BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: April 22, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Dependent Children: Sibling Visitation
DESCRIPTION
Under existing law the court must consider relationships between
dependent siblings when planning for legal permanence of a
foster child. This bill would require that courts also consider
relationships between dependent and non-dependent siblings.
This bill would also require social workers to include specified
details related to sibling visitation in social studies or
evaluations, and would require courts to make a renewed finding
that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being
of either child when renewing any suspension of sibling
interaction.
This bill would also authorize a dependent child to request
visitation with a sibling who is in the physical custody of a
common parent, as specified, and would require the court to
grant such a request unless it is shown by clear and convincing
evidence that visitation is contrary to the safety and
well-being of either of the siblings.
BACKGROUND
In October 2008, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
(Act) to promote permanent families for children and youth in
foster care by providing greater assistance to relative
caregivers and improving incentives for adoption. The Act also
(more)
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 2 of ?
extends assistance for foster children to age 21 and improves
education and health care for children and youth in foster care.
Further, the Act requires states to use "reasonable efforts" to
place siblings together, unless such placement is contrary to
their safety or well-being. If the siblings are not placed
together, visitation between them must occur frequently, unless
the visitation is contrary to their safety or well-being. (42
U.S.C. Sec. 671(a).)
Prior to passage of the Act, California was one of the first
states to pass legislation promoting sibling visitation for
foster children as early as 1999. (See AB 740, Ch. 805, Stats.
1999.) Since then California has enacted several additional
statutes to expand legal protections for sibling relationships.
These laws have served to promote sibling relationships when
both children are in the dependency system, but recent,
unpublished cases indicate that courts will not grant visitation
in the rare case where one sibling is in the foster system and
the other remains in the legal custody of the parent. This
bill seeks to address this situation by giving dependency courts
the authority to order visitation between dependent and
non-dependent siblings in specified circumstances.
Additionally, this bill would update existing requirements
related to sibling visitation, such as requiring more detailed
information in social worker reports, and make other conforming
changes.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing federal law requires states to use "reasonable
efforts" to place siblings together, unless such placement is
contrary to their safety or well-being. If the siblings are
not placed together, visitation between them must occur
frequently, unless it is contrary to their safety or
well-being. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 671(a).)
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature to ensure
that siblings who are removed from the home will be placed in
foster care together, unless the placement is contrary to the
safety or well-being of any sibling. Existing law requires the
responsible local agency to make diligent efforts to maintain
sibling relationships in all out-of-home placements of
dependent children, and, if siblings are not placed together
in the same home, the social worker must explain why, what
efforts are being made to place them together in the same
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 3 of ?
home, or alternatively why those efforts are not appropriate.
(Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 16002.)
This bill would provide that it is also the intent of the
Legislature to preserve and strengthen a dependent child's
sibling relationship with a nondependent sibling who remains
in the custody of a mutual parent subject to the court's
jurisdiction, and that the court has the authority to develop
a sibling visitation plan, as specified.
2.Existing law requires a social worker, where possible and
appropriate, to place a child, who has been removed from his
or her parents or guardian because of abuse or neglect,
together with his or her siblings or half-siblings also being
removed, or to describe continuing efforts to place them
together if they are not initially placed together, or to
explain why placing them together is inappropriate. (Wel. &
Inst. Code Sec. 306.5.)
Existing law requires reports submitted into evidence and
prepared by social workers or child advocates for
dispositional hearings to include factual discussions
regarding a variety of subjects including whether child
protective services have been considered, any plan for
parental reunification, and the nature of sibling
relationships and status of sibling visitation. (Wel. & Inst.
Code Sec. 358.1.)
This bill would require the social worker to include
additional information in his or her report in situations
where siblings are not placed together, including:
the frequency and nature of visits between siblings;
whether visits are supervised, and if so, why;
what needs to be accomplished in order to have
unsupervised visits; and
any plan to increase visitation between siblings.
