SB 68: Minor or nonminor dependent parents: reunification services.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2015-09-09
(1)Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of his or her parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine temporary placement of a dependent child. When a court orders the removal of a child from the physical custody of his or her parent, existing law generally requires the court to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent at the review hearings held 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months, respectively, after the initial disposition hearing, 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. In making this determination, existing law requires the court to consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of reunification services, taking into account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or guardians access to those court-mandated reunification services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
This bill would require the court, in making its determination at those review hearings, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent.
(2)If a child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, as specified, existing law authorizes the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, as specified.
This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the initial hearing who is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return for a subsequent permanency review hearing.
(1)Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of his or her parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine temporary placement of a dependent child. When a court orders the removal of a child from the physical custody of his or her parent, existing law generally requires the court to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent at the review hearings held 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months, respectively, after the initial disposition hearing, 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. In making this determination, existing law requires the court to consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of reunification services, taking into account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or guardians access to those court-mandated reunification services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
This bill would require the court, in making its determination at those review hearings, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent.
(2)If a child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, as specified, existing law authorizes the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, as specified.
This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the initial hearing who is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return for a subsequent permanency review hearing.
(1)Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of his or her parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine temporary placement of a dependent child. When a court orders the removal of a child from the physical custody of his or her parent, existing law generally requires the court to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent at the review hearings held 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months, respectively, after the initial disposition hearing, 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. In making this determination, existing law requires the court to consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of reunification services, taking into account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or guardians access to those court-mandated reunification services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
This bill would require the court, in making its determination at those review hearings, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent. parent or a nonminor dependent parent.
(2)If a child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, as specified, existing law authorizes the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, as specified.
This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the initial hearing who is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return for a subsequent permanency review hearing.
(1)Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of his or her parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine temporary placement of a dependent child. Existing law prescribes various hearings, including specified review hearings, and other procedures for these purposes. Existing law generally requires the court to order the social worker to provide designated child welfare services, including family reunification services, to the child and the childs mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. Existing law does not require the provision of family reunification services in cases in which the court has made one or more specified findings regarding the qualifications of the parent or guardian. Existing law prohibits the court from ordering reunification for a parent or guardian described under specified provisions, unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.
This bill would instead require the court to order reunification services for a parent described under specified provisions if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred. Because providing reunification services imposes additional duties on social workers and other county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) child. When a court orders the removal of a child from the physical custody of his or her parent, existing law generally requires the court to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent at the review hearings held 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months, respectively, after the initial disposition hearing, 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. In making this determination, existing law requires the court to consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of reunification services, taking into account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or guardians access to those court-mandated reunification services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
This bill would require the court, in making its determination at those review hearings, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent.
(3)
(2)If a child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, as specified, existing law authorizes the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, as specified.
This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent at the initial hearing who is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return and for a subsequent permanency review hearing.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
(1)Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of his or her parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine temporary placement of a dependent child. Existing law prescribes various hearings, including specified review hearings, and other procedures for these purposes. Existing law generally requires the court to order the social worker to provide designated child welfare services, including family reunification services, to the child and the childs mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. Existing law does not require the provision of family reunification services in cases in which the court has made one or more specified findings regarding the qualifications of the parent or guardian. Existing law prohibits the court from ordering reunification for a parent or guardian described under specified provisions, unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.
This bill would instead require the court to order reunification services for a parent described under those specified provisions if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred. Because providing reunification services imposes additional duties on social workers and other county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)When a court orders the removal of a child from the physical custody of his or her parent, existing law generally requires the court to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent at the review hearings held 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months, respectively, after the initial disposition hearing, 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. In making this determination, existing law requires the court to consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of reunification services, taking into account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or guardians access to those court-mandated reunification services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
This bill would require the court, in making its determination at those review hearings, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent.
(3)If a child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, as specified, existing law authorizes the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, as specified.
This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent at the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return and a subsequent permanency review hearing.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
(1)Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of his or her parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine temporary placement of a dependent child. Existing law prescribes various hearings, including specified review hearings, and other procedures for these purposes. Existing law generally requires the court to order the social worker to provide designated child welfare services, including family reunification services, to the child and the childs mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. Existing law does not require the provision of family reunification services in cases in which the court has made one or more specified findings regarding the qualifications of the parent or guardian. Existing law prohibits the court from ordering reunification for a parent or guardian described under specified provisions, unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.
This bill would instead require the court to order reunification services for a parent described under those provisions if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred. Because providing reunification services imposes additional duties on social workers and other county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)When a court orders the removal of a child from the physical custody of his or her parent, existing law generally requires the court to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent at the review hearings held 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months, respectively, after the initial disposition hearing, 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. In making this determination, existing law requires the court to consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of reunification services, taking into account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or guardians access to those court-mandated reunification services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
This bill would require the court, in making its determination at those review hearings, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent.
(3)If a child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, as specified, existing law authorizes the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, as specified.
This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent at the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return and a subsequent permanency review hearing.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable him or her to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian; and shall make his or her recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including his or her recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, provide a summary of his or her recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of recommendations to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing his or her recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, where relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case where, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(f)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist him or her in making the transition from foster care to independent living. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in long-term foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(m)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivisions (c) and (g) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 2.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is amended to read:366.22.(a)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Whether or not the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in long-term foster care. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(1)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(2)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(3)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to his or her country of origin and his or her return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivision (a) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable him or her to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian; and shall make his or her recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including his or her recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, provide a summary of his or her recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of recommendations to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing his or her recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, where relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case where, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(f)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist him or her in making the transition from foster care to independent living. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in long-term foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(m)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivisions (c) and (g) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 2.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is amended to read:366.22.(a)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Whether or not the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in long-term foster care. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(1)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(2)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(3)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to his or her country of origin and his or her return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivision (a) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable him or her to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian; and shall make his or her recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including his or her recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, provide a summary of his or her recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of recommendations to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing his or her recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to, to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, where relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case where, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(f)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist him or her in making the transition from foster care to independent living. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access, access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in long-term foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(m)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivisions (c) and (g) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 2.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as amended by Section 7 of Chapter 219 of the Statutes of 2014, Code, is amended to read:366.22.(a)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Whether or not the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in long-term foster care. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a minor parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(1)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(2)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(3)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to his or her country of origin and his or her return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivision (a) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
(a)Except as provided in subdivision (b), or when the parent has voluntarily relinquished the child and the relinquishment has been filed with the State Department of Social Services, or upon the establishment of an order of guardianship pursuant to Section 360, or when a court adjudicates a petition under Section 329 to modify the courts jurisdiction from delinquency jurisdiction to dependency jurisdiction pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 607.2 and the parents or guardian of the ward have had reunification services terminated under the delinquency jurisdiction, whenever a child is removed from a parents or guardians custody, the juvenile court shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the childs mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. Upon a finding and declaration of paternity by the juvenile court or proof of a prior declaration of paternity by any court of competent jurisdiction, the juvenile court may order services for the child and the biological father, if the court determines that the services will benefit the child.
(1)Family reunification services, when provided, shall be provided as follows:
(A)Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (C), for a child who, on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, was three years of age or older, court-ordered services shall be provided beginning with the dispositional hearing and ending 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as provided in Section 361.49, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian.
(B)For a child who, on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, was under three years of age, court-ordered services shall be provided for a period of six months from the dispositional hearing as provided in subdivision (e) of Section 366.21, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care as provided in Section 361.49 unless the child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian.
(C)For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home should reunification efforts fail, for a child in a sibling group whose members were removed from parental custody at the same time, and in which one member of the sibling group was under three years of age on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, court-ordered services for some or all of the sibling group may be limited as set forth in subparagraph (B). For the purposes of this paragraph, a sibling group shall mean two or more children who are related to each other as full or half siblings.
(2)Any motion to terminate court-ordered reunification services prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), or prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), shall be made pursuant to the requirements set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 388. A motion to terminate court-ordered reunification services shall not be required at the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence one of the following:
(A)That the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown.
(B)That the parent has failed to contact and visit the child.
(C)That the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness.
(3)Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1), court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent or guardian if it can be shown, at the hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 366.21, that the permanent plan for the child is that he or she will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or guardian. In determining whether court-ordered services may be extended, the court shall consider the special circumstances of an incarcerated or institutionalized parent or parents, parent or parents court-ordered to a residential substance abuse treatment program, or a parent who has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, including, but not limited to, barriers to the parents or guardians access to services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child. The court shall also consider, among other factors, good faith efforts that the parent or guardian has made to maintain contact with the child. If the court extends the time period, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period. The court also shall make findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366 and subdivision (e) of Section 358.1.
When counseling or other treatment services are ordered, the parent or guardian shall be ordered to participate in those services, unless the parents or guardians participation is deemed by the court to be inappropriate or potentially detrimental to the child, or unless a parent or guardian is incarcerated or detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the corrections facility in which he or she is incarcerated does not provide access to the treatment services ordered by the court, or has been deported to his or her country of origin and services ordered by the court are not accessible in that country. Physical custody of the child by the parents or guardians during the applicable time period under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) shall not serve to interrupt the running of the time period. If at the end of the applicable time period, a child cannot be safely returned to the care and custody of a parent or guardian without court supervision, but the child clearly desires contact with the parent or guardian, the court shall take the childs desire into account in devising a permanency plan.
In cases where the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian or is a member of a sibling group as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), the court shall inform the parent or guardian that the failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court-ordered treatment programs or to cooperate or avail himself or herself of services provided as part of the child welfare services case plan may result in a termination of efforts to reunify the family after six months. The court shall inform the parent or guardian of the factors used in subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 to determine whether to limit services to six months for some or all members of a sibling group as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1).
(4)Notwithstanding paragraph (3), court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 24 months after the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent or guardian if it is shown, at the hearing held pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, that the permanent plan for the child is that he or she will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that it is in the childs best interest to have the time period extended and that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian who is described in subdivision (b) of Section 366.22 within the extended time period, or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or guardian. If the court extends the time period, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period. The court also shall make findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366 and subdivision (e) of Section 358.1.
When counseling or other treatment services are ordered, the parent or guardian shall be ordered to participate in those services, in order for substantial probability to be found. Physical custody of the child by the parents or guardians during the applicable time period under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) shall not serve to interrupt the running of the time period. If at the end of the applicable time period, the child cannot be safely returned to the care and custody of a parent or guardian without court supervision, but the child clearly desires contact with the parent or guardian, the court shall take the childs desire into account in devising a permanency plan.
Except in cases where, pursuant to subdivision (b), the court does not order reunification services, the court shall inform the parent or parents of Section 366.26 and shall specify that the parents or parents parental rights may be terminated.
(b)Reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following:
(1)That the whereabouts of the parent or guardian is unknown. A finding pursuant to this paragraph shall be supported by an affidavit or by proof that a reasonably diligent search has failed to locate the parent or guardian. The posting or publication of notices is not required in that search.
(2)That the parent or guardian is suffering from a mental disability that is described in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7820) of Part 4 of Division 12 of the Family Code and that renders him or her incapable of utilizing those services.
(3)That the child or a sibling of the child has been previously adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of physical or sexual abuse, that following that adjudication the child had been removed from the custody of his or her parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361, that the child has been returned to the custody of the parent or guardian from whom the child had been taken originally, and that the child is being removed pursuant to Section 361, due to additional physical or sexual abuse.
(4)That the parent or guardian of the child has caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect.
(5)That the child was brought within the jurisdiction of the court under subdivision (e) of Section 300 because of the conduct of that parent or guardian.
(6)That the child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of severe sexual abuse or the infliction of severe physical harm to the child, a sibling, or a half sibling by a parent or guardian, as defined in this subdivision, and the court makes a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services with the offending parent or guardian.
A finding of severe sexual abuse, for the purposes of this subdivision, may be based on, but is not limited to, sexual intercourse, or stimulation involving genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal contact, whether between the parent or guardian and the child or a sibling or half sibling of the child, or between the child or a sibling or half sibling of the child and another person or animal with the actual or implied consent of the parent or guardian; or the penetration or manipulation of the childs, siblings, or half siblings genital organs or rectum by any animate or inanimate object for the sexual gratification of the parent or guardian, or for the sexual gratification of another person with the actual or implied consent of the parent or guardian.
