BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
0
4
SB 1048 (Liu) 8
As Amended March 21, 2012
Hearing date: April 10, 2012
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:mc
JUVENILE COURT:
JOINDER IN DELINQUENCY AND DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS
HISTORY
Source: Public Counsel Law Center; Children's Law Center of
California
Prior Legislation: AB 3553 (B. Friedman) - Ch. 1307, Stats. 1992
Support: California Public Defenders Association; Youth Law
Center; Legal Advocates for Children & Youth; Family
Law Section of the State Bar of California; Children's
Advocacy Institute
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD JUVENILE COURTS BE AUTHORIZED TO JOIN SPECIFIED AGENCIES
WHICH HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE LEGALLY OBLIGATED SERVICES TO A CHILD
UPON THE FILING OF A DEPENDENCY OR DELINQUENCY PETITION INSTEAD OF
UPON ADJUDICATION, AS SPECIFIED?
(More)
SB 1048 (Liu)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to authorize joinder in dependency
and delinquency cases of specified agencies which have failed to
provide legally obligated services to children upon the filing
of a petition instead of adjudication, and to make additional,
largely technical revisions to these joinder provisions, as
specified.
Current law provides generally that the purpose of the juvenile
court law "is to provide for the
protection and safety of the public and each minor under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve and
strengthen the minor's family ties whenever possible, removing
the minor from the custody of his or her parents only when
necessary for his or her welfare or for the safety and
protection of the public. If removal of a minor is determined
by the juvenile court to be necessary, reunification of the
minor with his or her family shall be a primary objective. If
the minor is removed from his or her own family, it is the
purpose of this chapter to secure for the minor custody, care,
and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which
should have been given by his or her parents. . . . . . .
Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court who are in
need of protective services shall receive care, treatment, and
guidance consistent with their best interest and the best
interest of the public. Minors under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court as a consequence of delinquent conduct shall, in
conformity with the interests of public safety and protection,
receive care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with
their best interest, that holds them accountable for their
behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances. . . .
(Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC") � 202.)
Current law provides that when a child is adjudged a dependent
child of the court on the ground that the child is a person
described by Section 300, the court may make any and all
reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct,
maintenance, and support of the child, including medical
(More)
SB 1048 (Liu)
PageC
treatment, subject to further order of the court. (WIC � 362.)
"To facilitate coordination and cooperation among government
agencies or private service providers, or both, the court may,
after giving notice and an opportunity to be heard, join in the
juvenile court proceedings any agency or private service
provider that the court determines has failed to meet a legal
obligation to provide services to the child. In any proceeding
in which an agency or private service provider is joined, the
court shall not impose duties upon the agency or private service
provider beyond those mandated by law." (Id.)
Current law provides that when a minor is adjudged a delinquent
ward of the court, as specified, the court may make any and all
reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct,
maintenance, and support of the minor, including medical
treatment, subject to further order of the court. (WIC �
727(a).) "To facilitate coordination and cooperation among
governmental agencies, the court may, after giving notice and an
opportunity to be heard, join in the juvenile court proceedings
any agency that the court determines has failed to meet a legal
obligation to provide services to the minor. However, no
governmental agency shall be joined as a party in a juvenile
court proceeding in which a minor has been ordered committed to
the Department of the Youth Authority. In any proceeding in
which an agency is joined, the court shall not impose duties
upon the agency beyond those mandated by law. Nothing in this
section shall prohibit agencies which have received notice of
the hearing on joinder from meeting prior to the hearing to
coordinate services for the minor." (Id.)
This bill would revise and recast these provisions as follows:
Specify that joinder in these juvenile cases can occur
at any time after a petition has been filed;
Specify that agencies subject to joinder in this context
means "any governmental agency or any private service
(More)
SB 1048 (Liu)
PageD
provider or individual that receives federal, state, or
local governmental funding or reimbursement for providing
services directly to a child, nonminor, or nonminor
dependent"; and
State that these provisions apply for minors subject to
delinquency petitions, a nonminor ward or dependent of the
court up to the age of 21, and foster children subject to
the transitional jurisdiction of the court, as specified.