This bill would further require the court, in situations where
dependent siblings have not been placed in the same home, to
consider the above information at periodic review hearings.
1.Existing law requires, when the court has ordered the removal
of a child from his or her parents, to consider whether there
are siblings also under the court's jurisdiction, the nature
of the relationships between the siblings and the
appropriateness of developing or maintaining those
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 4 of ?
relationships, and the impact of those relationships on
placement and permanency planning. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec.
366.3(e)(9).)
Existing law requires, when the court has ordered removal of a
child from the physical custody of a parent, the court must
consider whether there are any siblings under the court's
jurisdiction, and the appropriateness of maintaining those
sibling relationships. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.2.)
This bill would further require the court to consider whether
there are any non-dependent siblings in the custody of a
parent subject to the court's jurisdiction, and the
appropriateness of maintaining those sibling relationships.
2.Existing law requires any order placing a child in foster care
to provide for visitation between a child and any siblings,
unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that
sibling interaction is contrary to the safety and well-being
of either child. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 362.1.)
This bill would require that in order for a suspension of
sibling interaction to continue after periodic review
hearings, the court must make a renewed finding that sibling
interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either
child.
3.Existing law allows any person to petition the juvenile court
to assert a sibling relationship by blood, adoption, or
through affinity with a legal or biological parent with a
child who is a dependent of the juvenile court, and to request
visitation with that child. (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 388.)
This bill would require that the court grant a request for
sibling visitation unless it is shown by clear and convincing
evidence that sibling visitation is contrary to the safety and
well-being of any of the siblings.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
Current law is unclear as to whether or not the courts have
authority to determine and compel a visitation schedule
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 5 of ?
between a dependent and non-dependent child in foster care.
In addition to this, the details for which a court uses to
determine sibling visitation schedules between siblings is
unclear and insufficient, which creates statewide
inconsistency. Lastly, current law does not explicitly
require the court to revisit a visitation schedule after an
initial decision was made even though circumstances may
have changed.
This bill would provide clarity in court reports and
further provide some detail for legal findings related to
sibling visitation schedules. Furthermore it would also
explicitly allow courts to make findings related to the
visitation schedule between a dependent and non-dependent
child in foster care.
2. By revising existing duties with regards to dependent
children, bill would further support maintenance of sibling
relationships
This bill would revise the existing obligations of the court
and social workers with regards to their duties related to
dependent children. Specifically, this bill would require
social workers to include specified details about sibling
visitation in social studies and evaluations, and require that
before any court renews a suspension of sibling interaction,
the court must make a renewed finding that sibling interaction
is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
a. Additional information to be included in the social
worker's report
Under existing law, a dispositional hearing occurs after a
jurisdictional hearing in which the court has found that a
child has indeed suffered abuse or neglect, and thus comes
under the jurisdiction of the dependency court. The
dispositional hearing is considered the "meat and potatoes"
of juvenile law because it is when a family's future is
charted, including any custody and visitation orders. For
this hearing the social worker and any court-appointed
special advocate are required to prepare and submit a
social study to the court that includes "all matters
relevant to disposition, and a recommendation for
disposition." (Cal. Rules of Court 5.690(a).) Among other
statutory requirements, social workers are required to
discuss sibling relationships in each study. They must
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 6 of ?
include whether the child has siblings under the court's
jurisdiction, the nature of the sibling relationship, and
the appropriateness of maintaining that relationship.
Importantly, the social worker must note, in situations
where dependent siblings are not placed in the same home,
why the children were not placed together and what efforts
are being made to place the children together. The social
worker must also include information related to the
frequency and nature of sibling visits. (See Wel. & Inst.
Code Sec. 358.1.)
