BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2391
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2391 (Calderon) - As Amended: April 23, 2014
Policy Committee: Human
ServicesVote:7 - 0
Judiciary 10 -
0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill clarifies how relatives may be considered for possible
placement after a foster child's initial placement has been
made. Specifically, this bill:
1)Clarifies that when a social worker and the court, in
determining whether it is appropriate to place a foster child
with a relative, considers specified factors, those factors
must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
2)Clarifies that, after the dispositional hearing for a child in
foster care, preferential consideration shall be given to a
relative of a child in foster care for purposes of placement
of the child and that the social worker and the court must
consider specified factors before deciding on the placement.
3)Requires the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2016, to adopt a
rule of court that implements #2), above.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potentially reimbursable costs to counties for increased
workload for county social workers due to expanded
opportunities for relatives to request placement, likely in
the range of $200,000 to $300,000 (GF), assuming 2% to 3% of
the current family reunification caseload had one additional
relative requesting placement after the child's initial
placement.
AB 2391
Page 2
2)Potential, unknown costs to the courts for considering
relative placements when the court would not otherwise be
considering removing a child from a stable, non-relative
foster care placement.
3)Minor and absorbable costs to Judicial Council to adopt a rule
of court.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . This bill seeks to clarify there is a preference for
relative placement for a foster child who has been removed
from his or her parents because of abuse or neglect. The
author writes, "It is generally recognized that the
preferential consideration is given to family members
throughout the reunification process. However, the statute
limits the application of this preference to "whenever a new
placement of the child must be made?This is contrary to the
intent of the law and prevents family members from receiving
preferential consideration as placement options." This
preference does not, in any way, mean that the child will be
placed with a relative.
Before placing or moving a child, the social worker and the
court must consider a host of factors, first and foremost
being the best interest of the child.
2)Placement with Relatives . Current law requires a social worker
to, within 30 days of the child's removal from the home,
locate any known adults who are related to the child and
notify them that the child has been removed from his or her
parent's custody. Once identified, or as relatives come
forward, the priority is to place the child in the home of a
relative, unless it is not deemed to be in the best interest
of the child. If no other parent is available or exists,
direct blood relatives are considered, such as the aunt,
uncle, or grandparents. Beyond that, extended relatives and
then nonrelated extended family members (NREFM) are
considered. NREFMs can be a godmother or godfather, a coach, a
close friend of the family, or anyone who has an established
relationship with the child or the family. If no adult who is
related by blood or affinity is identified or comes forward
then foster family homes or group homes are considered for
placement.
AB 2391
Page 3
In cases where a child's relative does not initially come
forward, but identifies him or herself to the social worker or
the court after an initial placement of the child is made, the
social worker is required to conduct an assessment as to the
fitness of the relative and notify and recommend to the court
whether the child should be placed with the relative. Although
a relative may be approved as an appropriate placement by the
social worker, the court, upon consideration of all parties
involved, could ultimately decide not to remove the child from
a stable non-relative foster care placement so as not to
disrupt the stability of the child.
The converse could also happen. A court could remove a child
from a stable foster care placement, as permitted under law,
place him or her with a relative that could be a less stable
placement, but is reflective of the intent of the state's
child welfare law that preferential consideration be given to
known relatives of the child.
3)Related Legislation . AB 1761 (Hall) 2014, clarifies that a
minor who is removed from the custody of his or her parents
may also be temporarily placed with a relative or non-related
extended family member while the child is in temporary
custody, after the detention hearing and pending a
disposition hearing. This bill is before this committee today.
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081