BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 131
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 131 (Evans)
          As Amended September 1, 2009
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |72-5 |(June 1, 2009)  |SENATE: |25-12|(September 3,  |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2009)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:   JUD.  

           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 juvenile court  
            cases.  Requires the Judicial Council to develop a statewide  
            standard for determining ability to pay reimbursements for  
            counsel, as specified.  Requires that all funds collected  
            through this reimbursement program be used to reduce  
            dependency counsel caseloads.  

          2)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt policies and procedures  
            allowing a court to recover from the money collected the costs  
            associated with collecting delinquent reimbursements.  The  
            policies must, at a minimum, limit the amount of money a court  
            may recover to a reasonable proportion of the delinquent  
            reimbursements collected and provide terms and conditions  
            under which a court may use a third-party to collect  
            delinquent reimbursements.

          3)Allows the court, with the consent of the county and pursuant  
            to terms and conditions agreed upon by the court and county,  
            to designate a financial evaluation officer to make financial  
            evaluations of liability for reimbursement for legal services  
            rendered to a minor, as provided.  

          4)States that if either the court or the financial officer  
            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  








                                                                  AB 131
                                                                  Page  2

            shall not petition for repayment and the court shall not issue  
            an order for repayment.

          5)Makes technical corrections to court fee reference sections.
           
          The Senate amendments  require the Judicial Council to adopt  
          policies and procedures allowing a court to recover, from the  
          money collected, the costs associated with collecting delinquent  
          reimbursements; and require the court to get the consent of the  
          county before designation of a financial evaluator. 
           
          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  
            ensures 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.  
           
          AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill was substantially similar  
          to the version approved by the Senate.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.









                                                                  AB 131
                                                                  Page  3

           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 initially began testing the  
          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.  








                                                                  AB 131
                                                                  Page  4


          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.

          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: 0002878