BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2607
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 2607 (Skinner) - As Amended: March 24, 2014
SUBJECT : JUVENILE COURT: TIMELY RELEASE FROM DETENTION
KEY ISSUE : Should there be greater protections in the law to
ensure that foster children do not suffer disproportional
punishment by the juvenile justice system by being detained for
longer periods of confinement than other youth just because they
don't have homes to which they can READILY return?
SYNOPSIS
This bill seeks to ensure that when youths, who have been
ordered detained in out-of-home placements as wards of the
juvenile court, have completed their time, they are released
expeditiously. Unfortunately today, according to the author,
this is not always the case. When a child is removed from the
physical custody of his or her parent or guardian because of
abuse or neglect, the child becomes a dependent of the juvenile
court. If that child commits a crime and becomes a ward of the
court as a delinquent, the child's status as a dependent is
terminated in most counties, since a child cannot be both a
dependent and a ward of the juvenile court at the same time.
(Counties have authority to establish dual-status protocols for
these children, but most have elected not to do so.) If the
child successfully completes a detention by the juvenile court,
the child will normally be returned to his or her parent or
guardian. However, if the child came to delinquency out of the
foster care system, it may not be safe for that child to return
home. In most counties, the court can either send the child
home and wait to see if child welfare is called in again, or the
court can retain delinquency jurisdiction over the child to have
the continued ability to require placement of the child outside
the home. In most instances neither of these options will be in
the best interest of a child who has already been subject to
abuse or neglect and the difficulties inherent in both the
foster care and delinquency systems.
This bill, sponsored by the Children's Advocacy Institute, seeks
to prevent that limbo status of extended detention for children
by requiring that when a child has completed his or her
AB 2607
Page 2
detention, the child must be released, unless the court
determines that a delay in release from detention is reasonable,
as provided. However, the bill makes clear that the probation
officer's failure to identify an appropriate placement for the
child or other administrative delays may not be considered
reasonable delays. The bill is supported by, among others,
Juvenile Court Judges of California, John Burton Foundation for
Children Without Homes, California Police Chiefs Association,
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, and
Legal Advocates for Children & Youth. It has no known
opposition.
SUMMARY : Requires that minors or nonminors be released from
juvenile detention as ordered, unless the court determines that
a delay in release from detention is reasonable. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Provides that a minor or nonminor in juvenile detention shall
be released upon an order of the court, unless the court
determines that a delay in release from detention is
reasonable, as provided.
2)Provides that, when the juvenile court holds its required
hearing every 15 days that a minor or nonminor is detained
pending execution of a court order of commitment or any other
disposition and considers, as required, the actions taken by
the probation department to carry out the court's order, the
reason for the delay in executing the order, and the effects
of the delay on the youth, the following shall not be
considered reasonable delays:
a) If the minor was previously adjudicated a dependent of
the court and was in foster care at the time the petition
to adjudicate the minor a ward of the court was filed, the
probation officer's failure to identify a specific,
appropriate and available placement for the minor in the
case plan, as defined, upon an order of the juvenile court.
b) Delays caused by the administrative processes,
including, but not limited to, workload of probation
officers.
c) Delays in convening meetings between agencies, as
defined.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 2607
Page 3
1)Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child
as a dependent child when that child is subject to abuse or
neglect. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300. Unless
stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to that
code.)
2)Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child
when that child has committed acts that trigger delinquency
jurisdiction rendering the child a ward. (Sections 601 and
602.)
3)Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a
delinquent, the probation department and child welfare
services department must initially determine which status will
best serve the interests of the child and the protection of
society. Requires that the recommendations of both
departments be presented to the juvenile court, which
determines which status is appropriate for the child. A child
may not be designated simultaneously both a dependent child
and a ward of the court. (Section 241.1.)
4)Notwithstanding, # 3), above, authorizes the probation
department and the child welfare services department in any
county, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court
judge, to create a dual status protocol which would permit a
minor who meets specified criteria to be designated
simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the
juvenile court. (Section 241.1(e).)
5)Allows the juvenile court to order a ward be detained in a
detention home or otherwise, as provided. Requires the
juvenile court, when it holds its required hearing every 15
days that a minor is detained pending execution of a court
order of commitment or any other disposition, to consider the
actions taken by the probation department to carry out the
court's order, the reason for the delay in executing the
order, and the effects of the delay on the youth. (Section
737.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : When a child is removed from the physical custody of
his or her parent or guardian because of abuse or neglect, the
child becomes a dependent of the juvenile court. Foster youth
AB 2607
Page 4
are far more likely than the general population to become
involved with the juvenile justice system:
Youth put in care were three times more likely to be
arrested, convicted, and imprisoned as adults compared to
those who were allowed to remain at home. This indicates
that, after controlling for abuse severity, foster care
experience has some additional impact on future
criminality beyond the effects of abuse and neglect?. For
children and juveniles in out-of-home placements,
experiences of abuse and neglect are often compounded by
other negative experiences and factors?. The extensive
needs of children who are placed in foster care often go
unmet, increasing the likelihood that youth will engage
in future delinquent behavior.
