BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2391
Page A
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2391 (Ian Calderon)
As Amended April 23, 2014
Majority vote
HUMAN SERVICES 7-0 JUDICIARY 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Stone, Maienschein, |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, |
| |Ammiano, | |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, |
| |Ian Calderon, Garcia, | |Garcia, Gorell, |
| |Grove, Hall | |Maienschein, Muratsuchi, |
| | | |Stone |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | |
| |Holden, Jones, Linder, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | |
| |Weber | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Clarifies that, after the dispositional hearing for a
child in foster care, preferential consideration shall be given,
on a case-by-case basis to a relative of a child in foster care
for purposes of placement of the child, and requires the
Judicial Council to rule of court, effective January 1, 2016 to
implement this clarification.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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 (General Fund), assuming 2%
AB 2391
Page B
to 3% of the current family reunification caseload had one
additional relative requesting placement after the child's
initial placement.
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 :
Custody and out-home-placement of children in foster care: When
it is suspected that a child is a victim of physical, sexual, or
emotional abuse, or neglect or exploitation, any person may
report that abuse or neglect to child protective services.
Additionally certain individuals, such as physicians and
teachers, are mandated under state and federal law to
immediately report any suspicion or identification of child
abuse or neglect to child protective services. After the report
of abuse or neglect is made, a county welfare agency's (CWA)
child protective services social worker is required to
immediately investigate the complaint to determine its validity.
If the complaint is found to be valid, the social worker may
remove the child from the family and place the child into
temporary custody.
This allows for the immediate removal of the child from harm,
while the CWA and the court investigate whether the child should
remain in temporary custody or be ruled a dependent of the
state. Temporary custody does not eliminate all rights of the
parent; rather removal of parental rights depends on what "care,
custody and control" rights the parent(s) may retain, as
determined by the court on a case by case basis. Typically, the
parent retains educational and health rights over the child,
which, again, depends on the ruling of the court.
As intended by law to limit undue harm and increase the chances
of reunification of the child with his or her parent(s), the
Family Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code lay out
specific preferential placement considerations for relatives of
the child. Specifically, current law requires a social worker
AB 2391
Page C
to, within 30 days of the child's removal from the home, locate
any known adults who are related to the child by blood,
adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship<1> 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.<2> 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 are persons who have an established familial or mentoring
relationship with a child, and can be considered an individual
with whom a child in foster care may be placed. They 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.
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. However,
this can raise questions as to whether it is in the child's best
interest to remove him or her from an out-of-home placement,
perhaps one that is stable and beneficial to the child, in order
to place him or her with a relative, simply because child
welfare law states that a relative should be provided
preferential consideration for placement. Such scenarios are
considered on a case-by-case basis, which includes an evaluation
by the social worker and the court, and as such encompasses all
parties involved, in order to ensure the best outcome for the
child. This includes an assessment by the social worker, a
correlating notification of the minor's counsel, parent's
counsel, and involvement of the court, with the ultimate
decision being made by the juvenile court judge.
Although a relative may come forward and be approved as an
appropriate placement by the social worker, the court, upon
---------------------------
<1> Welfare and Institutions Code Section 319(f)(2)
<2> Family Code Section 7950
AB 2391
Page D
consideration of all parties involved, could ultimately decide
not to remove the child from a stable nonrelative 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.
Reunification services: When children are removed from the
home, but the court determines, in consultation with a child's
social worker, that the child would ultimately benefit from
being returned to the family, the court may order reunification
services for the parents. Reunification services are generally
developed on a case-by-case basis to accommodate and respond to
the needs of the child and the parents to better facilitate the
child's reunification with his or her parent(s).
Reunifications services can include family therapy, parenting
classes, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, respite care, parent
support groups, home visiting programs, and other coordinated
and tailored services necessary to assist the child and the
family with reunification. Under current law, for children under
the age of three, reunification services are offered for six
months and 12 months for children over the age of three. A
six-month extension may be made if the court finds there is
substantial probability that the child will be returned to the
physical custody of his or her parent(s) within the extended
time period or that reasonable services have not been provided
to the parent(s).<3>
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
FN: 0003831
---------------------------
<3> Welfare and Institutions Code Section 361.5