BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
As Amended May 27, 2010
Hearing Date: June 22, 2010
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
KB:jd
SUBJECT
California Fostering Connections to Success Act
DESCRIPTION
This bill, sponsored by a coalition of stakeholders, would
re-enact the state's existing Kin-Gap program to align it with
new federal requirements, and provide transitional support
services to qualifying foster youth designated as "nonminor
dependents" until they attain the age of 21.
BACKGROUND
Each year in California, about 5,000 youth emancipate from
foster care, which is by far the largest number of any state in
the union. Over the past ten years, according to data from the
state's Child Welfare Services/Case Management System, managed
by the Center for Social Services Research at the University of
California, Berkeley, about 52,000 Californians have emancipated
from foster care (from 3,974 in 1998-99 to 5,387 in 2008-09).
The immediate outcomes for these young adults are sobering.
Studies have shown that former foster youth, when compared to
other young adults of the same age and race, are less likely to
complete high school, attend college, or be employed. They are
also at a higher risk for becoming homeless and arrested or
incarcerated. (See Foster Care in California, Public Policy
Institute of California, 2010.)
In 1998, California established the Kinship Guardianship
Assistance Payment program (the Kin-GAP program) to provide
financial assistance for children who, after being adjudged
dependent children of the juvenile court, are placed in legal
(more)
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 2 of ?
guardianship with a relative. (SB 1901, McPherson, Chapter
1055, Statutes of 1998.) The bill was a result of a study that
concluded that most relative caregivers have strong commitments
to the children in their care, but are averse to adoption as it
requires the termination of the parental rights of one of their
family members. Moreover, while most relative caregivers
supported permanency planning for a child, many did not pursue
legal guardianship for fear of losing the needed financial
support they obtained under the foster care system. To date,
Kin-GAP has been successful in reducing the number of children
in foster care. In 2009, the Kin-GAP program assisted
approximately 14,500 former foster children living with relative
guardians. However, unlike foster care or adoption assistance,
there historically have been no federal funds available for
relative guardianships. Instead, all Kin-Gap costs have been
borne by California.
In October, 2008, the federal government enacted the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (Public Law
110-351) (Act). The Act offers states the opportunity to opt-in
to new federal funding streams if they choose to provide
kinship-guardianship benefits to relative guardians or if they
provide foster care to 18 to 21-year-old youth.
This bill would enact the California Fostering Connections to
Success Act, thereby enabling the State of California to
exercise both of these options. With regard to
kinship-guardianship benefits, this bill would allow California
to draw down federal funds for a significant part of our
decade-old state-funded Kin-GAP program. With regard to foster
youth, this bill would authorize the juvenile courts to exercise
jurisdiction over nonminor dependents between the ages of 18 to
21 if they meet the specified criteria.
This bill was approved by the Senate Human Services Committee on
June 10, 2010 by a vote of 3-0.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law generally establishes a system of child welfare
services, including foster care, for children who are abused or
neglected or are at risk of being abused or neglected. (Wel. &
Inst. Code Sec. 300 et seq.)
Existing law establishes the state's Kinship-Guardianship
Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) program, which recognizes that some
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 3 of ?
dependent children are in long-term, stable placements with
relatives and allows dependency cases in those circumstances to
be dismissed. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 11360.)
Existing law authorizes the placement of children with varying
designations and varying needs in the same facility under
specified circumstances. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 1501.1.)
Existing law generally establishes the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court, which is permitted to adjudge certain children
to be dependents of the court under specified circumstances.
(Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 300 et seq.)
Existing law authorizes the juvenile court to retain
jurisdiction over a child who has been adjudicated a dependent
because of abuse or neglect until the ward or dependent child
attains the age of 21 years. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 303.)
Existing law establishes procedures for a hearing to terminate
the court's jurisdiction over a dependent child who has reached
the age of majority. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 391.)
Existing law provides that Aid to Families with Dependent
Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) benefits and Kin-GAP assistance
shall be paid on behalf of a child in foster care who is under
the age of 18 or a child in a guardianship who is under the age
of 18 and who meets additional eligibility criteria. (Wel. &
Inst. Code Secs. 11363, 11401.) Existing law exempts from this
age-based requirement foster children and children in
guardianships between the ages of 18 and 19 who are pursuing
specified education-related goals. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec.
11403.)