A finding of the infliction of severe physical harm, for the purposes of this subdivision, may be based on, but is not limited to, deliberate and serious injury inflicted to or on a childs body or the body of a sibling or half sibling of the child by an act or omission of the parent or guardian, or of another individual or animal with the consent of the parent or guardian; deliberate and torturous confinement of the child, sibling, or half sibling in a closed space; or any other torturous act or omission that would be reasonably understood to cause serious emotional damage.
(7)That the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling or a half sibling of the child pursuant to paragraph (3), (5), or (6).
(8)That the child was conceived by means of the commission of an offense listed in Section 288 or 288.5 of the Penal Code, or by an act committed outside of this state that, if committed in this state, would constitute one of those offenses. This paragraph only applies to the parent who committed the offense or act.
(9)That the child has been found to be a child described in subdivision (g) of Section 300; that the parent or guardian of the child willfully abandoned the child, and the court finds that the abandonment itself constituted a serious danger to the child; or that the parent or other person having custody of the child voluntarily surrendered physical custody of the child pursuant to Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code. For the purposes of this paragraph, serious danger means that without the intervention of another person or agency, the child would have sustained severe or permanent disability, injury, illness, or death. For purposes of this paragraph, willful abandonment shall not be construed as actions taken in good faith by the parent without the intent of placing the child in serious danger.
(10)That the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings or half siblings of the child because the parent or guardian failed to reunify with the sibling or half sibling after the sibling or half sibling had been removed from that parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361 and that parent or guardian is the same parent or guardian described in subdivision (a) and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from that parent or guardian.
(11)That the parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half sibling of the child had been permanently severed, and this parent is the same parent described in subdivision (a), and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from the parent.
(12)That the parent or guardian of the child has been convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.
(13)That the parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the courts attention, or has failed or refused to comply with a program of drug or alcohol treatment described in the case plan required by Section 358.1 on at least two prior occasions, even though the programs identified were available and accessible.
(14)That the parent or guardian of the child has advised the court that he or she is not interested in receiving family maintenance or family reunification services or having the child returned to or placed in his or her custody and does not wish to receive family maintenance or reunification services.
The parent or guardian shall be represented by counsel and shall execute a waiver of services form to be adopted by the Judicial Council. The court shall advise the parent or guardian of any right to services and of the possible consequences of a waiver of services, including the termination of parental rights and placement of the child for adoption. The court shall not accept the waiver of services unless it states on the record its finding that the parent or guardian has knowingly and intelligently waived the right to services.
(15)That the parent or guardian has on one or more occasions willfully abducted the child or childs sibling or half sibling from his or her placement and refused to disclose the childs or childs siblings or half siblings whereabouts, refused to return physical custody of the child or childs sibling or half sibling to his or her placement, or refused to return physical custody of the child or childs sibling or half sibling to the social worker.
(16)That the parent or guardian has been required by the court to be registered on a sex offender registry under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 16913(a)), as required in Section 106(b)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI) of the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5106a(a)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI)).
(c)(1)In deciding whether to order reunification in any case in which this section applies, the court shall hold a dispositional hearing. The social worker shall prepare a report that discusses whether reunification services shall be provided. When it is alleged, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), that the parent is incapable of utilizing services due to mental disability, the court shall order reunification services unless competent evidence from mental health professionals establishes that, even with the provision of services, the parent is unlikely to be capable of adequately caring for the child within the time limits specified in subdivision (a).
(2)The court shall not order reunification for a parent or guardian described in paragraph (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), or (16) of subdivision (b) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.
(3)In addition, the court shall not order reunification in any situation described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) unless it finds that, based on competent testimony, those services are likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect of the child or that failure to try reunification will be detrimental to the child because the child is closely and positively attached to that parent. The social worker shall investigate the circumstances leading to the removal of the child and advise the court whether there are circumstances that indicate that reunification is likely to be successful or unsuccessful and whether failure to order reunification is likely to be detrimental to the child.
(4)Notwithstanding paragraph (2) or (3), the court shall order reunification services for a parent described in paragraph (7), (10), (11), or (13) of subdivision (b) if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred.
(5)The failure of the parent to respond to previous services, the fact that the child was abused while the parent was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, a past history of violent behavior, or testimony by a competent professional that the parents behavior is unlikely to be changed by services are among the factors indicating that reunification services are unlikely to be successful. The fact that a parent or guardian is no longer living with an individual who severely abused the child may be considered in deciding that reunification services are likely to be successful, provided that the court shall consider any pattern of behavior on the part of the parent that has exposed the child to repeated abuse.
(d)If reunification services are not ordered pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and the whereabouts of a parent become known within six months of the out-of-home placement of the child, the court shall order the social worker to provide family reunification services in accordance with this subdivision.
(e)(1)If the parent or guardian is incarcerated, institutionalized, or detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or has been deported to his or her country of origin, the court shall order reasonable services unless the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, those services would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment, the court shall consider the age of the child, the degree of parent-child bonding, the length of the sentence, the length and nature of the treatment, the nature of the crime or illness, the degree of detriment to the child if services are not offered and, for children 10 years of age or older, the childs attitude toward the implementation of family reunification services, the likelihood of the parents discharge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention within the reunification time limitations described in subdivision (a), and any other appropriate factors. In determining the content of reasonable services, the court shall consider the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall document this information in the childs case plan. Reunification services are subject to the applicable time limitations imposed in subdivision (a). Services may include, but shall not be limited to, all of the following:
(A)Maintaining contact between the parent and child through collect telephone calls.
(B)Transportation services, where appropriate.
(C)Visitation services, where appropriate.
(D)Reasonable services to extended family members or foster parents providing care for the child if the services are not detrimental to the child.
An incarcerated or detained parent may be required to attend counseling, parenting classes, or vocational training programs as part of the reunification service plan if actual access to these services is provided. The social worker shall document in the childs case plan the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, or detained parents access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
(E)Reasonable efforts to assist parents who have been deported to contact child welfare authorities in their country of origin, to identify any available services that would substantially comply with case plan requirements, to document the parents participation in those services, and to accept reports from local child welfare authorities as to the parents living situation, progress, and participation in services.
(2)The presiding judge of the juvenile court of each county may convene representatives of the county welfare department, the sheriffs department, and other appropriate entities for the purpose of developing and entering into protocols for ensuring the notification, transportation, and presence of an incarcerated or institutionalized parent at all court hearings involving proceedings affecting the child pursuant to Section 2625 of the Penal Code. The county welfare department shall utilize the prisoner locator system developed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to facilitate timely and effective notice of hearings for incarcerated parents.
(3)Notwithstanding any other law, if the incarcerated parent is a woman seeking to participate in the community treatment program operated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to Chapter 4.8 (commencing with Section 1174) of Title 7 of Part 2 of, Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3410) of Title 2 of Part 3 of, the Penal Code, the court shall determine whether the parents participation in a program is in the childs best interest and whether it is suitable to meet the needs of the parent and child.
(f)If the court, pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), or (16) of subdivision (b) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), does not order reunification services, it shall, at the dispositional hearing, that shall include a permanency hearing, determine if a hearing under Section 366.26 shall be set in order to determine whether adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, is the most appropriate plan for the child, and shall consider in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the court so determines, it shall conduct the hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days after the dispositional hearing. However, the court shall not schedule a hearing so long as the other parent is being provided reunification services pursuant to subdivision (a). The court may continue to permit the parent to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.
(g)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents and notification of a noncustodial parent in the manner provided for in Section 291.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history, including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4. As used in this subparagraph, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or guardian, including a prospective tribal customary parent, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child over 12 years of age has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(h)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(i)In determining whether reunification services will benefit the child pursuant to paragraph (6) or (7) of subdivision (b), the court shall consider any information it deems relevant, including the following factors:
(1)The specific act or omission comprising the severe sexual abuse or the severe physical harm inflicted on the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(2)The circumstances under which the abuse or harm was inflicted on the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(3)The severity of the emotional trauma suffered by the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(4)Any history of abuse of other children by the offending parent or guardian.
(5)The likelihood that the child may be safely returned to the care of the offending parent or guardian within 12 months with no continuing supervision.
(6)Whether or not the child desires to be reunified with the offending parent or guardian.
(j)When the court determines that reunification services will not be ordered, it shall order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court determines that reunification services will not be ordered, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(k)The court shall read into the record the basis for a finding of severe sexual abuse or the infliction of severe physical harm under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), and shall also specify the factual findings used to determine that the provision of reunification services to the offending parent or guardian would not benefit the child.
SEC. 2.SECTION 1.Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as amended by Section 6 of Chapter 219 of the Statutes of 2014, is amended to read:366.21.(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable him or her to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian; and shall make his or her recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including his or her recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, provide a summary of his or her recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of recommendations to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing his or her recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to, those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, where relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case where, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(f)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist him or her in making the transition from foster care to independent living. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access, to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in long-term foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(m)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivisions (c) and (g) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 3.SEC. 2.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as amended by Section 7 of Chapter 219 of the Statutes of 2014, is amended to read:366.22.(a)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Whether or not the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in long-term foster care. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a minor parent at the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(1)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(2)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(3)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to his or her country of origin and his or her return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivision (a) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)Except as provided in subdivision (b), or when the parent has voluntarily relinquished the child and the relinquishment has been filed with the State Department of Social Services, or upon the establishment of an order of guardianship pursuant to Section 360, or when a court adjudicates a petition under Section 329 to modify the courts jurisdiction from delinquency jurisdiction to dependency jurisdiction pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 607.2 and the parents or guardian of the ward have had reunification services terminated under the delinquency jurisdiction, whenever a child is removed from a parents or guardians custody, the juvenile court shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the childs mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. Upon a finding and declaration of paternity by the juvenile court or proof of a prior declaration of paternity by any court of competent jurisdiction, the juvenile court may order services for the child and the biological father, if the court determines that the services will benefit the child.
(1)Family reunification services, when provided, shall be provided as follows:
(A)Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (C), for a child who, on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, was three years of age or older, court-ordered services shall be provided beginning with the dispositional hearing and ending 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as provided in Section 361.49, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian.
(B)For a child who, on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, was under three years of age, court-ordered services shall be provided for a period of six months from the dispositional hearing as provided in subdivision (e) of Section 366.21, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care as provided in Section 361.49 unless the child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian.
(C)For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home should reunification efforts fail, for a child in a sibling group whose members were removed from parental custody at the same time, and in which one member of the sibling group was under three years of age on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, court-ordered services for some or all of the sibling group may be limited as set forth in subparagraph (B). For the purposes of this paragraph, a sibling group shall mean two or more children who are related to each other as full or half siblings.
(2)Any motion to terminate court-ordered reunification services prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), or prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), shall be made pursuant to the requirements set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 388. A motion to terminate court-ordered reunification services shall not be required at the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence one of the following:
(A)That the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown.
(B)That the parent has failed to contact and visit the child.
(C)That the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness.
(3)Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1), court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent or guardian if it can be shown, at the hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 366.21, that the permanent plan for the child is that he or she will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or guardian. In determining whether court-ordered services may be extended, the court shall consider the special circumstances of an incarcerated or institutionalized parent or parents, parent or parents court-ordered to a residential substance abuse treatment program, or a parent who has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, including, but not limited to, barriers to the parents or guardians access to services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child. The court shall also consider, among other factors, good faith efforts that the parent or guardian has made to maintain contact with the child. If the court extends the time period, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period. The court also shall make findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366 and subdivision (e) of Section 358.1.
When counseling or other treatment services are ordered, the parent or guardian shall be ordered to participate in those services, unless the parents or guardians participation is deemed by the court to be inappropriate or potentially detrimental to the child, or unless a parent or guardian is incarcerated of or detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the corrections facility in which he or she is incarcerated does not provide access to the treatment services ordered by the court, or has been deported to his or her country of origin and services ordered by the court are not accessible in that country. Physical custody of the child by the parents or guardians during the applicable time period under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) shall not serve to interrupt the running of the time period. If at the end of the applicable time period, a child cannot be safely returned to the care and custody of a parent or guardian without court supervision, but the child clearly desires contact with the parent or guardian, the court shall take the childs desire into account in devising a permanency plan.
