BILL ANALYSIS
AB 131
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 131 (Evans)
As Amended March 24, 2009
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 14-3
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Evans, Jones, Knight, | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Krekorian, Lieu, Monning, | |Hall, Miller, |
| |Nielsen | |John A. Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson, |
| | | |Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires Judicial Council to establish a cost-recovery
program for appointed counsel in dependency cases.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Judicial Council to establish a cost-recovery
program to collect reimbursements for counsel appointed by the
court to represent parents or their children in dependency
cases. Requires the Judicial Council to develop a statewide
standard for determining ability to pay reimbursements for
counsel. Requires that all funds collected through this
reimbursement program be used to reduce dependency counsel
caseloads.
2)Provides that a person liable for support of a minor shall be
liable for the costs to the court which incurred the expense
for legal services rendered to the minor by an attorney.
3)Allows the court to designate a financial evaluation officer
to make financial evaluations of liability for specified
reimbursement programs, including reimbursement for legal
services rendered to a minor and specifies the procedure for
doing so.
4)States that if either the court or the financial officer
AB 131
Page 2
determines that repayment of costs for counsel would harm the
ability of a reunified parent or guardian to support the child
or pose a barrier to reunification for families receiving
reunification services, provides that the financial officer
shall not petition for repayment and the court shall not issue
an order for repayment.
5)Makes technical corrections to court fee reference sections.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Permits the court to appoint counsel in a dependency case for
a parent or guardian of a dependent child when it appears to
the court that the parent or guardian wants counsel but is
currently unable to afford counsel. Requires the court to
appoint counsel when the child is or may be placed in
out-of-home care, except as specified.
2)Requires the court to appoint counsel for an unrepresented
child in a dependency case, unless the court finds that the
child would not benefit from the appointment of counsel.
Requires appointed counsel to have caseload and training that
assures adequate representation of the child.
3)Provides that a person liable for support of a minor shall be
liable to the county for the costs of legal services rendered
to the minor by an attorney. Provides that there is no
liability for legal services if the petition to declare the
minor a dependent of the court is dismissed at or before the
jurisdictional hearing.
4)Allows a county board of supervisors to designate a financial
evaluation officer to make financial evaluations of liability
for specified reimbursement programs, including reimbursement
for legal services rendered to a minor, and specifies the
procedure for doing so.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Annual cost recovery to the courts of about $3 million to $5
million, which, pursuant to the bill, would be use to hire
additional dependency attorneys for those counties with the
highest caseloads. This estimate is based on experience from
AB 131
Page 3
a pilot project in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, where
7% to 10% of parents were determined able to provide an
average of $850 in reimbursement for dependency counsel costs.
Approximately 56,000 parents are represented statewide.
2)One-time absorbable administrative costs for the Judicial
Council to establish the ability-to-pay standard.
COMMENTS : Current law makes parents who have the ability to pay
responsible for the costs of counsel provided in both dependency
and delinquency actions. The county is responsible for paying
for appointed counsel in delinquency cases and the court is
responsible in dependency cases. This bill, sponsored by the
Judicial Council, establishes a program whereby parents who have
the ability to do so would be required to reimburse the cost of
providing counsel to parents and children in dependency actions.
The bill specifically prevents repayment if doing so would harm
the parent's ability to support the child or pose a barrier to
reunification, thus ensuring that the best interests of the
child are paramount. The bill directs that any money collected
under this program be used to reduce caseloads for dependency
counsel.
SB 2160 (Schiff), Chapter 450, Statutes of 2000, directed the
Judicial Council, by July 1, 2001, to promulgate rules to
establish caseload standards, training requirements and
guidelines for appointment of counsel for children in dependency
cases. The Judicial Council promulgated rules that mandated
appointment of counsel for children, at the trial court level,
in almost all cases. In addition, the Administrative Offices of
the Courts contracted with the American Humane Association to
study dependency counsel caseloads and service delivery. In a
June 2004 report, the American Human Association recommended a
maximum caseload per dependency attorney of 141 client cases,
though they suggested that an optimum level would be 77.
The Judicial Council began testing the feasibility of the
standards and recommendations of the report through the
Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding and Training
(DRAFT) pilot program, with the goal of improving representation
of parents and children in dependency cases as cost-effectively
as possible. Ten counties - Imperial, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Santa Cruz and Stanislaus - initially began testing the
AB 131
Page 4
recommendations through a centralized dependency counsel
administrative model.
The DRAFT program has measured the effect of reduced caseloads
and increased compensation for dependency counsel on improved
well-being outcomes for children, with the average caseload in
DRAFT counties at 191 clients per attorney. According to a
report by the Judicial Council, the DRAFT counties outperformed
non-DRAFT counties in improvements in key outcomes for children,
including, decreased time for family reunification, less reentry
into the foster care system, decreased time to guardianship, and
increased placement with at least some siblings.
As a result of the DRAFT program, the Judicial Council adopted a
modified caseload standard of 188 clients per dependency
attorney, with a half-time investigator or social worker per
attorney. However, according to Judicial Council, the courts
lack sufficient funding to implement this recommendation. As of
July 2008, dependency counsel had an average caseload of 283
clients. Judicial Council estimates it will cost an additional
$57.1 million to implement the adopted caseload standard.
According to a Judicial Council pilot project in San Joaquin and
Stanislaus Counties, between 7% and 10% of parents could afford
to provide, on average, $850 in reimbursement for dependency
counsel costs, for a total annual cost recovery of $3.3 million
to $4.8 million. While this cost recovery would not bridge the
$57.1 million funding shortfall, it would provide some of the
funding needed to reduce caseloads for dependency counsel. The
bill provides direction to the court for how to divide up the
new funding: Priority is given to courts with the highest
caseloads that have also demonstrated the ability to immediately
improve outcomes for parents and children as the result of lower
caseloads.
Current law provides that a financial evaluation officer for the
county, in determining a parents' ability to pay, must consider
the family's income, the necessary obligations of the family,
and the number of individuals dependent on that income. This
bill extends the same considerations to a financial evaluation
officer designated by the court. It is important to ensure that
this cost recovery program not be used to further impoverish
already financially struggling families and that cost recovery
efforts do not inadvertently cause families to choose between
AB 131
Page 5
repaying their debt to the courts and providing their families
with needed food, shelter and medical care.
In order to ensure that struggling families, who cannot afford
to, are not asked to repay the costs of dependency counsel and
that there is a uniform standard on ability to pay across the
state, the bill requires the Judicial Council to develop a
statewide standard for determining ability to pay reimbursements
for counsel, which shall at a minimum include the family's
income, their necessary obligations, the number of individuals
dependent on this income, and the cost-effectiveness of the
collection.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001084