This bill would require the Department of Social Services (DSS)
to exercise its option under federal law to enter into kinship
guardianship assistance agreements with relative guardians of
children who exit foster care.
This bill would make conforming changes to California's Kin-GAP
program in order to make the program eligible for receipt of
federal funds.
This bill would maintain a state-funded Kin-GAP program to
provide benefits on behalf of children who are not eligible for
the federally funded Kin-GAP program.
This bill would specify that Kin-GAP payments shall continue
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 4 of ?
after the filing of a petition pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 388 to change, modify, or set aside a
court order unless and until the juvenile court orders the child
removed from the home, terminates guardianship, or grants other
requested relief.
This bill would require that the federally funded Kin-GAP opt-in
begin after the director of DSS issues a declaration that
increased federal financial participation under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or subsequent federal
legislation is no longer available.
This bill would establish the intent of the Legislature to
exercise the option afforded states under the federal Fostering
Connections Act to receive federal financial participation for
current or former dependent children or wards of the juvenile
court who receive support up to 21 years of age as follows: (1)
effective January 1, 2012, would extend foster care to eligible
youth up to their 19th birthday; (2) effective January 1, 2013,
would extend foster care to eligible youth up to their 20th
birthday; and (3) effective January 1, 2014, would extend foster
care to eligible youth up to their 21st birthday.
This bill would define "nonminor dependents" as current or
former dependents or wards of the juvenile court who are between
18 and 21 years of age, are in foster care, and are
participating in a transitional independent living case plan
pursuant to the federal Fostering Connections Act.
This bill would allow for the payment of aid, following
specified procedures and due process requirements, on behalf of
an otherwise eligible nonminor dependent who also meets at least
one of the following five conditions: (1) is completing
secondary education or an equivalent credential; (2) is enrolled
in a postsecondary or vocational education institution; (3) is
participating in a program designed to promote, or remove
barriers to, employment; (4) is employed for at least 80 hours
per month; or (5) is incapable of doing one of the above due to
a medical condition, and that incapability is supported by case
plan information that is brought up-to-date regularly.
This bill would change eligibility for the adoption assistance
program (AAP) and Kin-GAP assistance to also include otherwise
eligible youth between the ages of 18 and 21 for whom an
adoption assistance agreement was entered into or Kin-GAP aid
began after the age of 16 and who meet one of the
above-described five conditions.
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 5 of ?
This bill would require the county welfare, probation
department, or tribe, to explain these program changes to all
foster youth, including those receiving Kin-GAP and AAP, who
attain 16 years of age and are under their jurisdiction.
This bill would provide, on and after January 1, 2012, that the
juvenile court has jurisdiction over a nonminor dependent who is
eligible to receive kinship guardian assistance payments.
This bill would authorize the juvenile court, on or after a
prescribed date, to adjudge a child placed voluntarily in an
approved home of a relative for not more than 180 days a
dependent child of the court, if prescribed conditions are met.
This bill , effective January 1, 2012, would also include a child
who had been previously removed from the custody of his or her
parent and placed in foster care, who was also declared a ward
of the juvenile court. This bill would authorize the court to
modify an existing order with respect to a ward under these
circumstances and assert dependency jurisdiction, as specified.
This bill would provide, on or after January 1, 2012, that the
juvenile court has jurisdiction over a ward who has been placed
in foster care or a dependent who reaches the age of majority
before jurisdiction is terminated until the nonminor reaches 21
years of age.
This bill would, commencing January 1, 2012, allow a nonminor
who left foster care at or after the age of majority to petition
the court to have dependency jurisdiction resumed, in accordance
with a provision of existing law.
This bill would revise the hearing requirements for determining
whether to terminate or continue dependency jurisdiction over a
dependent child who has reached the age of majority.
This bill would require that the court resume dependency
jurisdiction and order a new transitional independent living
case plan within 60 days if it finds that the nonminor is
eligible for dependency jurisdiction.
This bill would, on or after January 1, 2012, authorize the
placement of nonminor dependents in supervised independent
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 6 of ?
living settings. This bill would define a "supervised
independent living setting" as a setting specified in a nonminor
dependent's transitional independent living case plan, pursuant
to federal law. This bill would exempt supervised independent
living settings from licensure under the Community Care
Facilities Act.