In cases where the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian or is a member of a sibling group as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), the court shall inform the parent or guardian that the failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court-ordered treatment programs or to cooperate or avail himself or herself of services provided as part of the child welfare services case plan may result in a termination of efforts to reunify the family after six months. The court shall inform the parent or guardian of the factors used in subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 to determine whether to limit services to six months for some or all members of a sibling group as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1).
(4)Notwithstanding paragraph (3), court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 24 months after the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent or guardian if it is shown, at the hearing held pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, that the permanent plan for the child is that he or she will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that it is in the childs best interest to have the time period extended and that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian who is described in subdivision (b) of Section 366.22 within the extended time period, or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or guardian. If the court extends the time period, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period. The court also shall make findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366 and subdivision (e) of Section 358.1.
When counseling or other treatment services are ordered, the parent or guardian shall be ordered to participate in those services, in order for substantial probability to be found. Physical custody of the child by the parents or guardians during the applicable time period under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) shall not serve to interrupt the running of the time period. If at the end of the applicable time period, the child cannot be safely returned to the care and custody of a parent or guardian without court supervision, but the child clearly desires contact with the parent or guardian, the court shall take the childs desire into account in devising a permanency plan.
Except in cases where, pursuant to subdivision (b), the court does not order reunification services, the court shall inform the parent or parents of Section 366.26 and shall specify that the parents or parents parental rights may be terminated.
(b)Reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following:
(1)That the whereabouts of the parent or guardian is unknown. A finding pursuant to this paragraph shall be supported by an affidavit or by proof that a reasonably diligent search has failed to locate the parent or guardian. The posting or publication of notices is not required in that search.
(2)That the parent or guardian is suffering from a mental disability that is described in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7820) of Part 4 of Division 12 of the Family Code and that renders him or her incapable of utilizing those services.
(3)That the child or a sibling of the child has been previously adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of physical or sexual abuse, that following that adjudication the child had been removed from the custody of his or her parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361, that the child has been returned to the custody of the parent or guardian from whom the child had been taken originally, and that the child is being removed pursuant to Section 361, due to additional physical or sexual abuse.
(4)That the parent or guardian of the child has caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect.
(5)That the child was brought within the jurisdiction of the court under subdivision (e) of Section 300 because of the conduct of that parent or guardian.
(6)That the child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of severe sexual abuse or the infliction of severe physical harm to the child, a sibling, or a half sibling by a parent or guardian, as defined in this subdivision, and the court makes a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services with the offending parent or guardian.
A finding of severe sexual abuse, for the purposes of this subdivision, may be based on, but is not limited to, sexual intercourse, or stimulation involving genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal contact, whether between the parent or guardian and the child or a sibling or half sibling of the child, or between the child or a sibling or half sibling of the child and another person or animal with the actual or implied consent of the parent or guardian; or the penetration or manipulation of the childs, siblings, or half siblings genital organs or rectum by any animate or inanimate object for the sexual gratification of the parent or guardian, or for the sexual gratification of another person with the actual or implied consent of the parent or guardian.
A finding of the infliction of severe physical harm, for the purposes of this subdivision, may be based on, but is not limited to, deliberate and serious injury inflicted to or on a childs body or the body of a sibling or half sibling of the child by an act or omission of the parent or guardian, or of another individual or animal with the consent of the parent or guardian; deliberate and torturous confinement of the child, sibling, or half sibling in a closed space; or any other torturous act or omission that would be reasonably understood to cause serious emotional damage.
(7)That the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling or a half sibling of the child pursuant to paragraph (3), (5), or (6).
(8)That the child was conceived by means of the commission of an offense listed in Section 288 or 288.5 of the Penal Code, or by an act committed outside of this state that, if committed in this state, would constitute one of those offenses. This paragraph only applies to the parent who committed the offense or act.
(9)That the child has been found to be a child described in subdivision (g) of Section 300; that the parent or guardian of the child willfully abandoned the child, and the court finds that the abandonment itself constituted a serious danger to the child; or that the parent or other person having custody of the child voluntarily surrendered physical custody of the child pursuant to Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code. For the purposes of this paragraph, serious danger means that without the intervention of another person or agency, the child would have sustained severe or permanent disability, injury, illness, or death. For purposes of this paragraph, willful abandonment shall not be construed as actions taken in good faith by the parent without the intent of placing the child in serious danger.
(10)That the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings or half siblings of the child because the parent or guardian failed to reunify with the sibling or half sibling after the sibling or half sibling had been removed from that parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361 and that parent or guardian is the same parent or guardian described in subdivision (a) and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from that parent or guardian.
(11)That the parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half sibling of the child had been permanently severed, and this parent is the same parent described in subdivision (a), and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from the parent.
(12)That the parent or guardian of the child has been convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.
(13)That the parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the courts attention, or has failed or refused to comply with a program of drug or alcohol treatment described in the case plan required by Section 358.1 on at least two prior occasions, even though the programs identified were available and accessible.
(14)That the parent or guardian of the child has advised the court that he or she is not interested in receiving family maintenance or family reunification services or having the child returned to or placed in his or her custody and does not wish to receive family maintenance or reunification services.
The parent or guardian shall be represented by counsel and shall execute a waiver of services form to be adopted by the Judicial Council. The court shall advise the parent or guardian of any right to services and of the possible consequences of a waiver of services, including the termination of parental rights and placement of the child for adoption. The court shall not accept the waiver of services unless it states on the record its finding that the parent or guardian has knowingly and intelligently waived the right to services.
(15)That the parent or guardian has on one or more occasions willfully abducted the child or childs sibling or half sibling from his or her placement and refused to disclose the childs or childs siblings or half siblings whereabouts, refused to return physical custody of the child or childs sibling or half sibling to his or her placement, or refused to return physical custody of the child or childs sibling or half sibling to the social worker.
(16)That the parent or guardian has been required by the court to be registered on a sex offender registry under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 16913(a)), as required in Section 106(b)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI) of the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5106a(a)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI)).
(c)(1)In deciding whether to order reunification in any case in which this section applies, the court shall hold a dispositional hearing. The social worker shall prepare a report that discusses whether reunification services shall be provided. When it is alleged, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), that the parent is incapable of utilizing services due to mental disability, the court shall order reunification services unless competent evidence from mental health professionals establishes that, even with the provision of services, the parent is unlikely to be capable of adequately caring for the child within the time limits specified in subdivision (a).
(2)The court shall not order reunification for a parent or guardian described in paragraph (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), or (16) of subdivision (b) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.
(3)In addition, the court shall not order reunification in any situation described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) unless it finds that, based on competent testimony, those services are likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect of the child or that failure to try reunification will be detrimental to the child because the child is closely and positively attached to that parent. The social worker shall investigate the circumstances leading to the removal of the child and advise the court whether there are circumstances that indicate that reunification is likely to be successful or unsuccessful and whether failure to order reunification is likely to be detrimental to the child.
(4)Notwithstanding paragraph (2) or (3), the court shall order reunification services for a parent described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), or (16) or (13) of subdivision (b) if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred.
(5)The failure of the parent to respond to previous services, the fact that the child was abused while the parent was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, a past history of violent behavior, or testimony by a competent professional that the parents behavior is unlikely to be changed by services are among the factors indicating that reunification services are unlikely to be successful. The fact that a parent or guardian is no longer living with an individual who severely abused the child may be considered in deciding that reunification services are likely to be successful, provided that the court shall consider any pattern of behavior on the part of the parent that has exposed the child to repeated abuse.
(d)If reunification services are not ordered pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and the whereabouts of a parent become known within six months of the out-of-home placement of the child, the court shall order the social worker to provide family reunification services in accordance with this subdivision.
(e)(1)If the parent or guardian is incarcerated, institutionalized, or detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or has been deported to his or her country of origin, the court shall order reasonable services unless the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, those services would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment, the court shall consider the age of the child, the degree of parent-child bonding, the length of the sentence, the length and nature of the treatment, the nature of the crime or illness, the degree of detriment to the child if services are not offered and, for children 10 years of age or older, the childs attitude toward the implementation of family reunification services, the likelihood of the parents discharge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention within the reunification time limitations described in subdivision (a), and any other appropriate factors. In determining the content of reasonable services, the court shall consider the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall document this information in the childs case plan. Reunification services are subject to the applicable time limitations imposed in subdivision (a). Services may include, but shall not be limited to, all of the following:
(A)Maintaining contact between the parent and child through collect telephone calls.
(B)Transportation services, where appropriate.
(C)Visitation services, where appropriate.
(D)Reasonable services to extended family members or foster parents providing care for the child if the services are not detrimental to the child.
An incarcerated or detained parent may be required to attend counseling, parenting classes, or vocational training programs as part of the reunification service plan if actual access to these services is provided. The social worker shall document in the childs case plan the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, or detained parents access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
(E)Reasonable efforts to assist parents who have been deported to contact child welfare authorities in their country of origin, to identify any available services that would substantially comply with case plan requirements, to document the parents participation in those services, and to accept reports from local child welfare authorities as to the parents living situation, progress, and participation in services.
(2)The presiding judge of the juvenile court of each county may convene representatives of the county welfare department, the sheriffs department, and other appropriate entities for the purpose of developing and entering into protocols for ensuring the notification, transportation, and presence of an incarcerated or institutionalized parent at all court hearings involving proceedings affecting the child pursuant to Section 2625 of the Penal Code. The county welfare department shall utilize the prisoner locator system developed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to facilitate timely and effective notice of hearings for incarcerated parents.
(3)Notwithstanding any other law, if the incarcerated parent is a woman seeking to participate in the community treatment program operated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to Chapter 4.8 (commencing with Section 1174) of Title 7 of Part 2 of, Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3410) of Title 2 of Part 3 of, the Penal Code, the court shall determine whether the parents participation in a program is in the childs best interest and whether it is suitable to meet the needs of the parent and child.
(f)If the court, pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), or (16) of subdivision (b) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), does not order reunification services, it shall, at the dispositional hearing, that shall include a permanency hearing, determine if a hearing under Section 366.26 shall be set in order to determine whether adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, is the most appropriate plan for the child, and shall consider in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the court so determines, it shall conduct the hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days after the dispositional hearing. However, the court shall not schedule a hearing so long as the other parent is being provided reunification services pursuant to subdivision (a). The court may continue to permit the parent to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.
(g)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents and notification of a noncustodial parent in the manner provided for in Section 291.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history, including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4. As used in this subparagraph, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or guardian, including a prospective tribal customary parent, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child over 12 years of age has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(h)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(i)In determining whether reunification services will benefit the child pursuant to paragraph (6) or (7) of subdivision (b), the court shall consider any information it deems relevant, including the following factors:
(1)The specific act or omission comprising the severe sexual abuse or the severe physical harm inflicted on the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(2)The circumstances under which the abuse or harm was inflicted on the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(3)The severity of the emotional trauma suffered by the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(4)Any history of abuse of other children by the offending parent or guardian.
(5)The likelihood that the child may be safely returned to the care of the offending parent or guardian within 12 months with no continuing supervision.
(6)Whether or not the child desires to be reunified with the offending parent or guardian.
(j)When the court determines that reunification services will not be ordered, it shall order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court determines that reunification services will not be ordered, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(k)The court shall read into the record the basis for a finding of severe sexual abuse or the infliction of severe physical harm under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), and shall also specify the factual findings used to determine that the provision of reunification services to the offending parent or guardian would not benefit the child.
SEC. 2.Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as amended by Section 6 of Chapter 219 of the Statutes of 2014, is amended to read:366.21.(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable him or her to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian; and shall make his or her recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including his or her recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, provide a summary of his or her recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of recommendations to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing his or her recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to, those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, where relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case where, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(f)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist him or her in making the transition from foster care to independent living. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access, to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in long-term foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances may shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(m)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivisions (c) and (g) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 3.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as amended by Section 7 of Chapter 219 of the Statutes of 2014, is amended to read:366.22.(a)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Whether or not the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in long-term foster care. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a minor parent at the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(1)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(2)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(3)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to his or her country of origin and his or her return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court may shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivision (a) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)Except as provided in subdivision (b), or when the parent has voluntarily relinquished the child and the relinquishment has been filed with the State Department of Social Services, or upon the establishment of an order of guardianship pursuant to Section 360, or when a court adjudicates a petition under Section 329 to modify the courts jurisdiction from delinquency jurisdiction to dependency jurisdiction pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 607.2 and the parents or guardian of the ward have had reunification services terminated under the delinquency jurisdiction, whenever a child is removed from a parents or guardians custody, the juvenile court shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the childs mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. Upon a finding and declaration of paternity by the juvenile court or proof of a prior declaration of paternity by any court of competent jurisdiction, the juvenile court may order services for the child and the biological father, if the court determines that the services will benefit the child.
(1)Family reunification services, when provided, shall be provided as follows:
(A)Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (C), for a child who, on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, was three years of age or older, court-ordered services shall be provided beginning with the dispositional hearing and ending 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as provided in Section 361.49, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian.
(B)For a child who, on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, was under three years of age, court-ordered services shall be provided for a period of six months from the dispositional hearing as provided in subdivision (e) of Section 366.21, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care as provided in Section 361.49 unless the child is returned to the home of the parent or guardian.
(C)For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home should reunification efforts fail, for a child in a sibling group whose members were removed from parental custody at the same time, and in which one member of the sibling group was under three years of age on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, court-ordered services for some or all of the sibling group may be limited as set forth in subparagraph (B). For the purposes of this paragraph, a sibling group shall mean two or more children who are related to each other as full or half siblings.
(2)Any motion to terminate court-ordered reunification services prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), or prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), shall be made pursuant to the requirements set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 388. A motion to terminate court-ordered reunification services shall not be required at the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence one of the following:
(A)That the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown.
(B)That the parent has failed to contact and visit the child.
(C)That the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness.
(3)Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1), court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent or guardian if it can be shown, at the hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 366.21, that the permanent plan for the child is that he or she will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or guardian. In determining whether court-ordered services may be extended, the court shall consider the special circumstances of an incarcerated or institutionalized parent or parents, parent or parents court-ordered to a residential substance abuse treatment program, or a parent who has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, including, but not limited to, barriers to the parents or guardians access to services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child. The court shall also consider, among other factors, good faith efforts that the parent or guardian has made to maintain contact with the child. If the court extends the time period, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period. The court also shall make findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366 and subdivision (e) of Section 358.1.
When counseling or other treatment services are ordered, the parent or guardian shall be ordered to participate in those services, unless the parents or guardians participation is deemed by the court to be inappropriate or potentially detrimental to the child, or unless a parent or guardian is incarcerated of detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the corrections facility in which he or she is incarcerated does not provide access to the treatment services ordered by the court, or has been deported to his or her country of origin and services ordered by the court are not accessible in that country. Physical custody of the child by the parents or guardians during the applicable time period under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) shall not serve to interrupt the running of the time period. If at the end of the applicable time period, a child cannot be safely returned to the care and custody of a parent or guardian without court supervision, but the child clearly desires contact with the parent or guardian, the court shall take the childs desire into account in devising a permanency plan.
In cases where the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian or is a member of a sibling group as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), the court shall inform the parent or guardian that the failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court-ordered treatment programs or to cooperate or avail himself or herself of services provided as part of the child welfare services case plan may result in a termination of efforts to reunify the family after six months. The court shall inform the parent or guardian of the factors used in subdivision (e) of Section 366.21 to determine whether to limit services to six months for some or all members of a sibling group as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1).
(4)Notwithstanding paragraph (3), court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 24 months after the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent or guardian if it is shown, at the hearing held pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, that the permanent plan for the child is that he or she will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that it is in the childs best interest to have the time period extended and that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian who is described in subdivision (b) of Section 366.22 within the extended time period, or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or guardian. If the court extends the time period, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period. The court also shall make findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366 and subdivision (e) of Section 358.1.
When counseling or other treatment services are ordered, the parent or guardian shall be ordered to participate in those services, in order for substantial probability to be found. Physical custody of the child by the parents or guardians during the applicable time period under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) shall not serve to interrupt the running of the time period. If at the end of the applicable time period, the child cannot be safely returned to the care and custody of a parent or guardian without court supervision, but the child clearly desires contact with the parent or guardian, the court shall take the childs desire into account in devising a permanency plan.
Except in cases where, pursuant to subdivision (b), the court does not order reunification services, the court shall inform the parent or parents of Section 366.26 and shall specify that the parents or parents parental rights may be terminated.
(b)Reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following:
(1)That the whereabouts of the parent or guardian is unknown. A finding pursuant to this paragraph shall be supported by an affidavit or by proof that a reasonably diligent search has failed to locate the parent or guardian. The posting or publication of notices is not required in that search.
(2)That the parent or guardian is suffering from a mental disability that is described in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7820) of Part 4 of Division 12 of the Family Code and that renders him or her incapable of utilizing those services.
(3)That the child or a sibling of the child has been previously adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of physical or sexual abuse, that following that adjudication the child had been removed from the custody of his or her parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361, that the child has been returned to the custody of the parent or guardian from whom the child had been taken originally, and that the child is being removed pursuant to Section 361, due to additional physical or sexual abuse.
(4)That the parent or guardian of the child has caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect.
(5)That the child was brought within the jurisdiction of the court under subdivision (e) of Section 300 because of the conduct of that parent or guardian.
(6)That the child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of severe sexual abuse or the infliction of severe physical harm to the child, a sibling, or a half sibling by a parent or guardian, as defined in this subdivision, and the court makes a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services with the offending parent or guardian.
A finding of severe sexual abuse, for the purposes of this subdivision, may be based on, but is not limited to, sexual intercourse, or stimulation involving genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal contact, whether between the parent or guardian and the child or a sibling or half sibling of the child, or between the child or a sibling or half sibling of the child and another person or animal with the actual or implied consent of the parent or guardian; or the penetration or manipulation of the childs, siblings, or half siblings genital organs or rectum by any animate or inanimate object for the sexual gratification of the parent or guardian, or for the sexual gratification of another person with the actual or implied consent of the parent or guardian.
A finding of the infliction of severe physical harm, for the purposes of this subdivision, may be based on, but is not limited to, deliberate and serious injury inflicted to or on a childs body or the body of a sibling or half sibling of the child by an act or omission of the parent or guardian, or of another individual or animal with the consent of the parent or guardian; deliberate and torturous confinement of the child, sibling, or half sibling in a closed space; or any other torturous act or omission that would be reasonably understood to cause serious emotional damage.
(7)That the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling or a half sibling of the child pursuant to paragraph (3), (5), or (6).
(8)That the child was conceived by means of the commission of an offense listed in Section 288 or 288.5 of the Penal Code, or by an act committed outside of this state that, if committed in this state, would constitute one of those offenses. This paragraph only applies to the parent who committed the offense or act.
(9)That the child has been found to be a child described in subdivision (g) of Section 300; that the parent or guardian of the child willfully abandoned the child, and the court finds that the abandonment itself constituted a serious danger to the child; or that the parent or other person having custody of the child voluntarily surrendered physical custody of the child pursuant to Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code. For the purposes of this paragraph, serious danger means that without the intervention of another person or agency, the child would have sustained severe or permanent disability, injury, illness, or death. For purposes of this paragraph, willful abandonment shall not be construed as actions taken in good faith by the parent without the intent of placing the child in serious danger.
(10)That the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings or half siblings of the child because the parent or guardian failed to reunify with the sibling or half sibling after the sibling or half sibling had been removed from that parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361 and that parent or guardian is the same parent or guardian described in subdivision (a) and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from that parent or guardian.
(11)That the parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half sibling of the child had been permanently severed, and this parent is the same parent described in subdivision (a), and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from the parent.
(12)That the parent or guardian of the child has been convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.
(13)That the parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the courts attention, or has failed or refused to comply with a program of drug or alcohol treatment described in the case plan required by Section 358.1 on at least two prior occasions, even though the programs identified were available and accessible.
(14)That the parent or guardian of the child has advised the court that he or she is not interested in receiving family maintenance or family reunification services or having the child returned to or placed in his or her custody and does not wish to receive family maintenance or reunification services.
The parent or guardian shall be represented by counsel and shall execute a waiver of services form to be adopted by the Judicial Council. The court shall advise the parent or guardian of any right to services and of the possible consequences of a waiver of services, including the termination of parental rights and placement of the child for adoption. The court shall not accept the waiver of services unless it states on the record its finding that the parent or guardian has knowingly and intelligently waived the right to services.
(15)That the parent or guardian has on one or more occasions willfully abducted the child or childs sibling or half sibling from his or her placement and refused to disclose the childs or childs siblings or half siblings whereabouts, refused to return physical custody of the child or childs sibling or half sibling to his or her placement, or refused to return physical custody of the child or childs sibling or half sibling to the social worker.
(16)That the parent or guardian has been required by the court to be registered on a sex offender registry under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 16913(a)), as required in Section 106(b)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5106a(a)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI)).
(c)(1)In deciding whether to order reunification in any case in which this section applies, the court shall hold a dispositional hearing. The social worker shall prepare a report that discusses whether reunification services shall be provided. When it is alleged, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), that the parent is incapable of utilizing services due to mental disability, the court shall order reunification services unless competent evidence from mental health professionals establishes that, even with the provision of services, the parent is unlikely to be capable of adequately caring for the child within the time limits specified in subdivision (a).
The
(2)The court shall not order reunification for a parent or guardian described in paragraph (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), or (16) of subdivision (b) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.
In
(3)In addition, the court shall not order reunification in any situation described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) unless it finds that, based on competent testimony, those services are likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect of the child or that failure to try reunification will be detrimental to the child because the child is closely and positively attached to that parent. The social worker shall investigate the circumstances leading to the removal of the child and advise the court whether there are circumstances that indicate that reunification is likely to be successful or unsuccessful and whether failure to order reunification is likely to be detrimental to the child.
(4)Notwithstanding paragraph (2) or (3), the court shall order reunification services for a parent described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), or (16) of subdivision (b) if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred.
The
(5)The failure of the parent to respond to previous services, the fact that the child was abused while the parent was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, a past history of violent behavior, or testimony by a competent professional that the parents behavior is unlikely to be changed by services are among the factors indicating that reunification services are unlikely to be successful. The fact that a parent or guardian is no longer living with an individual who severely abused the child may be considered in deciding that reunification services are likely to be successful, provided that the court shall consider any pattern of behavior on the part of the parent that has exposed the child to repeated abuse.
(d)If reunification services are not ordered pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and the whereabouts of a parent become known within six months of the out-of-home placement of the child, the court shall order the social worker to provide family reunification services in accordance with this subdivision.
(e)(1)If the parent or guardian is incarcerated, institutionalized, or detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or has been deported to his or her country of origin, the court shall order reasonable services unless the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, those services would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment, the court shall consider the age of the child, the degree of parent-child bonding, the length of the sentence, the length and nature of the treatment, the nature of the crime or illness, the degree of detriment to the child if services are not offered and, for children 10 years of age or older, the childs attitude toward the implementation of family reunification services, the likelihood of the parents discharge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention within the reunification time limitations described in subdivision (a), and any other appropriate factors. In determining the content of reasonable services, the court shall consider the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall document this information in the childs case plan. Reunification services are subject to the applicable time limitations imposed in subdivision (a). Services may include, but shall not be limited to, all of the following:
(A)Maintaining contact between the parent and child through collect telephone calls.
(B)Transportation services, where appropriate.
(C)Visitation services, where appropriate.
(D)Reasonable services to extended family members or foster parents providing care for the child if the services are not detrimental to the child.
An incarcerated or detained parent may be required to attend counseling, parenting classes, or vocational training programs as part of the reunification service plan if actual access to these services is provided. The social worker shall document in the childs case plan the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, or detained parents access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
(E)Reasonable efforts to assist parents who have been deported to contact child welfare authorities in their country of origin, to identify any available services that would substantially comply with case plan requirements, to document the parents participation in those services, and to accept reports from local child welfare authorities as to the parents living situation, progress, and participation in services.
(2)The presiding judge of the juvenile court of each county may convene representatives of the county welfare department, the sheriffs department, and other appropriate entities for the purpose of developing and entering into protocols for ensuring the notification, transportation, and presence of an incarcerated or institutionalized parent at all court hearings involving proceedings affecting the child pursuant to Section 2625 of the Penal Code. The county welfare department shall utilize the prisoner locator system developed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to facilitate timely and effective notice of hearings for incarcerated parents.
(3)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the incarcerated parent is a woman seeking to participate in the community treatment program operated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to Chapter 4.8 (commencing with Section 1174) of Title 7 of Part 2 of, Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3410) of Title 2 of Part 3 of, the Penal Code, the court shall determine whether the parents participation in a program is in the childs best interest and whether it is suitable to meet the needs of the parent and child.
