BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 977 (Liu)
As Amended March 17, 2014
Hearing Date: May 6, 2014
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Juveniles: Dependency Court
DESCRIPTION
Under existing law, when a court orders the removal of a child
from the custody of his or her parent because of abuse, neglect,
or potential abuse or neglect, the court is generally required
to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his
or her parent, unless the court finds that the return of the
child would create a substantial risk of detriment, or
substantial danger, to the safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being of the child.
This bill would provide that the fact that a parent is enrolled
in a certified substance abuse treatment facility is not, for
that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment or
substantial danger. This bill would additionally require the
court to consider at dependency hearings whether the child can
be returned to the custody of his or her parent who is enrolled
in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows
children.
BACKGROUND
When severe child abuse or neglect, or a risk of abuse or
neglect, comes to the attention of the dependency system, the
child is often removed from a parent's physical custody. The
court then holds an initial detention hearing to determine
whether the child should be further detained or returned to the
custody of the parent. When a child is detained, within ten
days, the court must hold a dispositional hearing to ascertain
(more)
SB 977 (Liu)
Page 2 of ?
whether there are child welfare services that would permit the
child to return home pending the next hearing, and, if
appropriate, order services to be provided as soon as possible
to reunify the child and family. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
319(f).) These determinations are based largely on the
information presented to the court in the social worker's report
of the case. Reunification with a family generally takes place
in the 12 months from the date of detention, and the court
reviews each case at least every six months. Parents are
required to meet goals outlined in a case plan submitted by the
social worker.
This process reflects the objectives of the juvenile dependency
system: to ensure children's safety and protection, and where
possible, preserve and strengthen families. In the event that a
child is not returned to the custodial parent, he or she is
normally released to the custody of another parent, relative, or
non-relative extended family member, otherwise he or she may be
placed in a foster home. These placements, at least initially,
are temporary, while the social worker develops a case plan
according to the following priorities: maintain the child within
his or her home; remove the child but with the goal of reuniting
the parent and child; or find a permanent placement for the
child.
This bill seeks to ensure that courts are able to consider
whether or not to release a child into the custody of a parent
who is undergoing treatment for substance abuse, if he or she is
in a facility which allows children to reside there with a
parent.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that a child is within the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court when he or she has suffered, or is at a
substantial risk of suffering, serious abuse or neglect
including:
the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to
adequately supervise or protect the child;
the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to
provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or
medical treatment; or
by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular
care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental
illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse. (Welf.
& Inst. Code Sec. 300.)
SB 977 (Liu)
Page 3 of ?
Existing law provides that at the initial petition hearing to
determine whether the child should be further detained, the
court shall make a determination as to whether reasonable
efforts were made to prevent the removal of the child and
whether there are available services that would prevent the need
for further detention. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 319.)
Existing law provides that the court may limit parental control
over a dependent child, but that such limitations may not exceed
those necessary to protect the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
361.)
Existing law provides that a child shall not be taken from the
physical custody of the parent or guardian unless the court
finds clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to
the child, and that there are no reasonable means to protect the
child. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.)
Existing law provides that the court shall order the county to
provide child welfare services, except as specified, to the
minor and the minor's parents or guardians, and permits the
court to order the parent or guardian to participate in
counseling or other treatment services. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
361.5.)
Existing law provides that the above services are not required
to be provided if the court finds that the parent or guardian
has a history of extensive abusive and chronic use of drugs or
alcohol and has resisted prior treatment during the previous
three years or has failed to comply with a program of drug or
alcohol treatment described in the case plan, as specified.
(Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.)
Existing law provides that at the review hearing held six to
twelve months after the initial dispositional hearing, the court
shall order the return of the child to the parent or guardian
unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
there is a substantial risk of detriment to the child. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Sec. 366.21(e).
Existing law provides that at the permanency hearing, held no
later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster
care, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the
child, and requires the court to order the return of the child
to the parent or guardian unless the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that there is a substantial risk
SB 977 (Liu)
Page 4 of ?
of detriment to the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 366.21(f).)
Existing law authorizes the court to continue the permanency
hearing for up to six months if there is a substantial
probability that the child will be returned to the physical
custody of the parent or legal guardian within the extended
time. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 366.21(g).)
