURE BE CONSTITUTIONAL?
(More)
SB 1734 (Kelley)
Page 8
4. o Ability to Payo Language Not in Bill.
Current law providing parental liability for the costs of
supporting minors during placement,
detention or commitment to an institution contains the
following intent language:
It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting
this subdivision to protect the fiscal integrity
of the county, to protect persons against whom
the county seeks to impose liability from
excessive charges, to ensure reasonable
uniformity throughout the state in the level of
liability being imposed, and to ensure that
liability is imposed only on persons with the
ability to pay. In evaluating a family's
financial ability to pay under this section, the
county shall take into consideration the family
income, the necessary obligations of the family,
and the number of persons dependent upon this
income. . . . <4>
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE SIMILAR INTENT
LANGUAGE, INCLUDING A PROVISION ADDRESSING oABILITY TO PAYo?
***************
-------------------------------
<4> Welfare and Institutions Code ? 903(c).