This bill would require the court, at the last review hearing
before a foster child turns 18, to ensure that the child's
transitional independent living case plan includes a plan for
the child to meet one of the criteria for eligibility as a
nonminor dependent and that the child has been informed of the
right to seek termination of dependency jurisdiction at any time
after reaching the age of majority and before the age of 21.
This bill would require the child welfare or probation
department to report to the court, at the hearing closest to and
before a dependent child's 18th birthday and each review hearing
thereafter, whether specified information, documents, and
services have been provided.
This bill would require that case plans for nonminor dependents
be developed with, and signed by, the nonminor and include
specified information.
This bill would require that the status of a nonminor dependent
be reviewed periodically, as determined by the court, but at
least every six months, until dependency jurisdiction is
terminated. This bill would provide that courts shall not order
hearings to terminate parental rights of a nonminor dependent's
parents. This bill would require the court to hold a specified
hearing before terminating dependency jurisdiction for a
nonminor dependent.
This bill would add nonminor dependents to existing categories
of youth who may retain specified cash resources and remain
eligible to receive specified social services and to those who
may receive CalWORKs while in the approved home of a relative
foster caregiver.
This bill would specify that nothing in statutory provisions
gives legal custody of a person who has attained the age of 18
to a county welfare or probation department or otherwise
abrogates rights that a person who has reached the age of 18 has
under state law. This bill would declare that, unless otherwise
specified, the rights of a dependent child and responsibilities
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 7 of ?
of specified departments and other entities toward them also
apply to nonminor dependents.
This bill would require DSS, by specified dates, to revise or
adopt regulations to implement these new statutory provisions in
consultation with specified government and other entities. This
bill would authorize implementation of regulatory changes via
emergency regulations.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the bill's authors, the federal Fostering
Connections Act, "provides California with an unprecedented
opportunity to access federal funding to improve the lives of
our state's most vulnerable youth. The bill's provisions
represent both fiscally and socially responsible improvements to
California's foster care system. As a result, California would
utilize federal funds to meet costs currently borne by the state
and counties, and realize proven savings from declines in
unemployment, homelessness, teen pregnancy, public assistance,
and the other costly outcomes for young adults who 'age out' of
foster care."
In support, the Judicial Council, one of the co-sponsors also
writes:
The two major child welfare reforms contained in AB 12 reflect
two key recommendations made by the California Blue Ribbon
Commission on Children in Foster Care (BRC). In its final
recommendations, the BRC proposed that the Judicial Council
work to achieve federal legislative reform to ensure federal
funding for "all children who leave foster care to live with a
permanent legal guardian." AB 12 is the legislative vehicle
necessary to allow California to opt in to this funding
stream, and to transition the existing and very successful
Kin-GAP program to include federal financial participation. ?
Improving transitional support for foster youth ages 18 to 21
was also recommended by the BRC, which urged the Judicial
Council to "work with federal and state leaders to support or
sponsor legislation to extend the age when children receive
foster care assistance from age 18 to 21." Research comparing
states that currently provide services to age 21 with those
that do not provide services demonstrates that this change
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 8 of ?
significantly improves educational, employment, and housing
outcomes for these youth. California law currently allows
juvenile courts to maintain jurisdiction until age 21.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 391 sets forth a
checklist of issues that the court should examine before
terminating jurisdiction for a dependent youth based on
reaching the age of majority, and authorizes the court to
consider continuing jurisdiction if it determines that the
requirements of this section have not been met. Despite this
jurisdictional authority, no state or federal funding has been
available to provide services for any youth over age 19, and
support for youth ages 18 to 19 is contingent on a finding
that the youth is likely to complete high school by age 19.
AB 12 will provide a framework for courts to exercise their
existing jurisdiction and ensure that county child welfare
agencies provide the necessary support and case management to
allow these youth to achieve a successful transition to
adulthood.
2. Bill would create "nonminor dependent" status
This bill would create a new status of "nonminor dependent" and
define it as a current or former dependent child or ward of the
juvenile court who satisfies all of the following criteria: (1)
he or she is between the ages of 18-21; (2) he or she is in
foster care; (3) and he or she is participating in a
transitional independent living case plan pursuant to federal
law.
Nonminor dependents would be eligible to remain in foster care,
at their option, and receive services until they reach the age
of 21 if they meet one of the five federally-created criteria
related to work or school. Specifically, the nonminor must
meet one of the following criteria: (1) be completing secondary
education or a program leading to an equivalent credential; (2)
be enrolled in an institution which provides postsecondary or
vocational education; (3) participate in a program or activity
designed to promote, or remove barriers to employment; (4) be
employed for at least 80 hours per month; or (5) be incapable of
the above-described activities due to a medical condition.