Existing law authorizes the court to continue the permanency
hearing for up to six months if the court determines by clear
and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child
would be met through additional reunification services to a
parent making substantial progress in a court-ordered
residential substance abuse treatment program. (Welf. & Inst.
Code Sec. 366.22(b).)
This bill would require the court to consider, at a detention,
dispositional, and permanency review hearing, whether a child
can be returned to the custody of a parent who is enrolled in a
certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a
dependent child to reside with the parent and would require the
court to specify the factual basis for its conclusion.
This bill would provide that the fact that a parent is enrolled
in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a
dependent child to reside with the parent shall not be, for that
reason alone, prima facie evidence of substantial danger.
This bill would provide that when a legal guardianship that led
to the dismissal of dependency is subsequently revoked or
terminated and the parents are considered as custodians, the
court shall consider whether a child can be returned to the
custody of a parent who is enrolled in a certified substance
abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside
with the parent.
This bill would make other technical, non-substantive changes.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
When parents commit a crime and are sentenced to substance
abuse treatment for drugs or alcohol, courts often have to
SB 977 (Liu)
Page 5 of ?
place children in temporary custody and later determine when
the parent and child can be safely reunited. The longer
parents and children are separated, the more difficult it can
be to reunify families.
This bill will allow Juvenile Dependency Courts to let a
parent retain custody of a child while the parent is enrolled
in [a] certified substance abuse treatment facility with
family housing.
2.Clarifies where judges are allowed to place dependent children
This bill would provide that the fact that a parent is enrolled
in a certified substance abuse treatment facility (facility) is
not, in and of itself, evidence of substantial danger or
detriment to the child, and would require the court to consider
whether a child can be returned to the custody of the parent
enrolled in a facility that allows children to reside with
parents.
Under existing law, when suspected child abuse comes to the
attention of the dependency system, before removing a child from
the custody of the parent, the court is first required to
consider whether there are services available to the parents
that would permit the child to safely remain in the home. When
a child is removed from the custody of a parent, the court is
again required to consider whether the child may safely return
home, and if there are services available to the family to help
ensure the safety of the child there. Further, when a child is
not returned to the custody of the parent, the court is required
at each subsequent hearing prior to the termination of a
parent's rights to evaluate whether family reunification
services would be appropriate. This dependency process reflects
the dual goals of the system: (1) to protect children from abuse
and neglect; and (2) to preserve the family.
The correlation between substance abuse and child neglect is
strong. According to the Department of Health Care Services
(DHCS), approximately 40 percent of clients receiving drug and
alcohol treatment are women and 61 percent of those women have
minor children. The State of California provides a number of
resources for individuals who struggle with drug and alcohol
abuse. DHCS licenses residential facilities that provide
non-medical services to adults who are working to overcome
issues with substance abuse including education, group, or
individual sessions; recovery or treatment planning; and
SB 977 (Liu)
Page 6 of ?
detoxification services. Many facilities offer individualized
services such as vocational or new skills training, and some
facilities allow dependent children to reside with their
parents. (See DHCS frequently asked questions at
as of April 29, 2014.)
Further, research indicates that many women may fear that they
may jeopardize custody of their children if they admit to
substance abuse problems or enter substance abuse treatment,
which may complicate and delay treatment efforts. Additionally,
studies have shown that women have higher completion rates and
better outcomes in residential treatment programs that provide
live-in accommodations for children. (Christine E. Grella,
Substance Abuse Treatment Services for Women: A Review of Policy
Initiatives and Recent Research, November 2007, found at
as
of April 29, 2014.)
Staff notes that there is no prohibition under existing law from
placing children with parents in facilities, and in fact,
parents who do not participate in court ordered treatment
programs run the risk of having reunification denied. (See
Welf. & Inst. Code Sec 364(c).) Given the existing policy which
emphasizes reunification with parents and the preservation of
the family, and fact that facilities may allow children to
reside with parents seeking treatment, the court should be
allowed to consider whether a child should be able to remain
with his or her parent while that parent is in a facility. This
bill would clarify that courts may in fact make these
placements, and reinforce that courts place children in the most
suitable environment, keeping in mind the goal of family
reunification.
