BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2130
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Noreen Evans, Chair
AB 2130 (DeVore) - As Introduced: February 21, 2006
SUBJECT : Placement of dependent children: values.
SUMMARY : Requires a court to consider the religious, cultural,
moral and ethnic values of the child or of his or her birth
parents prior to granting a petition of adoption for that child.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Specifies that when practical, a child who is a dependent of
the court shall be placed in an institution or family home of
the same religious belief as that of the child or his parents.
2)Requires a licensed adoption agency or adoption service
provider to ask the child and the child's parent or guardian
whether the child is eligible for membership in an Indian
tribe.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : According to the bill's sponsor, the Pacific Justice
Institute, "when a child is up for adoption?the law does not
currently factor in the cultural religious, moral or ethnic
values of the child or parent."
"Moreover," the sponsor continues, "in that California does not
have a homogeneous population, it is important that the
legislature direct the courts to take into consideration the
child or parent's cultural, ethnic, moral and religious values
when such can be ascertained."
The sponsor cites enactment of a similar law in Hawaii. The
Hawaiian law specifies that "full and careful consideration
should be given to the religious, cultural, and ethnic values of
the child's legal custodian when service plans are being
discussed or formulated." This means that this consideration
should be given while the parent still has custody, not after
the parent has relinquished their rights and the child is being
placed for adoption. The purpose of the Hawaiian law is the
AB 2130
Page 2
same as existing California law which requires that a
consideration of a child's religion should be made when placing
a child in a foster home.
The determination of a religious belief is less ambiguous than
the cultural, moral and ethnic values of a child or his or her
birth parents. A broad interpretation of cultural or ethnic
values could include bigotry, racism or support of race-based
discrimination.
Current law already provides that when practical, a child who is
a dependent of the court shall be placed in an institution or
family home of the same religious belief as that of the child or
his parents. As a dependent of the court, the child may be in a
foster home and the family may be working toward reunification.
In that case, the court may wish to consider placing a child in
a home with familiar religious practices. But, if a parent has
relinquished all rights regarding the child and the child is now
being placed into a permanent adoptive home as determined by the
social worker or adoption agency, should an appropriate
placement be hampered by the values of the birth parents?
For instance, a child may be removed from the home of a
drug-addicted mother. Presumably the child is placed in a
foster home while attempts at reunification are made. The birth
mother's lifestyle prevents her from caring for or wanting to
care for her child, she relinquishes custody and her parental
rights are permanently terminated. A loving adoptive family is
found and the placement appears suitable and appropriate.
Should the social worker be required to find the drug-addicted
mother and ask her about her moral and religious values? And
should those values be weighed when making a permanent placement
decision?
Federal law, the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act, as amended by the
Removal of Barriers to Inter-Ethnic Adoption (MEPA-IEP) has been
in effect since 1996. A 1998 report to Congress by the General
Accounting Office, which had reviewed compliance in California,
noted that "agencies can no longer routinely assume that placing
children with parents of the same race is in the best interests
of a child." California was also put on notice that child
welfare agencies are "subject to civil rights principles banning
racial discrimination when making placement decisions."
The County Welfare Director's Association expresses their
AB 2130
Page 3
concerns in a letter, noting that "(b)ased on?federal
clarifications published since the MEPA was enacted, AB 2130
appears to create a requirement that runs counter to the federal
law. This not only opens the state to potential federal
penalties, it also is inconsistent with the clear requirement
that each child's situation and each potential caregiver be
assessed individually, with the child's best interests as the
guiding factor in placement decisions."
SB 984 (Scott) Chapter 232, Statutes of 2003 brought California
into compliance with federal law by striking the provisions in
law that allowed agencies placing a child up for adoption to
consider the cultural, ethnic and racial background of the child
and the capacity of the of the prospective foster parents to
meet the needs of a child of this background.
The opponents note that it is "the Department of Social
Services, and not the court, that decides the actual placement
of children?" A social worker's extensive review and decision
as to the appropriateness of an adoptive parent might be usurped
by a single concern regarding the "moral values" of the birth
parent. The Family Law Section of the State Bar notes that
"(i)n practice, parents commonly object to virtually anyone with
whom a child may be placed, on any grounds the parent can think
of, or on no grounds at all. Under this proposal, objections
could easily be voiced on otherwise legally impermissible
grounds, such as race or sexual orientation, because of the
claimed 'moral values' of the complaining parent, whose own
rights have been terminated."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Pacific Justice Institute (sponsor)
California Alliance for Families and Children
California Family Alliance
Opposition
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE)
Children's Advocacy Institute (CAI)
Equality California (EQ)
Family Law Executive Committee
AB 2130
Page 4
Family Law Section of the State Bar of CA
Juvenile Court Judges of CA (JCJC)
Los Angeles Chapter of the National Association of Counsel for
Children (LA-NACC)
National Center on Youth Law (NCYL)
Our Family Coalition
Analysis Prepared by : Caitlin O'Halloran / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089