This bill makes additional related conforming and technical
revisions to this section, as specified, including the deletion
in section 727 of language concerning wards committed to the
Division of Juvenile Justice.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
(More)
SB 1048 (Liu)
PageE
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
(More)
SB 1048 (Liu)
PageF
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
SB 1048 would permit the juvenile court to "join" an
agency or private service provider pre-adjudication,
if it would help ensure that minor dependent children
or wards receive the services to which they are
already entitled under existing law.
Under current law, a judge can already join a service
agency to the dependency hearing after he or she has
made a determination to remove the child or make the
child a dependent of the court. Unfortunately, by
this point, it is often too late for the child and his
or her family, who actually may just be in desperate
need of required services, like mental health care,
that could help the child remain safely in their home
and out of the system. This bill would permit the
juvenile court to engage agencies or private service
providers who are mandated under existing laws to
provide services to children as early as the first
court hearing. The passage of this bill will not
create a new mandate because current law already
states the court shall not impose duties upon agencies
beyond those already mandated in existing law.
(More)
Finally, passage of this law will remedy a drafting
error related to SB 1514 (2007) by including language
that defines a "private service provider." This
clean-up language would remedy an unintended disparity
faced by delinquent children.
SB 1048 would save money and improve the lives of
California's vulnerable youth.
Example: "Chris" is a 6-year-old who tantrums and hits
his mother and siblings. The agency responsible for
providing federally-mandated services has not done so.
Due to "Chris's" untreated behavior, child protective
services have been called. Under current law, a judge
does not have the authority to join the agency to the
dependency proceedings and require the agency to
provide services until after the judge has made a
determination to take the child away from the family
or make them dependents of the court. At this point,
it is too late for "Chris" and his family.
2. What This Bill Would Do; Background
Current law generally authorizes joinder in juvenile dependency
and delinquency cases of government agencies and private service
providers which have failed to provide legally obligated
services to a child. This joinder authority occurs only after a
child has been adjudged a dependent or ward of the court. This
bill would revise these provisions to allow joinder upon the
filing of a petition, which occurs prior to adjudication. In
addition, this bill makes technical revisions to specify the
minors and nonminor dependents or wards of the court to whom
these provisions apply, specifies the agencies subject to
joinder (those that receive public monies to provide direct
services to dependents or wards, as specified), and makes
additional technical and conforming changes.
As explained above, current law generally authorizes juvenile
courts to join in a juvenile court proceeding any agency that
the court determines has failed to meet a legal obligation to
(More)
SB 1048 (Liu)
PageH
provide services to the minor; the court may not impose duties
upon the agency beyond those mandated by law. As explained in
the 1992 Senate Judiciary Committee analysis, the intent of this
provision was to facilitate services to children in these cases:
The author states: "AB 3553 addresses the needs of the
most difficult to serve population of dependent
children and wards of the court -- children with
multiple service needs. These are children legally
entitled to services from several public agencies.
The fact that multiple agencies are involved often
results in a failure to
provide legally mandated services: the buck gets
passed from agency to agency without the child getting
any services." This bill would facilitate a working
relationship and a coordination of services, through
joinder, with these agencies.<1>
3. Background: Role of the Juvenile Court
As explained in the Standards of Judicial Administration, judges
in juvenile court have a different role and obligation than
judges in other courts:
A superior court judge assigned to the juvenile court
occupies a unique position within California's
judiciary. In addition to the traditional role of
fairly and efficiently resolving disputes before the
court, the juvenile court judge is statutorily
required to discharge other duties. California law
empowers the juvenile court judge not only to order
services for children under its jurisdiction, but also
to enforce and review the delivery of those services.
This oversight function includes the obligation to
understand and work with the public and private
agencies, including school systems, that provide
services and treatment programs for children and
----------------------
<1> Analysis of AB 3553 (B. Friedman), Senate Judiciary
Committee, June 23, 1992.
SB 1048 (Liu)
PageI
families. As such, the juvenile court assignment
requires a dramatic shift in emphasis from judging in
the traditional sense.
The legislative directive to juvenile court judges to
"improve system performance in a vigorous and ongoing
manner" (Welf. & Inst. Code, � 202) poses no conflict
with traditional concepts of judicial ethics. Active
and public judicial support and encouragement of
programs serving children and families at risk are
important functions of the juvenile court judge that
enhance the overall administration of justice.<2>
***************
---------------------------
<2> Advisory Committee Comment to subdivision (e) of Standard
5.40 (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/
standards_of_judicial_administration.pdf.)