(f)If the court, pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), or (16) of subdivision (b) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), does not order reunification services, it shall, at the dispositional hearing, that shall include a permanency hearing, determine if a hearing under Section 366.26 shall be set in order to determine whether adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, is the most appropriate plan for the child, and shall consider in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the court so determines, it shall conduct the hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days after the dispositional hearing. However, the court shall not schedule a hearing so long as the other parent is being provided reunification services pursuant to subdivision (a). The court may continue to permit the parent to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.
(g)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents and notification of a noncustodial parent in the manner provided for in Section 291.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history, including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4. As used in this subparagraph, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or guardian, including a prospective tribal customary parent, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child over 12 years of age has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(h)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, as applicable. 9.
(i)In determining whether reunification services will benefit the child pursuant to paragraph (6) or (7) of subdivision (b), the court shall consider any information it deems relevant, including the following factors:
(1)The specific act or omission comprising the severe sexual abuse or the severe physical harm inflicted on the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(2)The circumstances under which the abuse or harm was inflicted on the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(3)The severity of the emotional trauma suffered by the child or the childs sibling or half sibling.
(4)Any history of abuse of other children by the offending parent or guardian.
(5)The likelihood that the child may be safely returned to the care of the offending parent or guardian within 12 months with no continuing supervision.
(6)Whether or not the child desires to be reunified with the offending parent or guardian.
(j)When the court determines that reunification services will not be ordered, it shall order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court determines that reunification services will not be ordered, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(k)The court shall read into the record the basis for a finding of severe sexual abuse or the infliction of severe physical harm under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), and shall also specify the factual findings used to determine that the provision of reunification services to the offending parent or guardian would not benefit the child.
SEC. 2.Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as amended by Section 6 of Chapter 219 of the Statutes of 2014, is amended to read:366.21.(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable him or her to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian; and shall make his or her recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including his or her recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, provide a summary of his or her recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of recommendations to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing his or her recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself to of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to, those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, where relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case where, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(f)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist him or her in making the transition from foster care to independent living. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access, to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Regardless of whether the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to his or her country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with his or her child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in long-term foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive his or her birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances may not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(m)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivisions (c) and (g) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 3.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as amended by Section 7 of Chapter 219 of the Statutes of 2014, is amended to read:366.22.(a)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding his or her child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider 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. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. The failure of the parent or legal guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
Whether or not the child is returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in long-term foster care. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in long-term foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a minor parent at the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(1)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(2)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(3)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to his or her country of origin and his or her return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court may not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes his or her meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of his or her immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)The implementation and operation of the amendments to subdivision (a) enacted at the 200506 Regular Session shall be subject to appropriation through the budget process and by phase, as provided in Section 366.35.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2015 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 284, Statutes of 2015. |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Aug 28, 2015 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:45 p.m. |
| Aug 27, 2015 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 27, 2015 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2205.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 25, 2015 | Ordered to special consent calendar. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 2534.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Jul 16, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar. |
| Jul 15, 2015 | From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 14). |
| Jun 24, 2015 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S. |
| Jun 23, 2015 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 23). |
| Jun 11, 2015 | Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUM. S. |
| Jan 8, 2015 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
| Jun 3, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Jun 3, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 1292.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Jun 2, 2015 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 1, 2015 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (May 28). |
| Jun 1, 2015 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1147.) (May 28). |
| May 23, 2015 | Set for hearing May 28. |
| May 4, 2015 | May 4 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 24, 2015 | Set for hearing May 4. |
| Apr 8, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 525.) (April 7). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Mar 26, 2015 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Mar 25, 2015 | Set for hearing April 7. |
| Feb 5, 2015 | Referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Jan 9, 2015 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 8. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2015 | Special Consent #7 SB68 Liu | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 20, 2015 | SB 68 Liu Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jul 14, 2015 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services |
Passed |
|
| Jun 23, 2015 | Do pass as amended, and be re-referred to the Committee on [Human Services] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
|
| Jun 3, 2015 | Senate 3rd Reading SB68 Liu | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 28, 2015 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| May 4, 2015 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 7, 2015 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Alliance for Children's Rights | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Children'S Law Center Of California | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Dependency Legal Services | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| First Place for Youth | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| LA Dependency Court Lawyers | * Support | Apr 7, 2015 |
| National Association of Social Workers | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| San Francisco Counsel for Families and Children | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
SB 68
Page 5
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 68
Amended: 6/24/15
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/7/15
AYES: Jackson, Vidak, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
SENATE FLOOR: 40-0, 6/3/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Minor or nonminor dependent parents: reunification services
SOURCE: Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc.
DIGEST: This bill requires the court in making its determination whether to return a child, who was removed from his or her parent’s custody, back to the physical custody of his or her parents, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or nonminor dependent parent.
Assembly Amendments expand this bill to also apply to nonminor dependent parent.
Existing law:
Provides that a minor may be removed from the physical custody of his or her parents and become a dependent of the juvenile court for serious abuse or neglect, or risk of serious abuse or neglect, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.)
Provides that unless certain exceptions apply, the primary objective of the juvenile dependency system is reunification of the minor with his or her family, and requires the court to order the social worker to provide services to reunify children legally removed from a parent. (Fam. Code Sec. 7950, Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 202, 300.2, 361.5.)
Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and twelve months if the child is over three years of age. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.)
Allows for court ordered services in pursuit of family reunification to be extended from 12 to 18 or 24 months, as specified, for parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, or ordered into a resident substance abuse program if the court makes particular findings. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(a)(3)-(4).)
Requires the court to consider at several points during the dependency hearings after removal of the child from the home, and in certain circumstances the social worker to document, the special circumstances of parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, deported, or court-ordered to residential substance abuse treatment, including barriers to service access and to maintaining contact with the child, and the parent’s significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 366.21 and 366.22.)
This bill requires the court to consider the special circumstances of a minor or nonminor dependent parent, including barriers to service and to maintaining contact with the child, and authorizes the court to continue the case for an additional six months for the provision of additional reunification services if the minor parent or nonminor dependent parent is making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child.
Background
The United States has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world, although this rate has been declining since 1990, when it peaked at 12 percent of adolescent girls. Teenage girls in the dependency system are twice as likely to become pregnant before turning 19 than teenage girls who are not in foster care. The Guttmacher Institute argues that the circumstances that led these girls to be placed in foster care in the first place, along with the experience of being in foster care, seem to make them particularly vulnerable. (Boonstra, Heather D., Teen Pregnancy Among Young Women In Foster Care: A Primer, Spring 2011, Volume 14, Number 2.0, Guttmacher Policy Review.) Additionally, research has shown that adolescence is a period of poor control over behavior and emotions, and teenagers are likely to exhibit high levels of emotional arousal and reactionary decision-making. (Tucker, Gargi, Decision-making is Still a Work in Progress for Teenagers, March 2013, Brain Connection.) Regarding parenting foster youth, the John Burton foundation recently noted:
Parenting foster youth fall into the double cross-hairs of foster care and teen parenthood. Educationally, they fall far behind their peers, with a rate of high school graduation 13 percent lower than non-parenting foster youth and 25 percent lower than their non-foster youth peers. As young, often single parents, two out of three will live at, or below the poverty line in adulthood. Most troubling, children of parenting foster youth are a full five times more likely to be maltreated and placed into foster care themselves. (Lemley, Amy; Moving Parenting Foster Youth Out of the Shadows, March 13, 2013, The John Burton Foundation.)
The child welfare system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. Over the years, the Legislature has enacted a number of laws which require the court to take into consideration specific circumstances that present a barrier to family reunification when trying to create a permanency plan for a child. AB 2070 (Bass, Chapter 482, Statutes of 2008) required courts to assess, among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services for institutionalized and incarcerated parents. Similarly, SB 977 (Liu, Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014) required the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent in a certified substance abuse treatment facility.
This bill seeks to address some of the particular barriers facing minor or nonminor dependent parents whose children are placed in foster by providing for the extension of reunification services for an additional six months for minor or nonminor dependent parents who are making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child.
Comments
The sponsor writes:
Teen parents should be treated at least in the same manner which the State has recognized particular barriers to reunification for incarcerated parents, immigrant parents, and those in court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment programs. As with these other classes of parents, teen parents, who make consistent progress in establishing a safe home for their children’s return, should receive an additional six months of reunification services in order for them to have a chance at successful reunification with their children.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill will result in costs as follows:
6-month services extension: Potential future increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund*) for the 6-month extension of reunification services to specified minor parent cases. While the total number of applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases granted extended services, costs would be about $50,000.
Dependency caseload impact: Unknown, potential future cost savings (Local/State) in reduced time spent in dependent care to the extent youth are reunified with their parents sooner than otherwise would occur under existing law.
Proposition 30*: Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement for realigned programs, however, legislation that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs including child welfare services, apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase.
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. (source)
Alliance for Children’s Rights
Children’s Law Center of California
Dependency Legal Services
Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar
First Place for Youth
National Association of Social Workers
San Francisco Counsel for Families and Children
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/20/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu
Prepared by: Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/21/15 11:32:34
**** END ****
SB 68
Page 5
Date of Hearing: July 14, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Kansen Chu, Chair
SB 68
(Liu) – As Amended June 24, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
SUBJECT: Minor or nonminor dependent parents: reunification services.
SUMMARY: Requires special considerations in dependency hearings for the children of minor parents and nonminor dependent parents.
Specifically, this bill:
Requires the court to consider the particular barriers faced by minor parents and nonminor dependent parents when determining whether to return a child who has entered foster care to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian.
Authorizes the court to continue a case for an additional six months for the provision of additional reunification services for a minor parent or nonminor dependent parent who is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return.
EXISTING LAW:
Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services, including foster care, for children who have been adjudged by the court to be at risk or have been abused or neglected, as specified. (WIC 202 et seq.)
Allows a juvenile court to adjudge a child a ward or a dependent of the court for specified reasons, including but not limited to if the child has been left without any provision for support, as specified. (WIC 300)
Declares legislative intent that a child shall not be considered to be at risk of abuse or neglect solely because of the age, dependent status, or foster care status of his or her parent. (WIC 300)
States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, neglected, or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. (WIC 300.2)
States the intent of the Legislature to preserve and strengthen a child’s family ties whenever possible and to reunify a foster youth with his or her biological family whenever possible, or to provide a permanent placement alternative, such as adoption or guardianship. (WIC 16000)
Requires the court to make a determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of a minor from his or her home, as specified. (WIC 361)
Establishes processes and requirements for juvenile court dependency hearings, and requires the court to consider at several points during the dependency process after removal of the child from the home, and in certain circumstances the social worker to document, the special circumstances of parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported, including barriers to access services and maintain contact with the child, and the parent’s significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return. (WIC 366.21, 366.22.)
Establishes circumstances under which family reunification services should be ordered to be provided for families. Provides for six months of reunification services for children under the age of three, and twelve months for children over the age of three. Further provides for an extension of reunification services for up to a total of 18 to 24 months for specified reasons. (WIC 361.5)
Defines “nonminor dependent” as a current or former foster youth who is between18 and 21 years old, in foster care under the responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, or Indian Tribe, and participating in a transitional independent living plan. (WIC 11400 (v))
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the May 28, 2015, Senate Appropriations Committee analysis, this bill may result in the following costs:
Potential future increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund) for the 6-month extension of reunification services to specified minor parent cases. While the total number of applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases granted extended services, costs would be about $50,000. (Proposition 30 exempts the State from mandate reimbursement for realigned programs, however, legislation that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs including child welfare services, apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase.)
Unknown, potential future cost savings (Local/State) in reduced time spent in dependent care to the extent youth are reunified with their parents sooner than otherwise would occur under existing law.
COMMENTS:
Child Welfare Services: The purpose of California’s Child Welfare Services (CWS) system is to protect children from abuse and neglect and provide for their health and safety. When children are identified as being at risk of abuse, neglect or abandonment, county juvenile courts hold legal jurisdiction and children are served by the CWS system through the appointment of a social worker. Through this system, there are multiple opportunities for the custody of the child, or his or her placement outside of the home, to be evaluated, reviewed and determined by the judicial system, in consultation with the child’s social worker, to help provide the best possible services and outcomes for the child. The CWS system seeks to help children who have been removed from their homes reunify with their parents or guardians, whenever appropriate, or unite them with other individuals they consider to be family.