3.Bill would authorize juvenile courts to retain jurisdiction
over nonminor dependents
Under current law, the court may retain jurisdiction over any
person who is found to be a dependent child of the juvenile
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 9 of ?
court until the ward or dependent child reaches the age of 21.
(Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 303.) This bill would, on or after
January 1, 2012, provide that a court shall have within its
jurisdiction "nonminor dependents." The court would be able to
terminate its dependency or delinquency jurisdiction over the
nonminor dependent between the time the nonminor reaches the age
of majority and 21 years of age. If the court terminates its
dependency or delinquency jurisdiction, the nonminor dependent
would still remain under the court's jurisdiction. The nonminor
could subsequently petition the court to resume jurisdiction at
a later date until he or she reaches the age of 21.
This bill would specifically provide that these provisions shall
not be construed to provide legal custody of a person who has
reached the age of 18 to the county welfare or probation
department, or to otherwise abrogate any other rights that a
person who has attained 18 years of age may have as an adult
under California law. A nonminor dependent would retain all of
his or her legal decisionmaking authority as an adult. These
provisions are intended to ensure that the nonminor is
recognized as a legal adult and would not forego any legal
rights should they choose to avail themselves of the services
and support available by staying in foster care.
4. Bill would create additional avenues for entering the
dependency system
Current law provides that a child who comes within any of the
specified descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court which may adjudge the child to be a dependent of
the court. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.) This bill would make
two additions to this section of current law.
First, this bill would codify the federal Kin-GAP option to
enter dependency via a voluntary placement with a guardianship
which has existed for 180 days. In other words, a child who was
voluntarily placed in the approved home of a relative for six
months could be adjudged a dependent of the court, and opt in to
the federal Kin-Gap program.
Second, the bill would, on or after January 1, 2012, create a
narrow basis for the juvenile court to modify its jurisdiction
of a minor who was previously placed in foster care and declared
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 10 of ?
a ward of the juvenile court. If the court determines that
modification of its jurisdiction is appropriate, and that the
immediate return of the child to his or her parent or guardian
would be detrimental to the child, then the court would be able
to modify its jurisdiction from delinquency to dependency.
This bill would further require, on or after January 1, 2012,
that at status review hearings for a ward close to attaining the
age of 18, the court shall consider whether to modify its
jurisdiction and assume jurisdiction of the ward as a dependent.
The probation department would be required to address this
issue and make a recommendation in its report to the court.
These provisions would provide an avenue for wards who are aging
out of foster care to be able to receive services under the
programs and services created by AB 12 until they are 21 in
those cases where the court deems it appropriate. In this
situation, this bill would provide that the nonminor dependents
shall be supervised by the probation department of the county in
which the court with jurisdiction over the dependent is located.
5. Court's jurisdiction expanded over nonminor dependents
This bill would provide that, on or after January 1, 2012, the
court may continue jurisdiction over a nonminor dependent who
has a permanent plan of long-term foster care as a dependent of
the juvenile court or may dismiss dependency jurisdiction. If
the court continues dependency jurisdiction of the nonminor, the
court must order the development of a planned permanent living
arrangement, which may include continued placement with the
current caregiver or placement in supervised independent living.
If the court terminates its dependency jurisdiction over a
nonminor dependent, it would retain jurisdiction over the youth
until he or she reaches the age of 21.
The nonminor dependent would be able to file a petition to have
dependency jurisdiction resumed before he or she turns 21.
Thus, nonminor dependents who leave the dependency system would
have the option of petitioning to re-enter dependency between
the ages of 18-21. The petition could be filed in the juvenile
court that retains jurisdiction, or the court in the county
where the youth resides. Upon receiving the petition, the court
would be required to order a hearing and provide notice to
specified parties, except that notice to parents or former
guardians shall not be provided if the nonminor objects. The
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 11 of ?
Judicial Council would be required to adopt rules of court to
allow for telephonic appearances by nonminor former dependents
in these proceedings.
Prior to the hearing, the court would order the county child
welfare or probation department to prepare a report addressing
whether the nonminor meets the criteria for nonminor dependent
status. If the court finds that the nonminor meets the
criteria, it would resume jurisdiction and order the county
child welfare or probation department to develop a new
transitional independent living case plan.
6. Status review hearings for nonminor dependents
Under current law, the juvenile court must hold status hearings
for every dependent child at least every six months from the
date of the original dispositional hearing, and consider a
number of specified issues pertaining to the child's placement
and safety. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 366.) If the review
hearing is the last review hearing to be held before a child
attains the age of 18, the bill would require the court to
ensure that the child's transitional independent living case
plan includes a plan for the child to meet one or more of the
criteria to be deemed a nonminor dependent, so that the child
can remain in foster care. This bill would also require the
court to ensure that the child has been informed of his or her
right to seek the termination of dependency jurisdiction. This
should ensure that dependent children who are close to reaching
the age of majority have the option of remaining in foster care
and know they can exit the system, once they turn 18, if they so
desire.
Further, this bill would, on or after January 1, 2012, require
six-month status review hearings for nonminor dependents. These
status review hearings would be conducted in a manner that
respects the nonminor dependent's status as a legal adult and
would be focused on the goals and services described in the
youth's transitional independent living case plan.
7. Permanency plan review hearings for nonminor dependents
Current law provides that if a juvenile court orders a permanent
plan of adoption, tribal customary adoption, or legal
guardianship, the court shall retain jurisdiction over the child
until the child is adopted or the legal guardianship is
established, except in specified circumstances. (Wel. & Inst.
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 12 of ?
Code Sec. 366.3.) The status of the child is required to be
reviewed every six months to ensure that the permanency plan is
completed as expeditiously as possible.
This bill would require, on or after January 1, 2012, ongoing
permanency plan review hearings for nonminor dependents, and
would provide that such hearings may be requested by the
nonminor dependent. The review would include, among other
things, an inquiry into the services needed to assist the
nonminor dependent to make the transition from foster care to
independent living.
The bill would also specify information that must be included in
reports for permanency hearings for nonminor dependents and
minors who are close to reaching the age of 18, including the
following: (1) the dependent's plans to remain in foster care
and plans to meet criteria to continue to receive AFDC-FC (Aid
to Families with Dependent Children - Foster Care) benefits; (2)
the efforts made and assistance provided to the dependent by the
social worker or probation officer so that the dependent will be
able to meet the criteria; and (3) efforts toward obtaining
specified documentation.
As with status review hearings, permanency review hearings would
be required to be conducted in a manner that respects the
nonminor dependent's status as a legal adult and would be
focused on the goals and services described in the youth's
transitional independent living case plan. The county child
welfare or probation department, or Indian tribe, would be
required to prepare and present to the court a report that
addresses the youth's progress in meeting the goals in the
transitional independent living case plan and would propose
modifications as necessary to further those goals. If the
court is considering terminating dependency jurisdiction it
would first have to hold a hearing, as described in the
following comment.
If the permanency hearing is the last one to be held before a
child attains the age of 18, the bill would require the court to
ensure that the child's transitional independent living case
plan includes a plan for the child to meet one or more of the
criteria to be deemed a nonminor dependent, so that the child
can remain in foster care.
8.Hearing to terminate jurisdiction over nonminor
This bill would require the court to conduct a hearing before
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 13 of ?
terminating jurisdiction over a dependent youth who has reached
the age of 18. At any such hearing, the county welfare
department would be required to do all of the following: (1)
ensure that the dependent is present in court, unless he or she
does not wish to appear, or document efforts to locate the child
when he or she is not available; and (2) submit a report
describing whether it is in the youth's best interests to remain
under the court's dependency jurisdiction, which would include a
recommended transitional independent living case plan for any
youth that the department determines would benefit from
continued jurisdiction.
The court would be required to continue dependency jurisdiction
for a nonminor dependent unless the court finds that after
reasonable and documented efforts the nonminor cannot be located
or does not wish to remain subject to dependency jurisdiction.
In making this finding, the court must ensure that the nonminor
has been informed of his or her options, including the right to
file a petition to resume dependency jurisdiction, and has had
an opportunity to confer with his or her counsel, if counsel has
been appointed. If the court terminates jurisdiction, the
nonminor shall remain within the jurisdiction of the court until
he or she turns 21, and may petition the court to resume
jurisdiction at any time before he or she turns 21.
The court may not terminate jurisdiction, unless the youth
cannot be located, until a hearing is conducted and the
department has submitted a report verifying that the following
information, documents, and services have been provided to the
youth: (1) written information concerning the child's dependency
case; (2) social security card; (3) certified copy of birth
certificate; (4) health and education summary; (5) driver's
license; (6) a letter prepared by the county welfare department
that includes specified information about the youth; (7) death
certificate of the parents, if applicable; (8) proof of
citizenship or legal residence, if applicable; (9) assistance in
applying for Medi-Cal or obtaining other health insurance; (10)
referrals to transitional housing or assistance in securing
other housing; (11) assistance in obtaining employment or other
financial support; (12) assistance in applying for admission to
college, vocational training program, or other educational
institution; (13) assistance in maintaining relationships with
individuals who are important to the youth; and (14) for
nonminors between 18 and 21 years of age, assistance in the
Independent Living Aftercare program in the nonminor's county of
residence.
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 14 of ?
These provisions would ensure that a nonminor who chooses not to
stay in foster care understands his or her options, and is
provided with the necessary documents and services that he or
she will need to make a successful transition to independent
living.
9.No counsel notice of hearings, or services required for
parents of nonminor dependents
Because "nonminor dependents" would be legal adults, this bill
would provide that parents of "nonminor dependents" are not
required to receive notice of dependency proceedings, including
dependency status review hearings and permanency review
hearings. Further, parents would not receive notice of a
petition filed by the "nonminor dependent" to come back into the
dependency jurisdiction of the court.
Similarly, because the parents of nonminor dependents would no
longer receive notice or be entitled to participate in
dependency proceedings, this bill would provide that the court
shall not provide representation by counsel for a parent of a
nonminor dependent.
This bill would also specify that hearings conducted pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.26 to terminate
parental rights shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor
dependent. In this case, such hearings would not be necessary
since the nonminor dependent would be a legal adult.
Finally, this bill would provide that provisions pertaining to
reunification services for the parents of a dependent child do
not apply to parents of nonminor dependents. In such cases,
these services would no longer be necessary because independent
living, rather than reunification, would be the dependent's
permanency plan.
10. New requirements for reports issued to the juvenile court
regarding Kin-GAP
This bill would provide that evaluations made by a social worker
or child advocate appointed by the court shall include a
discussion on whether the child has entered voluntary placement
with a guardian, for the purposes of participation in the
federal Kin-GAP program. For assessments provided to the
juvenile court for the purposes of a hearing to terminate
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 15 of ?
parental rights, this bill would require that it include
information on the degree of attachment of the child to the
prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relative's
or adoptive parent's strong commitment to caring permanently for
the child, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has
been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship
arrangements.
If the court appoints an approved relative caregiver as the
child's legal guardian, the child has been in the care of that
relative for a period of six consecutive months under a
voluntary placement agreement, and the child meets the
conditions for federal financial participation, the child shall
be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP program. The placement
into a guardianship could take place as early as the first
dispositional hearing or at a hearing to terminate parental
rights. In either case, the child would exit the dependency
system and still be eligible for aid under the Kin-Gap program.
11.Author's Amendments
The author has offered the following technical amendments to AB
12:
On page 10, line 4, after "permanent plan is," insert "legal
guardianship with a relative who is receiving Kin GAP"
On page 88, line 1 and page 93 line 26, after "progress in a"
insert "court-ordered residential"
On page 90, line 31, strike "relative" and insert "minor"
On page 126, lines 20 to24 insert these changes:
"Upon receipt filing of the petition, the court shall order a
hearing be held if there is a prima facie showing that the
nonminor meets a least one of the conditions of Section 11403.
Upon ordering a hearing , the court shall give prior notice, or
cause prior notice to be given, to the persons and by the
means prescribed by Section 386, except that notice to parents
or former guardians shall not be provided if the nonminor
objects in writing on the face of the petition."
On page 129, line 19, before "of his or her options" insert
"by his or her counsel appointed pursuant to Section 317"
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 16 of ?
On page 140, line 9, insert after (a): "Except as provided in
subdivision (b),"
On page 141, line 39, after "living with" insert "an approved"
On page 142, lines 32 to 39 and page 143 lines 1 to 4, delete
all after "of the" and insert: "conditions specified in
subdivision (b) of Section 11403."
