BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1099|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1099
Author: Steinberg (D), et al.
Amended: 8/22/14
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 4/22/14
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Monning
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/14
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SENATE FLOOR : 35-0, 5/27/14
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, Corbett,
Correa, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Knight, Lara,
Leno, Lieu, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nielsen, Padilla,
Pavley, Roth, Steinberg, Vidak, Walters, Wolk, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Liu, Torres, Wright, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 8/27/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Dependent children: wards of the juvenile court:
sibling visitation
SOURCE : California Youth Connection
DIGEST : This bill encourages visitation with siblings for
children in the dependency and juvenile justice system.
CONTINUED
SB 1099
Page
2
Assembly Amendments extend requirements of this bill to all
out-of-home placements of wards in foster care; authorize any
person, including a ward, a transition dependent, or a nonminor
dependent of the juvenile court to petition the court to assert
a relationship, add requirements for probation officers; and add
double-jointing language to avoid chaptering out issues with SB
977 (Liu) and SB 1460 (Senate Human Services Committee).
ANALYSIS : 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.
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 home, or alternatively
why those efforts are not appropriate.
This bill provides 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.
Existing law requires a social worker, where possible and
appropriate, to place a child, who has been removed from his/her
parents or guardian because of abuse or neglect, together with
his/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.
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
CONTINUED
SB 1099
Page
3
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.
This bill requires the social worker to include additional
information in his/her report in situations where siblings are
not placed together, including:
1. The frequency and nature of visits between siblings.
2. Whether visits are supervised, and if so, why.
3. What needs to be accomplished in order to have
unsupervised visits.
4. Any plan to increase visitation between siblings.
This bill requires the court, in situations where dependent
siblings have not been placed in the same home, to consider the
above information at periodic review hearings.
Existing law requires, when the court has ordered the removal of
a child from his/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 relationships, and the impact of
those relationships on placement and permanency planning.
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.
This bill requires 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.
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.
CONTINUED
SB 1099
Page
4
Existing law generally subjects any person under 18 years of age
who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,
which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court.
Existing law requires the responsible local agency to make a
diligent effort in all out-of-home placements of dependent
children to place siblings together in the same placement, and
to develop and maintain sibling relationships.
This bill requires 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.
This bill authorizes any person, including a ward, a transition
dependent, or a nonminor dependent of the juvenile court, to
petition the court to assert a relationship as a sibling and
make certain requests, including a request for visitation, with
a sibling who is, or is the subject of an adjudication as, a
ward of the juvenile court, as specified.
This bill authorizes a ward, transition dependent, or nonminor
dependent to assert a relationship as a sibling and request
visitation with a nondependent sibling who is in the physical
custody of a common legal or biological parent, and authorizes a
court to grant those requests for visitation, unless it is
determined by the court that visitation is contrary to the
safety and well-being of any of the siblings.
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.
This bill authorizes the court to grant a request for sibling
visitation unless it is determined by the court that sibling
visitation is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of
the siblings.
Existing law requires, after a minor is adjudged to be a ward of
the court, the court to hear evidence on the question of the
proper disposition to be made of the minor. Existing law
requires the probation officer to prepare a case plan if
CONTINUED
SB 1099
Page
5
placement in foster care is recommended by the probation
officer, or if the minor is already in foster care placement or
pending placement. Existing law requires the probation officer
to include, among other things, scheduled visits between the
minor and his/her family and an explanation if no visits are
made.
This bill requires a probation officer to include specified
information relating to the child's siblings.
This bill requires, if any siblings exist and are not placed
with the child, the court to determine, and require a social
worker or child advocate appointed by the court to include in
those social studies or evaluations, whether any visits between
the siblings are supervised or unsupervised, and if visits are
supervised, a discussion of the reasons why the visits are
supervised, and what needs to be accomplished in order for the
visits to be unsupervised, a description of the location and
length of any visits, and any plan to increase visitation
between siblings.
This bill contains double-jointing language to avoid chaptering
out issues with SB 977 (Liu) and SB 1460 (Senate Human Services
Committee).
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
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.
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. (AB 740, Steinberg, Chapter
805, Statutes of 1999.) Since then California has enacted
CONTINUED
SB 1099
Page
6
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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Potential state costs in the range of $325,000 to $650,000
(General Fund) annually for increased workload to social
workers to document detailed information on sibling
interaction efforts, assuming an additional 15 minutes to 30
minutes annually for an estimated 17,800 dependents who are
not placed with siblings.
CONTINUED
SB 1099
Page
7
Potentially significant state costs (General Fund) for local
agencies to facilitate additional sibling visits between
dependents and non-dependent children that the courts have not
previously granted.
Minor impact to court workload for the expansion of current
sibling visitation provisions of law.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/26/14)
California Youth Connection (source)
All Saints Church Foster Care Project
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California State PTA
Children Law Center of California
Children Now
County Welfare Directors Association of California
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
National Center for Youth Law
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Current law is unclear as to whether or not the courts have
authority to determine and compel a visitation schedule
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
CONTINUED
SB 1099
Page
8
visitation schedule between a dependent and non-dependent
child in foster care.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 8/27/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, John A.
P�rez, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harkey, Vacancy
AL:d 8/27/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED