BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2292
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2292 (Nielsen) - As Amended: April 10, 2012
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : DEPENDENCY HEARINGS: EVIDENCE
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER ADMISSIBLE AND RELEVANT
EVIDENCE BEFORE ORDERING A FOSTER CHILD RETURNED TO HIS OR HER
PARENTS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by Crime Victims United,
seeks to ensure that judges consider the evidence before
returning a dependent child to their parents. Specifically,
this bill requires that the court at review and permanency
hearings for foster children, whether for dependent children or
for wards of the court who are also in foster care, consider
relevant and admissible evidence before determining that it is
safe to return a child to his or her parents or guardian. The
author believes that this bill is necessary to protect children
during the reunification process. This bill simply clarifies
that the court must consider the relevant and admissible
evidence before ruling. As such, this bill is declarative of
existing law, which requires the court to consider the evidence
before making an order. There is no opposition to this version
of the bill.
SUMMARY : Requires a juvenile court, at specified hearings, to
consider the admissible and relevant evidence before returning a
foster child to his or her parents. Specifically, this bill
requires that at a review or permanency hearing for a dependent
child or a delinquent child in the foster care system, the
juvenile court must consider the admissible and relevant
evidence when determining whether to return the child to his or
her parents or guardian or retain the child in foster care.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 2292
Page 2
1)Provides that a child may become a dependent of the juvenile
court and removed from his or her parents or guardian on the
basis of abuse or neglect. (Welfare & Institutions Code
Section 300. Unless stated otherwise, all further references
are to that code.)
2)Provides that a juvenile court may adjudge a minor as a ward
of the court because the minor has committed criminal acts or
is habitually disobedient or truant and may detain the minor
if continuance in his or her home is contrary to the minor's
welfare. Placement of detained minors may include foster
care. (Sections 602 et seq.)
3)Requires the court, at the review hearing, to order a
dependent child returned to the custody of his or her parents
unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that returning the child would create a substantial risk of
harm to the child. (Section 366.21.)
4)Requires the court, at the permanency hearing, whether held
timely or properly continued, to order a dependent child
returned to the custody of his or her parents unless the court
finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that returning the
child would create a substantial risk of harm to the child.
(Sections 366.21, 366.22, 366.25.)
5)Requires the court to review the status of each ward of the
court placed in foster care every six month. At review and
permanency hearings, requires the court to order the child
returned to the custody of his or her parents unless the court
finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that returning the
child would create a substantial risk of harm to the child.
(Sections 727.2 and 727.3.)
COMMENTS : This non-controversial bill seeks to ensure that
juvenile courts carefully consider the evidence before rendering
their decisions. Specifically, this bill requires that the
court at review and permanency hearings for foster children,
whether for dependent children or for wards of the court who are
also foster children, consider relevant and admissible evidence
before determining that it is safe to return a child to his or
her parents or guardian.
The author believes that this bill is necessary to protect
AB 2292
Page 3
children during the reunification process: "Protecting children
should always be the priority of the judicial system. One
aspect that needs to be addressed is how our court system
handles reunification."
Basic Background on Juvenile Hearings : If the child is removed
from his or her parents, then an initial detention hearing is
held either on the same day that the petition is filed or on the
next court day to determine whether the minor should be further
detained. Within 15 days of the dependency court's decision to
detain the child, the court must hold a jurisdictional hearing
to decide, based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether the
child falls within the dependency court's jurisdiction. If the
child continues to be detained, a dispositional hearing is held
no later than ten days after the jurisdictional hearing.
The court must review the case of each foster child who has been
removed from his or her parents every six months. At this
review hearing, the court assesses the parents' progress towards
possible reunification. The court can reunify the family and
dismiss the case, reunify the family and continue to monitor the
family through family maintenance services, or maintain the case
without, at that point, reunification.
Generally within 12 months after the child is removed from his
or her parents, the court must determine, in a permanency
hearing, whether the child should be returned home or whether
efforts to reunite the family should be terminated. If the
child is not returned home, efforts could still continue to
reunify the family. If reunification efforts end, the court
must determine a different permanency plan for the child.
Possibilities include adoption, legal guardianship or some other
permanent arrangement.
This Bill Clarifies the Court's Obligation to Consider Evidence :
At each of the hearings affected by this bill - the review and
the permanency hearings - there is a statutory presumption that
a child should be returned to his or her parents or guardian.
In order not to return the child, the court must be satisfied by
a preponderance of the evidence that returning the child would
create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety,
protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.
The court must read and consider the social worker's report, as
well as other reports or evidence submitted.
AB 2292
Page 4
This bill simply clarifies that the court must consider the
relevant and admissible evidence before ruling. As such, this
bill is declarative of existing law, which requires the court to
consider the evidence before making an order.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Crime Victims United of California (sponsor)
Opposition (to the bill as amended)
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334