On page 142, lines 15 to 16 and page 152 line 39, delete
"otherwise grants the relief requests in the petition after
holding the hearing" and insert: "maintains dependency
jurisdiction after the court concludes the hearing on the
Section 388 petition."
On page 145, line 35 and page 153, line 28, delete: "or
11403.01"
On page 145 line 36 and to page 153 line 29, after "directly"
insert "as specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11403"
On pages 153 lines 15 to 26, delete all after "of the" and
insert: "conditions specified in subdivision (b) of Section
11403."
On page 166 line 40 and to page 167 line 36, after "as defined
in" insert "subdivision (s) of ".
On page 167, line 11 insert new subdivision (j) and on page
168, line 5, insert new subdivision (i) to read: "An approved
THP-Plus Foster Care placement for nonminor dependents as
defined in subdivision (x) of Section 11400."
On page 200 lines 35 through 40 and page 201, lines 1 to 7 and
to page 206, lines 7 through 19 delete all after " of the" and
insert: "conditions specified in subdivision (b) of Section
11403"
12.Opposition
Committee staff has received one letter of opposition to AB 12
submitted by the California Right to Life Committee. In
opposition, it writes that AB 12 is premised on the notion that
young adults emerging from foster care are incapable of managing
their own lives and will be completely superfluous to the
success of any child in foster care.
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 17 of ?
Committee staff notes that the author's office has cited
numerous reports and studies demonstrating the need for more
services and support for youth aging out of foster care. As
previously stated, the services offered to nonminor dependents
under AB 12 will be at the option of the nonminor. For those
youth who choose not to avail themselves of additional services,
this bill would ensure that they are provided with the proper
documents and assistance in finding housing, obtaining
employment, and applying for school, thereby increasing their
chances at successfully transitioning into independent living.
The County of San Diego, while not in opposition, writes the
following:
A major concern for the County is its ability to fund
provisions of AB 12 that expand foster care assistance to
certain youth up to the age of 21, without providing funding
to cover County costs. Approximately 300 foster youth age-out
of the system at age 18 in San Diego County each year and
based on federal requirements, the County estimates that 230
foster youth may qualify for the proposed extended benefits.
For federally eligible youth, these new benefits would be
funded with 50% federal, 20% state and 30% County funding.
The County of San Diego estimates its share of cost for an
additional three years for 230 dependent youth would be
approximately $9 million.
Support : Adolescent Health Working Group; Alameda County Court
Appointed Special Advocate Program; Alameda County Foster Youth
Alliance; Alameda County Family Justice Center; Alameda County
Foster Youth Alliance; Alameda County Juvenile
Justice/Delinquency Prevention Commission; Alameda County Office
of Education, Foster Youth Services Program; All Saints Church
Foster Care Project; Alternative Family Services; American
Academy of Pediatrics; American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) AFL-CIO; Arriba Juntos; ASPIRAnet;
Association of Community Human Service Agencies; Bay Area Youth
Centers; Be A Mentor, Inc.; Bethe Group Home; Beyond
Emancipation; Bienvenidos Children's Center; Board of
Supervisors County of Los Angeles; Board of Supervisors County
of Santa Clara; California Coalition for Youth; California
Commission on Aging (CCoA); California Communities United
Institute (CalComUI); California Council of Community Mental
Health Agencies; California Mental Health Directors Association
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 18 of ?
(CMHDA); California Peace Officers' Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; California State Association of
Counties (CSAC); California State PTA; California Teachers
Association; California Youth Empowerment Network; Catholic
Charities of the East Bay; Central; Changing the Health of
Adolescents Impacting the Nation Reaction, Inc. DBA; C.H.A.I.N.