(Erin McLaughlin, Dual-System Youth: The Need for Systems
Integration to Improve Outcomes for Foster Youth who Commit
Delinquent Acts 16-17 (2009).) Foster youth are "not only more
likely to be arrested as juveniles than their peers not in care,
they are also more likely to be arrested at a younger age and
more likely to recidivate." (Id. at 11.)
If a foster child commits a crime and becomes a ward of the
court as a delinquent, the child's status as a dependent is
terminated since a child cannot, as a general rule and except as
discussed below, be both a dependent and a ward of the juvenile
court at the same time. If the child successfully completes a
detention by the juvenile court, the child will normally be
returned to his or her parents. However, if the child came to
delinquency out of the foster care system, it may not be safe
for that child to return home. In most counties, the court can
either send the child home and wait to see if child welfare is
called in again, or the court can retain delinquency
jurisdiction over the child in order to be able to place the
child outside the home. In many instances neither of these
options will be in the best interest of a child who has already
been subject to abuse or neglect and the systemic difficulties
found in both the foster care and delinquency programs.
Dual Status Jurisdiction : In an effort to address this issue
and allow for better oversight of youth who have been involved
in both the foster care and delinquency systems, in 2004 the
Legislature passed legislation to allow counties, should they so
choose, to adopt dual status protocols which permit children to
AB 2607
Page 5
be both dependents and wards at the same time. (AB 129 (Cohn),
Chap. 468, Stats. 2004.) Dual status for children who are both
wards and dependents allows for better oversight and
coordination between child welfare and probation and helps
ensure that children who have completed their detention are not
held limbo with no home to which to return.
This voluntary program authorizes the probation department and
the child welfare services department in any county, in
consultation with the presiding juvenile court judge, to create
a dual status protocol to permit a youth who meets specified
criteria to be designated simultaneously as both a dependent
child and a ward of the juvenile court. According to the
Judicial Council website, 15 of California's 58 counties have
elected to develop these protocols: Butte, Colusa, Del Norte,
Los Angeles, Inyo, Modoc, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Siskiyou, Sonoma and
Stanislaus. The remaining 43 counties have not elected to
establish dual jurisdiction protocols.
The Judicial Council, which did a review of the protocols
developed by seven of those counties, best explained the need
for dual status jurisdiction:
Some children who successfully complete probation may not
have a safe home to return to. For those children, in the
absence of dual status, the court would either send the
child home and wait for a new dependency petition to be
filed or retain delinquency jurisdiction in order to
maintain the child in an out-of-home placement. In the
first option, it may be difficult to get the child welfare
services department to file the new petition. Under the
second option, a child may be placed in a more restrictive
setting than necessary, which could result in negative
outcomes and subject the child to the stigma associated
with being on probation for a longer period than a child
who has a home to return to. Supporters of AB 129 believed
that dual status would allow for a more seamless transition
back to the dependency system and avoid keeping children on
probation longer than necessary.
The prohibition of dual status also hampered the ability of
the courts, probation, and child welfare to address family
issues in a holistic manner. In the dependency system,
interventions historically have focused on the parents'
AB 2607
Page 6
maltreatment of the child, whereas in the delinquency
system, interventions have focused on the child's criminal
activity. Dual status was viewed by its supporters as a way
to provide more comprehensive services to the family with
multiple issues-pulling in the resources available to both
the probation department and child welfare services-to
allow parents who have been found to be abusive or
neglectful to be held accountable at the same time that
their children's illegal behavior is addressed.
(Judicial Council, Center for Families, Children & the Courts,
Dual-Status Children: Protocols for Implementing Assembly Bill
129, 2 (Nov. 2007) (footnotes omitted).)
This Bill Addresses a Key Concern for Children Who Qualify as
Both Wards and Dependents, But Who Reside in Counties That Have
Not Adopted Dual-Status Protocols, As Well As Youth Who are Held
in Detention Beyond Their Time Due to Administrative Delays : As
discussed above, one of the biggest concerns in counties that
have not adopted dual-status protocols is what happens to a
dependent child turned ward after his or her detention period
ends. Without, in many cases, a safe home to which to return,
children have had to remain in detention beyond their term of
confinement while the probation officer attempts to find a safe
place for them to live. This bill seeks to alleviate that
problem by specifically requiring that a youth in juvenile
detention be released from detention when the court orders so,
unless the court determines that a delay in release from
detention is reasonable.
Under existing law, the court is already required to hold a
hearing every 15 days that a youth is detained pending execution
of a court order of commitment or any other disposition to
consider the actions taken by the probation department to carry
out the court's order, the reason for the delay in executing the
order, and the effects of the delay on the youth. This bill
provides that the following three possible reasons for delay are
not considered reasonable:
If the minor was previously adjudicated a dependent of the
court and was in foster care at the time the petition to
adjudicate the minor a ward of the court was filed, the
probation officer's failure to identify a specific,
appropriate and available placement for the minor in the case
plan, as defined, upon an order of the juvenile court.
