BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 706
Committee on Human Services
As Amended June 16, 2009
Hearing Date: June 23, 2009
Welfare and Institutions Code
KB:jd
SUBJECT
Dependent Children
DESCRIPTION
This bill, sponsored by the Children's Law Center, would make
technical, clarifying, and conforming changes to provisions
related to providing reunification services and scheduling of
juvenile court review hearings concerning children who are
dependents of the juvenile court and their parents or guardians.
This bill would take effect immediately as an urgency measure.
BACKGROUND
California's child welfare system is responsible for ensuring
the protection and safety of children at risk of abuse, neglect,
or abandonment. When it is necessary for the state to remove a
child from his or her parents, the primary objective of the
child welfare and foster care systems is to safely reunify the
child with his or her family. To support that objective, in
most cases the juvenile court orders reunification services,
such as counseling or treatment, for the child and the child's
parent(s). If the child is under the age of three, these
reunification services are offered for a period of six months.
If the child is over the age of three, the services are offered
for twelve months. In some circumstances, the time period for
reunification services can be extended to a maximum of 24
months.
In 2008, AB 2341 (Maze, Chapter 457, Statutes of 2008) changed
the statutes governing reunification services to ensure that
(more)
AB 706 (Committee on Human Services)
Page 2 of ?
children and families in the child welfare system should receive
a full six months of reunification services if the child is
under three years of age, and twelve months if the child is over
three years of age. AB 2341 also established a process for
early termination of reunification services when new evidence or
a change of circumstances exists and reunification is no longer
in the child's best interest. Children and their parents are
thus assured that they will receive reunification services
pursuant to the court's order in the absence of new evidence or
a change of circumstances.
After AB 2341 was enacted, concerns were expressed that its
statutory changes may create unintended confusion about the
scheduling of review hearings in juvenile courts. This bill is
a clean-up bill which would make technical, non-substantive
changes to minimize any potential confusion in the application
of AB 2341.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law establishes the purpose of dependency law as the
provision of the maximum safety and protection for children who
are currently being abused, neglected, or exploited, and the
protection of children who are at risk of that harm. The focus
"shall be on the preservation of the family as well as the
safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the
child." (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 302.2.)
Existing law provides that children and families in the child
welfare system should typically receive a full six months of
reunification services if the child is under three years of age,
and twelve months if the child is over three years of age.
(Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.)
Existing law allows the court in limited circumstances,
notwithstanding the above provisions that state that
reunification services "shall not exceed" set timeframes, to
continue court-ordered reunification services up to a maximum
time period of 24 months from the date the child was removed
from his or her parent(s). (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.)
Existing law requires the juvenile court to hold periodic
hearings to review the status of a dependent child no less
frequently than once every 6 months, including a review hearing
held 6 months after the initial dispositional hearing in which
the court must order the return of the child to the physical
AB 706 (Committee on Human Services)
Page 3 of ?
custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court
makes specified findings. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 366.21(e).)
Existing law requires the court to hold a permanency review
hearing 12 months after the date the child entered foster care,
defined as the earlier of the date of the hearing to determine
that the court has jurisdiction or 60 days after the date on
which the child was initially removed from the physical custody
of his or her parent or guardian. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec.
366.21(f).)
Existing law allows any party to petition the court to terminate
reunification services during the time periods described above
if it appears that new circumstances exist that, had they
previously existed would have led the court to bypass or not
order reunification services, or that the action or inaction of
the parent or guardian has made reunification impossible. (Wel.
& Inst. Code Sec. 388.)
Existing law provides that a child may be adjudged a dependent
of the juvenile court if the child was removed because of
abandonment, voluntarily surrender by the parent, the
whereabouts of the parent are unknown, or the parent is
incarcerated and cannot arrange for the care of the child.
(Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 300(g).)
This bill would make technical, clarifying, and conforming
changes to provisions related to providing reunification
services and scheduling of juvenile court review hearings
concerning children who are dependents of the juvenile court and
their parents or guardians.