3.Providing courts with information to make decisions that best
protect children
As noted above, nothing under existing law precludes a court
from placing a child with a parent in a treatment facility,
however the author and sponsor argue that "when parents commit a
crime and are sentenced to substance abuse treatment for drugs
and alcohol, juvenile dependency courts often have to place
children out of the home, separating the parent from the child
and making reunification more difficult."
When making placement orders for children, courts rely on
SB 977 (Liu)
Page 7 of ?
recommendations made by social workers which are submitted to
the court in a report. Requiring the social worker to include
information in his or her report about a facility, and whether
or not placement of the child there with the parent would be
detrimental to the child's safety or well-being, would provide
the court with valuable information in making its placement
determination. Accordingly, the author offers the following
amendments which would require the social worker to consider
whether the child may be returned to the custody of his or her
parent who is enrolled in a facility that allows a dependent
child to reside with his or her parent, and would include such
facilities in the type of services which may be provided under
family reunification.
Author's amendments:
1. Section 358.1 of the Welfare & Institutions Code is
amended to read:
Each social study or evaluation made by a social worker or
child advocate appointed by the court, required to be received
in evidence pursuant to Section 358, shall include, but not be
limited to, a factual discussion of each of the following
subjects:
(a) Whether the county welfare department or social worker
has considered either of the following:
(1) Child child protective services, as defined in Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 16500) of Part 4 of Division 9, as
a possible solution to the problems at hand, and has
offered these services to qualified parents if appropriate
under the circumstances.
(2) Whether the child can be returned to the custody of his
or her parent who is enrolled in a certified substance
abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to
reside with his or her parent.
1. Section 366.1 of the Welfare & Institutions Code is
amended to read:
Each supplemental report required to be filed pursuant to
Section 366 shall include, but not be limited to, a factual
discussion of each of the following subjects:
(a) Whether the county welfare department or social worker
has considered either of the following:
(1) Child child protective services, as defined in Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 16500) of Part 4 of Division 9, as
SB 977 (Liu)
Page 8 of ?
a possible solution to the problems at hand, and has
offered these services to qualified parents if appropriate
under the circumstances.
(2) Whether the child can be returned to the custody of his
or her parent who is enrolled in a certified substance
abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to
reside with his or her parent.
1. Section 16500.5 of the Welfare & Institutions Code is
amended to read:
(c) (1) Services which may be provided under this program may
include, but are not limited to, counseling, mental health
treatment and substance abuse treatment services, including
residential substance abuse treatment facilities that accept
families, parenting, respite, day treatment, transportation,
homemaking, and family support services. Each county that
chooses to provide mental health treatment and substance abuse
treatment shall identify and develop these services in
consultation with county mental health treatment and substance
abuse treatment agencies?
1. Amendment to remove consideration from post-permanency
hearing
The Family Law Section of the State Bar of California (FLEXCOM),
supports this bill but seeks an amendment to remove the proposed
consideration from post-permanency hearings. FLEXCOM writes:
While the requirement is appropriate at the dispositional
hearing, the subsequent six-month review hearing, and the 12
month, 18 month (and if applicable) 24 month permanency
hearings, FLEXCOM does not believe it is appropriate to extend
it to the post-permanency hearing, governed by Welfare &
Institutions Code Section 366.3.
At this stage of the matter, the focus of the court's
involvement has shifted from promoting reunification to
permanency for the child. The parents are entitled to
participate in the hearing. However, continued out-of-home
care is presumed appropriate unless the parent shows further
efforts at reunification are in the best interest of the
child. The incorporation of the language of this bill into
Section 366.3 creates a requirement that the court consider
return. This requirement conflicts with the spirit underlying
SB 977 (Liu)
Page 9 of ?
the post-permanency review scheme.
Staff notes that at a permanency hearing, the objective has
often shifted from family reunification to permanent placement
of a child in another home. While a parent is entitled to
participate in the hearing, often they are not present. Thus,
it is not always appropriate for the court to consider
reunification at permanency hearings. Accordingly, the author
may wish to make a commitment to continuing to work with FLEXCOM
to address the above concern.
Support : American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees; Children's Law Center of California;
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc.
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote : Senate Human Services Committee (Ayes 3, Noes 1)
**************