BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1743
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 1743 (Judiciary Committee) - As Introduced: March 2, 2005
Policy Committee: Judiciary
Vote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill is technical clean-up to AB 1449 (Keeley), Chapter
463, Statutes of 2001, which established child support
forgiveness for certain parents involved in both the child
support enforcement (CSE) and foster care systems. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Clarifies code section references to include all types of
foster care placements, not just those for children who are
eligible for federal foster care funding.
2)Aligns semi-annual AB 1449 eligibility reviews with more
recently adopted annual foster care eligibility reviews.
3)Expands the AB 1449 CSE forgiveness program to include Kinship
Guardianship Assistance Program (Kin-GAP) families.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, likely minor reductions in revenue associated with
fewer CSE collections. Child support collected to offset
foster care and other public assistance costs is reflected as
revenue and is shared by federal, state, and local government.
2)Unknown, likely minor off-setting savings to the foster care
program to the extent this bill reduces time children spend in
foster care by expediting reunification with their family of
origin. Foster care savings are shared by federal, state, and
local government.
AB 1743
Page 2
3)Unknown minor savings for reducing eligibility determinations
by moving from semi-annual to annual reviews. Administrative
savings accrue primarily to state and federal government.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This bill, sponsored by the County Welfare
Directors Association (CWDA), is technical clean-up to AB 1449
(Keeley), Chapter 463, Statutes of 2001. AB 1449 established a
program for the forgiveness of certain child support
arrearages owed as reimbursement for foster care costs when a
child is retuned to his or her family of origin. This bill
makes three minor changes to bring uniformity to this code
section and complete the legislative intent of AB 1449 by
allowing all children exiting foster care to be considered
eligible for this forgiveness program.
2)Background . Foster care is an entitlement program funded by
federal, state, and local governments. County welfare
departments make decisions regarding the health and safety of
children who have been removed from home due to abuse or
neglect and have the discretion to place children in one of
the following: (a) a foster family home, (b) a foster family
agency home, or (c) a group home. Kin-GAP is a voluntary
program for relatives caring for foster children who will not
be reunified with their parents. This is considered a
permanency option as the child leaves foster care and
relatives receive a monthly grant equal to that of a foster
family home provider.
The primary purpose of California's CSE program is to collect
support payments from absent parents for custodial parents and
their children. Local child support offices provide services,
such as locating absent parents; establishing paternity;
obtaining, enforcing, and modifying child support orders; and
collecting and distributing payments.
3)Child Support Collections Offset Foster Care Costs . When
children enter foster care, local CSE offices may attempt to
collect payments from biological parents to offset foster care
costs that may range from $300 to more than $5,000 per month.
Because the families of many children in foster care are
low-income, such child support payments are difficult, if not
impossible, to make. AB 1449 authorized CSE agencies and local
welfare departments to work together to modify support orders
AB 1743
Page 3
in some circumstances where the payment of child support
hindered reunification of parent and child.
4)Related Legislation . AB 1995 (Aroner, 2000) provided a limited
one-time amnesty for child support obligors who owed the
state more than $5,000 in arrears for reimbursement of public
assistance and who remained current with their ongoing child
support obligations. The bill was vetoed because the GF costs
were immediate, while savings would have been longer term and
more speculative.
Analysis Prepared by : Mary Ader / APPR. / (916) 319-2081