BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chair
BILL NO: AB 880A
AUTHOR: CohnB
VERSION: June 13, 2005
HEARING DATE: June 14, 20058
FISCAL: Senate Appropriations8
0
CONSULTANT:
Sue North
SUBJECT
Dependent children
SUMMARY
Current law establishes the criteria for priorities
associated with the removal of children from their homes
due to dependency, neglect or abuse. Current law also
orients decision making with respect to the management
and care of children in out-of-home placement to seek
family reunification whenever possible.
This bill creates a heightened priority for the
placement of children with family members once it is
determined that reunification with parents is not
possible. It further directs the Department of Social
Services (DSS) to confer with a broad range of
stakeholders to create guidelines of 'best practices' in
the use of advanced technology to find family members
for children awaiting placement.
ABSTRACT
Current state law establishes the jurisdiction and
policy guidance for the juvenile court in cases
involving children who may become dependent due to
parental absence, neglect or abuse. Further, current
law establishes the jurisdiction and programmatic
responsibilities of the DSS as well as the counties in
identification and management of dependent children.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 880 Page 2
Current law also establishes the preferred placement of
children with relatives when reunification with parents
is not possible.
This bill repeats the mandate that juvenile courts look
first to relatives of a child if the return of a
dependent child to his or her parents is not possible
and placement
"is being considered."
This bill also directs DSS to confer with stakeholders
in order to create draft guidelines on "best practices"
using "advanced technology" and "family finding
technologies."
FISCAL IMPACT
Unknown fiscal impact on the Department of Social
Services to develop guidelines and identify family
finding technologies and costs associated with its
implementation.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
According to the author this bill "addresses the dilemma
of finding permanent homes for foster children at the
earliest possible date." It is intended to "strengthen
the search process for locating relatives which research
shows is in the best interests of the children and
should save the state money."
The bill seeks to accomplish these objectives by
directing the DSS to convene stakeholders, specifically
citing the inclusion of eight counties who are believed
to have exemplary kinship care programs (Alameda,
Monterey, Orange, Placer, Sacramento, Santa Clara,
Stanislaus, and San Mateo counties). DSS would be
charged with the responsibility of preparing "draft
guidelines" which would include estimates of funding
needed to support "family finding technology" designed
to enhance the effort to find relatives of children
awaiting placement.
Comments:
1. Section 1 of the bill amends Section 300.2 of the
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 880 Page 3
W&I Code-a code section which currently describes the
purpose of the Chapter which establishes the
jurisdiction of juvenile court for all matters
related to dependent children. Is it appropriate to
mix policy related to placements decisions about
dependent children in a section that currently
focuses on the jurisdictional issues of juvenile
court in matters of dependency?
2. In current law two primary code sections already
speak to preferences for placement with relatives of
dependent children:
Section 7950 of the Family Code -the first code
section under Part 6 "Foster Care Placement
Considerations" begins:
"7950. (a) With full consideration for the proximity
of the natural
parents to the placement so as to facilitate
visitation and family
reunification, when a placement in foster care is
being made, the
following considerations shall be used:
(1) Placement shall, if possible, be made in the
home of a
relative, unless the placement would not be in the
best interest of
the child. Diligent efforts shall be made by an
agency or entity to
which this subdivision applies, to locate an
appropriate relative.
Before any child may be placed in long-term foster
care, the court
shall find that the agency or entity to which this
subdivision
applies has made diligent efforts to locate an
appropriate relative
and that each relative whose name has been submitted
to the agency or
entity as a possible caretaker, either by himself or
herself or by
other persons, has been evaluated as an appropriate
placement
resource???.."
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 880 Page 4
Similarly, Section 16000 of the W&I Code begins:
16000. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to
preserve and
strengthen a child's family ties whenever possible,
removing the
child from the custody of his or her parents only
when necessary for
his or her welfare or for the safety and protection
of the public.
If a child is removed from the physical custody of
his or her
parents, preferential consideration shall be given
whenever possible
to the placement of the child with the relative as
required by Section 7950
of the Family Code.
Is Section 1 of AB 880 necessary?
3. Section 2 of the bill, as recently amended, makes
reference to "advanced technologies" as well as to
"family finding technologies." There is no definition
in the bill of either of these approaches to finding
relatives. The author's office has provided reference
to a website: http://www.ussearch.com/consumer/index.jsp
which appears to be a commercial internet-based people
search service. Is the Legislature clear what databases
these sites use to locate people and is there policy
agreement with the search methods used to accomplish
this purpose?
4. Is it the intent of the author that the state
promote/fund the use of commercial people search
internet-based services as a primary method of finding
relatives in California's foster care system? Since
approximately half of all the foster care children in
California are already placed with relatives, on what
basis have we determined the cost-benefit of this new
activity?
5. Given that this bill assumes that technological
methods to find relatives of specific children is
better/faster/cheaper than other methods (e.g., asking
the family), do we know that to be true? A people
search service is logically likely to produce a lot of
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 880 Page 5
names identical to the families who are not necessarily
relatives. Is this service helpful only in finding
known relatives whose whereabouts are unknown quicker?
What experience do counties have with the success of
such relatives in their appropriateness or willingness
to assume responsibilities for dependent children?
Assembly votes
Assembly Human Services5-2
Assembly Appropriations 13-5
Assembly Floor 47-28
POSITIONS
Support: Kids in Common
National Organization for Women
California Youth Connection
Child Advocates of Santa Clara and San
Mateo Counties
Family Law Section of the State Bar of
California
California Welfare Directors Association
Oppose: None received
-- END --