This bill would make the provision establishing the date a child
shall be deemed to have entered foster care generally applicable
for purposes of provisions governing children.
This bill would provide that motion to terminate court-ordered
reunification services shall not be required at the six month
review hearing if the child was removed initially under
subdivision(g) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence one
of the following: (1) the whereabouts of the parent are still
unknown; (2) the parent has failed to contact and visit the
child; or (3) the parent has been convicted of a felony
indicating parental unfitness.
AB 706 (Committee on Human Services)
Page 4 of ?
This bill would take effect immediately as an urgency measure.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author states:
In response to the concerns raised about potential for
confusion about the timing of court hearings, a diverse
workgroup of stakeholders was formed to develop minor,
technical fixes to clean-up AB 2341's changes to the Welfare &
Institutions Code (WIC). The workgroup unanimously agreed on
technical changes that should be made. These changes will
minimize any potential confusion by clarifying, as quickly as
possible, that the court should not hold what is known as a
"[six] month" review hearing longer than [twelve] months after
the date a child entered into foster care.
AB 706 also makes other minor technical changes to [the] WIC.
2.This bill would make several clarifying changes to existing
law to ensure proper application of AB 2341
This bill would make several clarifying changes in order to
eliminate confusion as to when courts should schedule six and
twelve month family reunification review hearings, and how they
should calculate the timelines for the review hearings.
Existing law provides that regardless of his or her age, a child
shall be deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of
the following two dates: (1) the date of the jurisdictional
hearing held to determine whether the child is a dependent
child; or (2) the date that is 60 days after the child was
initially removed from the physical custody of his or her parent
or guardian. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.) This bill would
move this existing provision into its own separate code section,
and make it generally applicable for purposes of provisions
governing children.
Second, this bill would provide that children older than three
years of age shall receive reunification services beginning with
the dispositional hearing and ending 12 months after the date
the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to
the home of the parent or guardian. For children younger than
three years of age, reunification services shall be provided six
AB 706 (Committee on Human Services)
Page 5 of ?
months from the dispositional hearing , but no longer than 12
months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the
child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian. This
establishes a clear time period during which courts must provide
reunification services.
Third, this bill would clarify that a review hearing shall take
place six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no
longer than 12 months after the date the child entered foster
care. The bill would also clarify that permanency hearings
shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child
entered foster care. This establishes a clear timeline during
which courts must hold review and permanency hearings.
Fourth, this bill would clarify that any motion to terminate
court-ordered reunification services prior to a child's
permanency hearing shall be made pursuant to existing provisions
governing petitions to change, modify, or set aside previously
made court orders.
Lastly, existing law provides that a child may be adjudged a
dependent of the juvenile court if the child was removed because
of abandonment, voluntarily surrender by the parent, the
whereabouts of the parent are unknown, or the parent is
incarcerated and cannot arrange for the care of the child.
(Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 300(g).) This bill would provide that a
motion to terminate court-ordered services shall not be required
at the six month review hearing after the initial dispositional
hearing if the child was removed under Section 300(g), and the
court finds by clear and convincing evidence one of the
following: (1) the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown;
(2) the parent has failed to contact and visit the child; or (3)
the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental
unfitness. Under these circumstances, the parent is absent,
made no efforts to contact the child, or unfit, and the court
would not have to entertain a formal motion in order to
terminate services since reunification is clearly no longer a
viable goal.
These changes will not change the intent or construction of
timelines for reunification. Instead, as previously stated, it
will eliminate confusion regarding when courts should schedule
family reunification review hearings.
3. Author's Amendments
AB 706 (Committee on Human Services)
Page 6 of ?
The author has offered the following technical amendments:
On page 3, line 34, strike "if the"
On page 3, strike line 35
On page 3, line 36, strike "and"
On page 3, line 38, after "That" insert:
"the child was removed initially under subdivision(g) of Section
300 and"
Support : County Welfare Directors Association of California;
Family Law Section of the State Bar
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Children's Law Center of Los Angeles
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 2341 (Maze, Chapter 457, Statutes of 2008). See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 79, Noes 0)
**************