Reaction, Inc.; Charis Youth Center; Child Abuse Prevention
Center; Child Abuse Prevention Council; Child Advocates of
Placer County; Child Advocates of Silicon Valley, Inc.;
Children's Defense Fund California; Children & Family Services
of Contra Costa County; Children's Law Center of Los Angeles;
Children NOW; City and County of San Francisco; City of Culver
City; Communities in Harmony Advocating for Learning and Kids
(CHALK); Concept 7 Family Support & Treatment Centers;
Congregation Beth Shalom's Sacramento ACT Local Organizing
Committee; Connect Motivate Educate (CME) Society of San Jose
State University; Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors;
Contra Costa County Children & Family Services; County of Santa
Barbara; Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA); Court
Appointed Special Advocates of Alameda County; Court Appointed
Special Advocates of Imperial County; Court Appointed Special
Advocates of Orange County; Court Appointed Special Advocates of
Placer County; Covenant House California; Crossroads Treatment
Center; D & R Turning Point, Inc.; David & Margaret Youth and
Family Services; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
(DREDF); Drug Policy Alliance Network; Equality California
(EQCA); Every Child Foundation; Families Uniting Families;
Family Care Network; Family Law Section of the State Bar of
California; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California; First Place
for Youth; Five Acres - The Boys' & Girls' Aid Society of Los
Angeles; Foothill College's Financial Aid Outreach; Fresno
County Economic Opportunities Commission's (EOC) Sanctuary Youth
Services; Grandparents As Parents; Greenhouse Family Services;
Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services; Honoring
Emancipated Youth (HEY); Imperial Valley Regional Occupational
Program; Independent Living Program; Interagency Children's
Policy Council of Alameda County; John Burton Foundation for
Children without Homes; Juma Ventures; Junior League of
Napa-Sonoma Board of Directors; Junior League of Orange County;
Kids in Common; Larkin Street Youth Services; Lavender Youth
Recreation and Information Center (LYRIC); League of Women
Voters of California; Legal Aid Association of California; Legal
Services for Children; Lincoln Child Center; Los Angeles County
Sheriff Lee Baca; Maryvale; Masonic Homes Children's Program;
MatchBridge; Mental Health Association of San Francisco; Modoc
County Department of Social Services; Modoc County Office of
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 19 of ?
Education; National Association of Social Workers, California
Chapter (NASW-CA); Ohlone College; Olive Crest; Paradise Oaks
Youth Services; Peacock Acres; Penny Lane Centers; Pivotal Point
Youth Services, Inc.; Placer County Foster Youth Services;
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC); Plumas
County Independent Living Skills Program; Plumas Court Appointed
Special Advocates (CASA); Professional Fiduciary Association of
CA; Public Counsel Law Center; Rebekah Children's Services;
Redwood Children's Services, Inc.; Remi Vista Inc, Youth &
Family Services; Regional Council of Rural Counties; Remi Vista
Inc, Youth & Family Services; Riverside County Office of
Education, Foster Youth Services; Rosemary Children's Services;
Roundhouse Council, Indian Education & Family Resource Center;
Sacramento Children's Home; Sacramento Court Appointed Special
Advocate Program; San Diego County Office of Education, Foster
Youth Services; San Francisco Family & Child Guidance Clinic,
Native American Health Center; San Francisco State University;
Santa Ana College; Service Employees International Union;
Silicon Valley Community Foundation; Sonoma County Human
Services Department; St. Anne's; STARS Community Services - San
Leandro; Sunny Hills Services; Sunnyvale School District - Board
of Trustees; The Teen Project; The Village Family Services; Time
for Kids, Inc.; TLC Child and Family Services; Unique
Perspective, Career and Life Planning; United Friends of the
Children; Ventura County Board of Supervisors; VOICES LLP;
WestCoast Children's Clinic; Westside Children's Center; Youth
Commission San Francisco; Youth for Change; Youth Justice
Institute; Yuba College Youth Empowerment Strategies; Yuba
Sutter Foster Parent Association; YWCA Santa Monica /Westside;
3rd Street Youth Center and Clinic; 17 individuals
Opposition : California Right to Life Committee; County of San
Diego (concerns)
HISTORY
Source : Alliance for Children's Rights; California Alliance of
Child and Family Services; California County Welfare Director's
Association; Children's Law Center of Los Angeles; California
Youth Connection; John Burton Foundation for Children Without
Homes; Judicial Council of California; Service Employees
International Union; Youth Law Center
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 12 (Beall and Bass)
Page 20 of ?
AB 270 (De La Torre) of the 2009 legislative session would have
required courts to continue jurisdiction over non-minors when
required documents, screenings and information were not provided
or completed. This bill died in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
AB 1148 (Cedillo) of the 2008 Legislative Session contained
provisions similar to those in AB 270. This bill was held in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1901 (McPherson, Chapter 1055, Statutes of 1998) established
California's subsidized relative guardianship program, Kin-GAP.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 13, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 72, Noes 0)
Senate Human Services Committee (Ayes 3, Noes 0)
**************