AB 2607
Page 7
Delays caused by the administrative processes, including, but
not limited to, workload of probation officers.
Delays in convening meetings between agencies, as defined.
By adding the last two provisions, this bill protects not just
foster youth who enter the juvenile justice system, but all
wards who require out-of-home placement. This bill helps ensure
that these youth are not confined in a detention facility beyond
the time required by a court simply because of administrative
delays.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
Foster children - who are legally under the care and/or
custody of the county welfare department because their
parents cannot adequately provide for them, and therefore
the responsibility of society as a whole - should never be
compelled to remain locked up in juvenile custody just
because they don't have homes to which they can return. . .
.
Although dual-status youth make up only a small portion of
those in the foster care system (in California, about 3,000
foster youth enter the juvenile justice system at a given
time), they are by definition youth uniquely in need of
services, even among the broader population of abused or
neglected children.
Because foster youth are living outside the home of a
parent, behaviors that might earn a severe grounding or
other punishments in a functioning home frequently rise to
a criminal matter. Studies on the foster care system have
shown that placing the child in foster care in and of
itself tragically increases the youth's likelihood of
delinquency. . . .
Dual-status youth are therefore not like other youth who
enter the juvenile justice system. Their behavior reflects
their special circumstances of having no parental figure to
supervise and care for them, having to live away from home,
and having to rely on strangers to be their surrogate
parents. They need and deserve special care and
consideration. . . .
Supporters See Important Need For the Bill to Protect All
AB 2607
Page 8
Detained Youth : The bill's sponsor, the Children's Advocacy
Institute states succinctly: "Foster children - our children -
must never be treated worse than adult criminals by being forced
to remain in juvenile detention beyond the time they should be
released."
The East Bay Children's Law Offices support the bill because it
protects all youth who require out of home placement when they
are wards of the juvenile court:
AB 2607 addresses the inequity faced by foster youth who
are detained in juvenile hall in part because they have no
homes to return to. Many foster youth are held in juvenile
hall for less serious, non-violent offenses, although other
youth who commit the same offenses are released to their
parents. Studies show that incarceration, especially
extended incarceration, can be harmful to youth.
Existing law requires early consideration of appropriate
placements for youth who are at-risk of entering foster
care through the juvenile justice system. Youth who are
already in foster care as dependents of the court clearly
fall under this requirement. Unfortunately, the reality is
that appropriate placements for foster youth in the
juvenile justice system are not identified early in the
process and foster youth remain locked up until a suitable
placement is found. AB 2607 will protect the rights of
foster youth and reduce unnecessary detention.
AB 2607 will also benefit all youth who require out-of-home
placement as wards in the juvenile justice system. Case
processing placement delays occur routinely, resulting in
youth doing "dead time" in custody. During this "dead
time," youth are not able to participate in the programs
designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and successful
reunification with their families. The time spent in
juvenile hall awaiting placement is not credited to their
placement programs, further extending the length of time
that youth spend away from their homes and communities.
AB 2607 emphasizes the importance of timely consideration
of appropriate placements, clarifies the role of the court
in ensuring that unreasonable delays do not occur, and
promotes the public policy of rehabilitating youth through
the provision of appropriate services and family
AB 2607
Page 9
reunification.
Juvenile Court Judges Support The Bill, But Wish to Continue
Working with the Author to Ensure Implementation Issues Fully
Considered and All Youth Have Safe and Secure Placements : While
the bill makes clear that youth should not be allowed to
languish in detention beyond the time ordered by the juvenile
court, the bill does not make clear what should happen to these
youth after they are released. Obviously for dual status
children, either the probation department or the child welfare
agency must secure a safe and appropriate placement for them.
For youth in counties that have yet to implement dual-status
protocols, the probation department must ensure that these
youth, particularly those coming into the delinquency system
from the foster care system, have a safe and appropriate
placement. While the bill does not, as of yet, clarify how that
is to happen, the author has agreed to work with all the
stakeholders to help ensure that not only do wards of the court
leave detention timely, but when they do so they have a safe and
supportive home waiting for them.
The Juvenile Court Judges of California support the bill in
concept and look forward to continued work with the author,
sponsor and stakeholders to "address implementation logistics
and to preserve judicial discretion based on circumstances
unique to each youth." They state:
AB 2607 seeks to solve the very real problem of youth who
remain in juvenile hall, despite having completed their
detention, as a result of placement difficulties and complex
administrative processes. Youth in juvenile delinquency who
are going to be placed often have high needs and high risk,
which can result in delays in finding adequate placement. . .
. Juvenile detention is not an appropriate social services
placement.
Thus while some logistical considerations remain to be resolved,
all stakeholders agree that remaining in juvenile detention
beyond a youth's term is not a reasonable placement choice.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Children's Advocacy Institute (sponsor)
AB 2607
Page 10
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
East Bay Children's Law Offices
John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes
Juvenile Court Judges of California
Legal Advocates for Children & Youth
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334