This bill would further require that the social worker note
whether visits between siblings are supervised or
unsupervised. If supervised, this bill would require the
social worker to indicate the reasons why, and what needs
to be accomplished in order for the visits to be
unsupervised. By specifying what additional information
needs to be included in a social worker's report, this bill
will further ensure that the nature and feasibility of
sibling relationships are considered when courts consider
the future of a dependent child.
b. Judicial consideration of sibling visitation at
periodic review hearings
Existing law requires that a court must order visitation
"as frequent as possible consistent with the well-being of
the child." (Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 362.1.) Visitation
must be provided for among siblings unless the court finds
by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction
is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
Courts are also required to allow for sibling interaction
when, after suspension because visitation would be contrary
to the safety or well-being of either sibling, it
determines that sibling interaction may safely resume.
(Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 16002(c).) After initial orders,
including visitation, are made at the dispositional
hearing, the court must hold periodic review hearings. The
frequency and scheduling of each type of review is governed
by statute and court rules.
This bill would require, in situations where the sibling
interaction has been suspended, that at periodic review
hearings the court make a renewed finding that sibling
interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of
either child in order for that suspension to continue. This
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 7 of ?
new requirement will arguably help facilitate the
satisfaction of existing obligations by assuring that
courts will reexamine the circumstances surrounding the
suspension of sibling interaction and order visitation when
and if it becomes appropriate.
1. Would require the court to grant sibling visitation with a
non-dependent sibling absent a high evidentiary showing
In the rare circumstance where one child has been removed from
the custody of a parent, and another child has not, this bill
would require the court to grant visitation with the
non-dependent sibling unless the opposing party showed by
clear and convincing evidence that such visitation would be
contrary to the safety or well-being of either sibling.
In practice, the clear and convincing standard is a high
evidentiary burden that many parties, especially
self-represented parties, may have difficulty proving. Staff
notes that in the dependency context this burden may be
difficult to meet where at least one, if not both children
have suffered abuse at the hands of a parent who remains in
custody of at least one child.
In recognition of the difficulties facing parties in a
dependency action, the author offers the following amendments
which would allow, but not require, the court to order
visitation with a non-dependent sibling. As a result, the
amendments would allow the court to exercise discretion and
consider any evidence which may indicate that visitation may
have a negative impact on either of the children involved.
Author's amendments
1. On page 28 line 22, strike "shall" and insert "may"
2. On page 28, lines 22-23, strike "shown by clear and
convincing evidence" and insert "determined by the court"
Staff notes that granting the juvenile court authority to
consider sibling relationships with non-dependent siblings and
create visitation orders may not create the requisite
jurisdiction over all parties subject to the visitation order.
However, despite potential jurisdictional issues, this bill
would codify the court's ability to order visitation among all
siblings where appropriate.
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 8 of ?
Support : All Saints Church Foster Care Project; California
Alliance of Child and Family Services; California State PTA;
Crittenon Services for Families and Children; East Bay
Children's Law Offices; Juvenile Court Judges of California;
Legal Advocates for Children and Youth; National Association of
Social Workers, California Chapter;
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Youth Connection
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 743 (Portantino, Chapter 560, Statutes of 2010) made changes
to the standards for sibling visitation, interaction, and
placement for children in foster care to conform with the
federal Fostering Connections to Success Act.
AB 408 (Steinberg, Chapter 813, Statutes of 2003) made changes
in dependency law to help achieve permanency for older children,
including authorizing the court to make orders to ensure that
sibling relationships are maintained.
AB 705 (Steinberg, Chapter 747, Statutes of 2001) ensured that
sibling relationships are considered at all appropriate hearings
and siblings are placed together when appropriate.
AB 1987 (Steinberg, Chapter 909, Statutes of 2000) recognized
the importance of sibling relationships and required the court
to consider the existence, nature, and impact of a dependent
child's sibling relationships on the child's placement and
planning for legal permanence.
AB 740 (Steinberg, Chapter 805, Statutes of 1999) expedited the
procedure for permanent placement of a sibling group.
**************
SB 1099 (Steinberg)
Page 9 of ?