The juvenile court holds various hearings throughout the dependency process, including the initial hearing, a disposition hearing to determine where a child should live, and periodic review hearings. During this process, at several points after a child has been removed from his or her home, several factors are taken into consideration, and documented by social workers, in order to ascertain what is best for the child. One set of these factors includes considering the special circumstances of parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, deported, or court-ordered to residential substance abuse treatment, including barriers to accessing services and maintaining contact with the child, and the parent’s significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return.
Reunification services: The court may order reunification services for parents who have had a child removed when it is determined that reunification with the family would ultimately benefit the child. These services can encompass a range of supports, including parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, family therapy, and home visiting, among others, aimed at responding to the needs of the child and the parents. Depending on the child’s age, reunification services can be offered for between 6 months (for children under the age of 3) and 12 months (for children ages 3 and older). Extensions for certain circumstances may be granted if there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parents, and for parents who are making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, or recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making progress in establishing a safe home for the child.
Teen parents and parenting foster youth and nonminor dependents: According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Adolescent Health, in 2011, California had the 30th highest teen birth rate in the country, with 38,303 births to women ages 15 to 19, representing 28.7 births per 1,000 females in that age range.
While comprehensive data on the size of the state’s population of pregnant and parenting foster youth and nonminor dependents is currently lacking, evidence of higher pregnancy and parenting rates for foster youth exists. For example, recent research connecting Child Protective Services (CPS) data with birth records in California was able to link approximately 1.5 million California birth records (from 2000 to 2010) to 1 million CPS records. Using this linked data, researchers found that, of girls in foster care at the age of 17, more than one-quarter of them had given birth at least once during their teens. Of girls in foster care who had given birth at least once before the age of 18, over one-third had more than one birth in their teens. These findings were corroborated by a much smaller, more in-depth study that interviewed over 700 17-year-old foster youth and former foster youth in California. This study found that just over one-fourth of respondents had ever been pregnant; 30% of whom had been pregnant more than one time.
Teen pregnancy and parenthood have been found to be correlated with a number of social and economic consequences. Teen mothers are less likely to finish high school, more likely to live in poverty, and can face poorer health conditions than slightly older mothers. The children of teenage parents are then also more likely to live in poverty. They are also more likely to come into contact with the child welfare system. Importantly, teen pregnancy may not distinctly cause each of these outcomes, but instead leads to compounding and interrelated impacts, with diminished educational attainment contributing to decreased earnings and higher poverty levels, and other negative outcomes stemming from living in poverty. Moreover, the children of teen parents may not necessarily be more susceptible to abuse and neglect, but may instead have increased exposure to the child welfare system because teenagers may more often have their parenting questioned and because young parents may need greater support in raising their children.
Need for this bill: This bill seeks to support teen parents who have come into contact with the CWS system, and risk losing custody of their children, by providing extended reunification services where necessary and appropriate, and by asking the court to consider the barriers faced by this population when making decisions regarding dependency. Recognizing that pregnant and parenting youth ages 18 to 20 that are enrolled in extended foster care may also face a number of the same issues that teen parents do, this bill was recently amended to include nonminor dependent parents.
According to the author:
“A significant number of teenage parents who are in the state’s juvenile dependency system are trying to reunify with their children. Minor parents face numerous hurdles, legal and otherwise, which are distinct from those encountered by adult parents and guardians. This bill will help reunite teen parents with their children and keep families together. Minor parents must navigate an already complicated legal process which presumes the parent or legal guardian has ready access to court-ordered treatment programs. Many of these existing programs are not necessarily adaptable to the needs of a minor parent.
Minor parents are also enrolled in school or pursuing other educational opportunities, which limits their chances to effectively utilize parenting skills enhancement programs within the time frame normally allotted by statute. Minor parents face substantial legal barriers that prevent access to full-time employment, appropriate child care, transportation, and adequate housing. Minor parents must overcome these systemic barriers while also demonstrating a full-time commitment to their parenting responsibilities.
This bill extends for six months reunification services for minor parents who are making significant progress in a court-ordered reunification plan. The bill also recognizes the unique challenges faced by teenage parents. Children of minor parents are at greater risk of permanently losing their families because of barriers that impede reunification. This bill requires the courts to recognize these barriers, protect these families and enhance the reunification process for children and their minor parents, giving them their greatest opportunity to succeed.”
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 260 (Lopez), 2015, provides for additional considerations and supports for pregnant and parenting foster youth and nonminor dependents.
SB 1064 (De León), Chapter 845, Statutes of 2012, among other things, required juvenile courts to consider the particular barriers faced by detained and deported parents.
AB 2070 (Bass), Chapter 482, Statutes of 2008, among other things, required juvenile courts to consider the circumstances of incarcerated or institutionalized parents, and parents participating in court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment programs.
SB 1178 (Kuehl), Chapter 841, Statutes of 2004, established the Teen Parents in Foster Care Act, which set forth ways in which the families of dependent minor parents could be strengthened and preserved, and required child welfare agencies to identify and utilize whole family placements and other placement models that supported pregnant and parenting foster youth and their families.
SECOND COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE. This bill was previously heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, on June 23, 2015 and was approved on a 10-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Children’s Law Center of California (CLC)
Dependency Legal Services
First Place for Youth
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. (LADL)
National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter (NASW-CA)
San Francisco Counsel for Families & Children (SFCFC)
The Alliance for Children’s Rights
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Daphne Hunt / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
SB 68
Page 5
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
SB 68
(Liu) – As Amended June 2, 2015
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
SUBJECT: Minor parents: reunification services
KEY ISSUE: IN ORDER TO BETTER SUPPORT MINOR PARENTS with children IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM AND HELP THEM, when possible, REUNIFY WITH THEIR CHILDREN, SHOULD THE JUVENILE COURT BE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER the PARTICULAR BARRIERS THAT THESE PARENTS EXPERIENCE AND, IF APPROPRIATE and IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, PROVIDE THEM with AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS OF reunification SERVICES?
SYNOPSIS
When a court orders the removal of a child from the custody of his or her parent because of abuse or neglect, the court is generally required to return the child to his or her parent, unless the court finds that return of the child would create a substantial risk to the well-being of the child. If the child is not returned, the court must order family reunification services for the child and the child’s parent, unless specified circumstances exist. Like parents who are incarcerated, detained or deported with children in the child welfare system, teen parents face particular barriers that make successful reunification with their children more difficult. Over the last several years, the Legislature has allowed the juvenile court to provide incarcerated, detained and deported parents who are making progress toward reunifying with their children with additional time for reunification services. This bill, as proposed to be amended, seeks to give that same extra help to teen parents and nonminor dependent parents.
In support of the bill the author notes that, in addition to the other hurdles they must overcome, teen parents in the child welfare system must navigate a complicated legal process with court-ordered treatment programs that are not necessarily designed for the needs of young parents. This bill is sponsored by the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers and supported by, among others, the Alliance for Children’s Rights, the Children’s Law Center of California, the Family Law Section of the State Bar, the Juvenile Court Judges of California and the National Association of Social Workers. It has no known opposition.
SUMMARY: Increases the time reunification services may be available to minor parents and nonminor dependent parents whose children are dependents of the court in consideration of the barriers faced by those parents. Specifically, this bill:
Requires the juvenile court, at the permanency hearing when deciding whether to return a child to his or her parent, to consider the efforts or progress made by the parent, taking into account the particular barriers that a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent may have in accessing reunification services and maintaining contact with the child.
Allows the court to extend services to support the reunification of a child with his or her minor parent or nonminor dependent parent (based on the parent's age at the initial hearing) for up to an additional six month – up to a period of 18 or 24 months from the date the child was originally removed – if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the child to have the time extended, the parent is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child's return, and there is a substantial probability that the child can safely return to the parent during the extended timeframe or reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.
EXISTING LAW:
Provides that a minor who has been abused or neglected may be removed from the custody of his or her parents and become a dependent of the juvenile court, as specified. (Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to that code.)
Provides that unless certain exceptions apply, the primary objective of the juvenile dependency system is reunification of the minor with his or her family. (Sections 202 and 300.2.)
Requires the court to consider at several points during the dependency process after removal of the child from the home, and in certain circumstances, the social worker to document the special circumstances of parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, deported, or court-ordered to residential substance abuse treatment, including barriers to access services and maintain contact with the child, and the parent’s significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return. (Sections 366.21 and 366.22.)
Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and twelve months if the child is over three years of age. If it is in the best interests of the child to have the time extended and there is a substantial probability that the child can safely return to the parent during the extended timeframe or reasonable services have not been provided to the parent, current law allows the court to extend family reunification services from 12 to 18 or 24 months, as specified, for parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, or ordered into a resident substance abuse program if the court makes specific findings. (Sections 361.5.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: Like parents who are incarcerated, in residential substance abuse programs, detained, or deported and have children in the child welfare system, teen parents face particular barriers that make successful reunification with their children more difficult. Over the last several years, the Legislature has allowed the juvenile court to provide incarcerated, detained and deported parents who are making progress toward reunifying with their children with additional time for reunification services. This bill, as proposed to be amended, seeks to give that same extra help to teen parents and nonminor dependent parents.
In support of the bill, the author writes about the barriers faced by teen parents:
Minor parents must navigate an already complicated legal process which presumes the parent or legal guardian has ready access to court-ordered treatment programs. Many of these existing programs are not necessarily adaptable to the needs of a minor parent.
Minor parents are also enrolled in school or pursuing other educational opportunities, which limits their chances to effectively utilize parenting skills enhancement programs within the time frame normally allotted by statute. Minor parents face substantial legal barriers that prevent access to full-time employment, appropriate child care, transportation, and adequate housing.
Minor parents must overcome these systemic barriers while also demonstrating a full-time commitment to their parenting responsibilities.
This bill extends for six month reunification services for minor parents who are making significant progress in a court-ordered reunification plan. The bill also recognizes the unique challenges faced by teenage parents.
Previous Legislation Has Provided Parents Who May Have Barriers in Accessing Child Welfare Services With Extra Assistance. The child welfare system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of children, and, where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. Over the years, the Legislature has enacted a number of laws requiring the court to take into consideration specific circumstances that create barriers to family reunification when trying to create a permanency plan for a child, including in appropriate cases allowing an extra six months of reunification services for parents who, for no fault of their own, may have a harder time accessing services. AB 2070 (Bass), Chap. 482, Stats. 2008, required courts to consider the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services faced by institutionalized and incarcerated parents. SB 1064 (De León), Chap. 845, Stats. 2012, did the same for detained and deported parents. Along those same lines, SB 977 (Liu), Chap. 219, Stats. 2014, required the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent in a certified substance abuse treatment facility.
This Bill Recognizes the Special Hurdles Faced by Teen Parents, and Helps Provide Them, in Appropriate Circumstances, With Extra Time to Reunify With Their Children. Teen parents with children in the child welfare system face particular barriers to successful reunification with their children. In addition to being young and inexperienced while navigating the adult world, they likely have financial, transportation, and time barriers that limit their access to required reunification services. Additionally, research shows that adolescence is a period of poor control over behavior and emotions, and teenagers are likely to exhibit high levels of emotional arousal and reactionary decision-making. (Tucker, Decision-Making is Still a Work in Progress for Teenagers, Brain Connection (March 2013).) Added together, these issues make parenting more challenging for teen parents, and, for those teens who have had their children removed to the foster care system, can make reunifying with their children much more difficult.
Thus this bill, recognizing those difficulties, requires the court to consider the particular barriers that teen parents have in accessing court-mandated reunification services and in maintaining contact with their children. And, similar to the considerations a court must take into account when ordering reunification services for incarcerated, institutionalized, deported, or detained parents, this bill specifically allows up to six additional months of reunification services for minor parents who are making significant progress in their court-ordered reunification plan. The bill does not mandate that the court grant the additional time. It only requires that the court consider the special barriers faced by young parents and that the court consider allowing additional time if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child to have the time extended, the parent is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child, and there is a substantial probability that the child can safely return to the parent during the extended timeframe or reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.
Given the Additional Hurdles Faced by Parenting Foster Youth, the Author Rightly Proposes to Expand the Extra Assistance in this Bill to Nonminor Dependent Parents as Well as Minor Parents. While parenting can present any young parent with significant challenges, those challenges are far greater for foster youth:
Parenting youths in foster care are among the most vulnerable respondents in neglect and abuse proceedings. Not only are they in foster care, but also, as parents and expectant parents, they are subject to a heightened level of scrutiny by virtue of living in a highly structured environment staffed with mandated reporters.
Our youth-in-care clients almost always face allegations by foster parents or staff members in congregate care settings, such as mother-child placements or maternity residences. Some common allegations against young mothers in foster care are being missing from care—or “awoling”— either with or without the subject child and either prior to or during pregnancy; missing curfew either with or without the subject child and either prior to or during pregnancy; taking the child to homes or locations not cleared and approved by the agency; failing to follow directives or suggestions on the care of the subject child from an agency staff member or a foster parent; failing to attend school, a General Educational Development program, or job training; behaving in a difficult-to-control manner in a congregate care facility or a foster home; and not complying with recommended therapeutic treatment or medication management or both for a mental health diagnosis such as bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder. (Horwitz, Protection v. Presentment, When Youth in Foster Care Become Respondents in Child Welfare Proceedings, 45 Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy Numbers 9-10, 421, 426 (Jan.-Feb. 2012) [footnotes omitted].)
As a result, the author rightly proposes to slightly expand the bill to provide the extra reunification support not just to minor parents, but also to nonminor dependent parents who are still young and face continued hurdles to successfully parenting their children based on the abuse or neglect they suffered as children and the time they spent in foster care.
The amendments adding nonminor dependents are as follows:
1. On page 19, line 17, after "parent" insert: , or a nonminor dependent parent,
2. On page 22, line 25, after "parent" insert: , or a nonminor dependent parent,
3. On page 30, line 4, after "parent" insert: , or a nonminor dependent parent,
4. On page 31, line 34, delete "minor"
5. On page 31, line 34, after "parent" insert: who was either a minor or a nonminor dependent
6. On page 31, line 34, after "at" insert: the time of
Related Pending Legislation: AB 260 (Lopez) provides special support and protections for parenting minor and nonminor dependents. This bill passed the Assembly and is awaiting hearing in the Senate Human Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation: SB 977 (Liu), Chap. 219, Stats. 2014, required social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility, and required the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent in these situations, as specified.
SB 1064 (De León), Chap. 845, Stats. 2012, authorized the court to extend the review hearing periods for reunification following consideration of a parent’s ability to comply with court ordered services where a child has been removed from the custody of a parent and the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained, or deported to his or her country of origin.
AB 2070 (Bass), Chap. 482, Stats. 2008, required that courts take into consideration, among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services for institutionalized and incarcerated parents and allowed courts to extend reunification services, as specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers (sponsor)
Alliance for Children’s Rights
Children’s Law Center of California
Dependency Legal Services
Family Law Section of the State Bar
First Place for Youth
Juvenile Court Judges of California
National Association of Social Workers
San Francisco Counsel for Families and Children
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
SB 68
Page 4
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 68
Amended: 3/26/15
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/7/15
AYES: Jackson, Vidak, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Minor parents: reunification services
SOURCE: Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc.
DIGEST: This bill requires the court in making its determination whether to return a child, who was removed from his or her parent’s custody, back to the physical custody of his or her parents, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent.
Existing law:
Provides that a minor may be removed from the physical custody of his or her parents and become a dependent of the juvenile court for serious abuse or neglect, or risk of serious abuse or neglect, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.)
Provides that unless certain exceptions apply, the primary objective of the juvenile dependency system is reunification of the minor with his or her family, and requires the court to order the social worker to provide services to reunify children legally removed from a parent. (Fam. Code Sec. 7950, Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 202, 300.2, 361.5.)
Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and twelve months if the child is over three years of age. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.)
Allows for court ordered services in pursuit of family reunification to be extended from 12 to 18 or 24 months, as specified, for parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, or ordered into a resident substance abuse program if the court makes particular findings. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(a)(3)-(4).)
Requires the court to consider at several points during the dependency hearings after removal of the child from the home, and in certain circumstances the social worker to document, the special circumstances of parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, deported, or court-ordered to residential substance abuse treatment, including barriers to service access and to maintaining contact with the child, and the parent’s significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 366.21 and 366.22.)
This bill requires the court to consider the special circumstances of a minor parent, including barriers to service and to maintaining contact with the child, and authorizes the court to continue the case for an additional six months for the provision of additional reunification services if the minor parent is making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child.
Background
The United States has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world, although this rate has been declining since 1990, when it peaked at 12 percent of adolescent girls. Teenage girls in the dependency system are twice as likely to become pregnant before turning 19 than teenage girls who are not in foster care. The Guttmacher Institute argues that the circumstances that led these girls to be placed in foster care in the first place, along with the experience of being in foster care, seem to make them particularly vulnerable. (Boonstra, Heather D., Teen Pregnancy Among Young Women In Foster Care: A Primer, Spring 2011, Volume 14, Number 2.0, Guttmacher Policy Review.) Additionally, research has shown that adolescence is a period of poor control over behavior and emotions, and teenagers are likely to exhibit high levels of emotional arousal and reactionary decision-making. (Tucker, Gargi, Decision-making is Still a Work in Progress for Teenagers, March 2013, Brain Connection.) Regarding parenting foster youth, the John Burton foundation recently noted:
Parenting foster youth fall into the double cross-hairs of foster care and teen parenthood. Educationally, they fall far behind their peers, with a rate of high school graduation 13 percent lower than non-parenting foster youth and 25 percent lower than their non-foster youth peers. As young, often single parents, two out of three will live at, or below the poverty line in adulthood. Most troubling, children of parenting foster youth are a full five times more likely to be maltreated and placed into foster care themselves. (Lemley, Amy; Moving Parenting Foster Youth Out of the Shadows, March 13, 2013, The John Burton Foundation.)
The child welfare system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. Over the years, the Legislature has enacted a number of laws which require the court to take into consideration specific circumstances that present a barrier to family reunification when trying to create a permanency plan for a child. AB 2070 (Bass, Chapter 482, Statutes of 2008) required courts to assess, among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services for institutionalized and incarcerated parents. Similarly, SB 977 (Liu, Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014) required the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent in a certified substance abuse treatment facility.
This bill seeks to address some of the particular barriers facing minor parents whose children are placed in foster by providing for the extension of reunification services for an additional six months for minor parents who are making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child.
Comments
The sponsor writes:
Teen parents should be treated at least in the same manner which the State has recognized particular barriers to reunification for incarcerated parents, immigrant parents, and those in court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment programs. As with these other classes of parents, teen parents, who make consistent progress in establishing a safe home for their children’s return, should receive an additional six months of reunification services in order for them to have a chance at successful reunification with their children.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill will result in costs as follows:
6-month services extension: Potential future increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund*) for the 6-month extension of reunification services to specified minor parent cases. While the total number of applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases granted extended services, costs would be about $50,000.
Dependency caseload impact: Unknown, potential future cost savings (Local/State) in reduced time spent in dependent care to the extent youth are reunified with their parents sooner than otherwise would occur under existing law.
Proposition 30*: Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement for realigned programs, however, legislation that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs including child welfare services, apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase.
Alliance for Children’s Rights
Children’s Law Center of California
Dependency Legal Services
Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar
First Place for Youth
National Association of Social Workers
San Francisco Counsel for Families and Children
None received
Prepared by: Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
6/2/15 21:19:25
SB 68 (Liu) Page 4 of 4
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 68 (Liu) - Minor parents: reunification services
|
|
Version: March 26, 2015 |
Policy Vote: JUD. 7 - 0 |
Urgency: No |
Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: May 28, 2015 |
Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
SUSPENSE FILE. AS AMENDED.
Bill Summary:
SB 68 would require a court to order reunification services for a parent under a number currently optional circumstances if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny services. This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to six months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent, as specified.
Fiscal Impact (as approved May 28, 2015):
6-month services extension: Potential future increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund*) for the 6-month extension of reunification services to specified minor parent cases. While the total number of applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases granted extended services, costs would be about $50,000.
Dependency caseload impact: Unknown, potential future cost savings (Local/State) in reduced time spent in dependent care to the extent youth are reunified with their parents sooner than otherwise would occur under existing law.
Proposition 30*: Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement for realigned programs, however, legislation that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs including child welfare services, apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase.
Background:
Under existing law, when a court orders the removal of a child from the custody of his or her parent due to 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 to the physical or emotional well-being of the child. Existing law further requires the court to order family reunification services to the child and parent(s), unless specified circumstances exist.
The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis dated April 7, 2015, states, “Under existing law there are 16 circumstances that the Legislature has deemed so egregious that the court need not order reunification services. These exceptions to reunification demonstrate how the dependency system’s primary goals of ensuring the safety of children and preservation of family are balanced. Thus, when a child has been severely physically or sexually abused by a parent, the court need not offer reunification services. Another situation where reunification services may not be ordered is where a child has entered the dependency system due to physical or sexual abuse (caused by the parent or another person because of the parent’s negligence), and was returned home after the provision of reunification services, only to be abused again. Additionally, a parent whose whereabouts are unknown or who is suffering from a mental disability that leaves him or her incapable of caring for a child may not have reunification services ordered by the court.
This bill seeks to address some of the particular barriers facing minor parents whose children are placed in foster care. Accordingly, this bill would require the court to consider the specific circumstances faced by a minor parent in trying to avail himself or herself to court-mandated services, and would require the court to order reunification services in specified situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred.”
Proposed Law:
This bill would remove judicial discretion currently provided under existing law and require the court to order reunification services in the following situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred:
the parent of the child has a history of drug or alcohol use, as specified, and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment;
the parental rights of the parent over a sibling have been permanently severed, as specified;
the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings of the child because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling, as specified; and
that the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling because of severe abuse or neglect, as specified.
This bill would additionally require the court to consider the special circumstances of a minor parent, including barriers to service and to maintaining contact with the child, and would authorize the court to continue the case for an additional six months for the provision of additional reunification services if the minor parent is making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child.
Prior Legislation:
SB 1064 (de Leon) Chapter 845/2012 authorized the court to extend the review hearing periods for reunification following consideration of a parent’s ability to comply with court ordered services where a child has been removed from the custody of a parent and the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained, or deported to his or her country of origin.
AB 2070 (Bass) Chapter 482/2008 required courts to take into consideration, among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services, and consideration of the likelihood of the parent’s discharge within the reunification timeframe for incarcerated and institutionalized parents.
Staff Comments:
By increasing the circumstances in which reunification services must be provided by county welfare agencies, this bill could require a subvention of funds from the state as provided under Proposition 30 (2012).
This bill would mandate the court to order reunification services in specified situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred. This bill would also allow for the provision of an additional six months of reunification services beyond the standard 12 months’ time period, to a total of up to 18 months, for minor parents provided specified requirements are met and the court has determined that there is a substantial probability of reunification or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.
It is unknown how many cases would be impacted under the provisions of this bill. While the number of dependent minor parents that have children in the dependency system is estimated to be small (less than 50), it is unknown at this time how many non-dependent minor parents with dependent children would potentially be impacted by this bill. For every 10 cases that otherwise would have been denied reunification services due to the specified conditions in this bill, increased services costs for 12 months would cost approximately $100,000. Costs to extend reunification services for 10 cases for an additional six months to minor parent cases that are making significant progress would cost approximately $50,000. To the extent the actual number of impacted cases is greater or less, costs would be impacted accordingly.
Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12, the state and counties contributed to the non-federal share of various social service programs. AB 118 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 40/2011 and ABX1 16 Chapter 13/2011 realigned state funding to the counties through the 2011 Local Revenue Fund (LRF) for various programs, including foster care and child welfare services. As a result, beginning in FY 2011–12 and for each fiscal year thereafter, non-federal funding and expenditures for these activities including child foster care and child welfare services are funded through the LRF.
Proposition 30, passed by the voters in November 2012, among other provisions, eliminated any potential mandate funding liability for any new program or higher level of service provided by counties related to realigned programs. Although the provisions of this bill are a mandate on local agencies, any increased costs would not be subject to reimbursement by the state. Rather, Proposition 30 specifies that for legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs, which would include child welfare services and foster care, the provisions shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.
To the extent the provision of extended reunification services to these cases results in additional cases of successful reunification, significant future cost savings could be realized to the extent youth have reduced lengths of stay in the dependency system.
Committee amendments (as adopted May 28, 2015): Delete Section 1 of the bill, which requires the court to order reunification services in specified situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred.
-- END --
SB 68 (Liu) Page 4 of 4
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 68 (Liu) - Minor parents: reunification services
|
|
Version: March 26, 2015 |
Policy Vote: JUD. 7 - 0 |
Urgency: No |
Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: May 4, 2015 |
Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary:
SB 68 would require a court to order reunification services for a parent under a number currently optional circumstances if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny services. This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to six months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Mandated reunification services: Potential increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund*) for the provision of reunification services for 12 months to specified cases. While the number of potentially applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases that would have otherwise been denied services, annual costs would be about $100,000.
6-month services extension: Potential future increase in child welfare services costs (General Fund*) for the 6-month extension of reunification services to specified minor parent cases. While the total number of applicable cases is unknown at this time, for every 10 cases granted extended services, costs would be about $50,000.
Dependency caseload impact: Unknown, potential future cost savings (Local/State) in reduced time spent in dependent care to the extent youth are reunified with their parents sooner than otherwise would occur under existing law.
Proposition 30*: Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement for realigned programs, however, legislation that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs including child welfare services, apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase.
Background:
Under existing law, when a court orders the removal of a child from the custody of his or her parent due to 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 to the physical or emotional well-being of the child. Existing law further requires the court to order family reunification services to the child and parent(s), unless specified circumstances exist.
The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis dated April 7, 2015, states, “Under existing law there are 16 circumstances that the Legislature has deemed so egregious that the court need not order reunification services. These exceptions to reunification demonstrate how the dependency system’s primary goals of ensuring the safety of children and preservation of family are balanced. Thus, when a child has been severely physically or sexually abused by a parent, the court need not offer reunification services. Another situation where reunification services may not be ordered is where a child has entered the dependency system due to physical or sexual abuse (caused by the parent or another person because of the parent’s negligence), and was returned home after the provision of reunification services, only to be abused again. Additionally, a parent whose whereabouts are unknown or who is suffering from a mental disability that leaves him or her incapable of caring for a child may not have reunification services ordered by the court.
This bill seeks to address some of the particular barriers facing minor parents whose children are placed in foster care. Accordingly, this bill would require the court to consider the specific circumstances faced by a minor parent in trying to avail himself or herself to court-mandated services, and would require the court to order reunification services in specified situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred.”
Proposed Law:
This bill would remove judicial discretion currently provided under existing law and require the court to order reunification services in the following situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred:
the parent of the child has a history of drug or alcohol use, as specified, and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment;
the parental rights of the parent over a sibling have been permanently severed, as specified;
the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings of the child because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling, as specified; and
that the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling because of severe abuse or neglect, as specified.
This bill would additionally require the court to consider the special circumstances of a minor parent, including barriers to service and to maintaining contact with the child, and would authorize the court to continue the case for an additional six months for the provision of additional reunification services if the minor parent is making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child.
Prior Legislation:
SB 1064 (de Leon) Chapter 845/2012 authorized the court to extend the review hearing periods for reunification following consideration of a parent’s ability to comply with court ordered services where a child has been removed from the custody of a parent and the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained, or deported to his or her country of origin.
AB 2070 (Bass) Chapter 482/2008 required courts to take into consideration, among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services, and consideration of the likelihood of the parent’s discharge within the reunification timeframe for incarcerated and institutionalized parents.
Staff Comments:
By increasing the circumstances in which reunification services must be provided by county welfare agencies, this bill could require a subvention of funds from the state as provided under Proposition 30 (2012).
This bill would mandate the court to order reunification services in specified situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred. This bill would also allow for the provision of an additional six months of reunification services beyond the standard 12 months’ time period, to a total of up to 18 months, for minor parents provided specified requirements are met and the court has determined that there is a substantial probability of reunification or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.
It is unknown how many cases would be impacted under the provisions of this bill. While the number of dependent minor parents that have children in the dependency system is estimated to be small (less than 50), it is unknown at this time how many non-dependent minor parents with dependent children would potentially be impacted by this bill. For every 10 cases that otherwise would have been denied reunification services due to the specified conditions in this bill, increased services costs for 12 months would cost approximately $100,000. Costs to extend reunification services for 10 cases for an additional six months to minor parent cases that are making significant progress would cost approximately $50,000. To the extent the actual number of impacted cases is greater or less, costs would be impacted accordingly.
Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12, the state and counties contributed to the non-federal share of various social service programs. AB 118 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 40/2011 and ABX1 16 Chapter 13/2011 realigned state funding to the counties through the 2011 Local Revenue Fund (LRF) for various programs, including foster care and child welfare services. As a result, beginning in FY 2011–12 and for each fiscal year thereafter, non-federal funding and expenditures for these activities including child foster care and child welfare services are funded through the LRF.
Proposition 30, passed by the voters in November 2012, among other provisions, eliminated any potential mandate funding liability for any new program or higher level of service provided by counties related to realigned programs. Although the provisions of this bill are a mandate on local agencies, any increased costs would not be subject to reimbursement by the state. Rather, Proposition 30 specifies that for legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs, which would include child welfare services and foster care, the provisions shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.
To the extent the provision of extended reunification services to these cases results in additional cases of successful reunification, significant future cost savings could be realized to the extent youth have reduced lengths of stay in the dependency system.
-- END --
SB 68 (Liu)
Page 8 of 8
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 68 (Liu)
Version: March 26, 2015
Hearing Date: April 7, 2015
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Minor parents: reunification services
DESCRIPTION
When a court orders the removal of a child from the custody of his or her parent because of 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 to the physical or emotional well-being of the child. Existing law further requires the court to order family reunification services, to the child and the child’s parent(s), unless specified circumstances exist.
This bill would, instead, require the court to order reunification services for a parent under a number of currently optional circumstances if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred.
This bill would also require the court, in making its determination regarding reunification, as specified, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent, and would authorize the court to continue the case for up to six months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent if he or she is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return, as specified.
BACKGROUND
The United States has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world, although this rate has been declining since 1990, when it peaked at 12 percent of adolescent girls. Teenage girls in the dependency system are twice as likely to become pregnant before turning 19 than teenage girls who are not in foster care. The Guttmacher Institute argues that the circumstances that led these girls to be placed in foster care in the first place, along with the experience of being in foster care, seem to make them particularly vulnerable. (Boonstra, Heather D., Teen Pregnancy Among Young Women In Foster Care: A Primer, Spring 2011, Volume 14, Number 2.0, Guttmacher Policy Review.) Additionally, research has shown that adolescence is a period of poor control over behavior and emotions, and teenagers are likely to exhibit high levels of emotional arousal and reactionary decision-making. (Tucker, Gargi, Decision-making is Still a Work in Progress for Teenagers, March 2013, Brain Connection.) Regarding parenting foster youth, the John Burton foundation recently noted:
Parenting foster youth fall into the double cross-hairs of foster care and teen parenthood. Educationally, they fall far behind their peers, with a rate of high school graduation 13 percent lower than non-parenting foster youth and 25 percent lower than their non-foster youth peers. As young, often single parents, two out of three will live at, or below the poverty line in adulthood. Most troubling, children of parenting foster youth are a full five times more likely to be maltreated and placed into foster care themselves. (Lemley, Amy; Moving Parenting Foster Youth Out of the Shadows, March 13, 2013, The John Burton Foundation.)
The child welfare system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. Over the years, the Legislature has enacted a number of laws which require the court to take into consideration specific circumstances that present a barrier to family reunification when trying to create a permanency plan for a child. AB 2070 (Bass, Ch. 482, Stats. 2008) required courts to assess, among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services for institutionalized and incarcerated parents. Similarly, SB 977 (Liu, Ch. 219, Stats. 2014) required the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent in a certified substance abuse treatment facility.
This bill seeks to address some of the particular barriers facing minor parents whose children are placed in foster care. Accordingly, this bill would require the court to consider the specific circumstances faced by a minor parent in trying to avail him or herself to court-mandated services, and would require the court to order reunification services in several situations if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred. This bill would make other conforming changes.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that a minor may be removed from the physical custody of his or her parents and become a dependent of the juvenile court for serious abuse or neglect, or risk of serious abuse or neglect, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.)
Existing law provides that unless certain exceptions apply, the primary objective of the juvenile dependency system is reunification of the minor with his or her family, and the court must order the social worker to provide services to reunify children legally removed from a parent. (Fam. Code Sec. 7950, Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 202, 300.2, 361.5.)
Existing law does not require the court to order reunification services in 16 situations, as specified, including:
the whereabouts of the parent are unknown;
the parent is suffering from a mental disability, as specified;
the child or sibling of the child has previously entered the dependency system due to physical or sexual abuse, returned to the parent, and is being removed from the home again because of physical or sexual abuse;
the parent caused the death of another child;
the child or sibling of the child has entered the dependency system as a result of severe sexual or physical abuse inflicted by the parent, as specified; and
that the child was conceived by means of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 14 years. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5 (b).)
This bill would, instead, require the court to order reunification services in four situations, if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred, including:
the parent of the child has a history of drug or alcohol use, as specified, and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment;
the parental rights of the parent over a sibling have been permanently severed, as specified;
the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings of the child because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling, as specified; and
that the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling because of severe abuse or neglect, as specified.
Existing law provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and twelve months if the child is over three years of age. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5.)
Existing law allows for court ordered services in pursuit of family reunification to be extended from 12 to 18 or 24 months, as specified, for parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, or ordered into a resident substance abuse program if the court makes particular findings. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(a)(3)-(4).)
Existing law requires the court to consider at several points during the dependency hearings after removal of the child from the home, and in certain circumstances the social worker to document, the special circumstances of parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, deported, or court-ordered to residential substance abuse treatment, including barriers to service access and to maintaining contact with the child, and the parent’s significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return. (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 366.21 and 366.22.)
Existing law allows any party to petition the court to terminate reunification services any time prior to the permanency hearing if it appears that new circumstances exist that, had they previously existed would have led the court to bypass or not order reunification services, or that the action or inaction of the parent or guardian has made reunification impossible. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 388.)
This bill would additionally require the court to consider the special circumstances of a minor parent, including barriers to service and to maintaining contact with the child, and would authorize the court to continue the case for an additional six months for the provision of additional reunification services if the minor parent is making significant and consistent progress toward establishing a safe home for the child.
COMMENT
Stated need for the bill:
According to the author:
Children of minor parents are at greater risk of permanently losing their families because of barriers that impede reunification. This bill requires the courts to recognize these barriers, protect these families, and enhance the reunification process for children and their minor parents, giving them their greatest opportunity to succeed.
Ordering reunification services for parents who were a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred
Under existing law there are 16 circumstances that the Legislature has deemed so egregious that the court need not order reunification services. (See Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(b).) These exceptions to reunification demonstrate how the dependency system’s primary goals of ensuring the safety of children and preservation of family are balanced. Thus, when a child has been severely physically or sexually abused by a parent, the court need not offer reunification services. Another situation where reunification services may not be ordered is where a child has entered the dependency system due to physical or sexual abuse (caused by the parent or another person because of the parent’s negligence), and was returned home after the provision of reunification services, only to be abused again. Additionally, a parent whose whereabouts are unknown or who is suffering from a mental disability that leaves him or her incapable of caring for a child may not have reunification services ordered by the court.
As introduced, this bill would have required the court to order reunification services in all 16 situations, if the parent was a minor at the time when the facts that gave rise to the condition for the court to deny reunification services occurred. However, to address stakeholder concerns, the author recently amended the bill to require the court to order reunification services in only four of these situations. These include: (1) the parent of the child has a history of drug or alcohol use, as specified, and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment; (2) the parental rights of the parent over a sibling have been permanently severed and the court finds that the parent has not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of the sibling; (3) the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings of the child because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling and the court finds that the parent has not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of the sibling; and (4) that the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling because of severe abuse or neglect, as specified.
The Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, sponsor, argues that the bill’s provisions requiring reunification necessarily recognize that “teen parents upon reaching majority should be exempt from certain reunification bypass provisions for later born children based upon dependency proceedings begun when the parent was a minor.”
Minor parents, in particular, may have a difficult time protecting children from abusive family members because she may be a victim of similar abuse. The fact that a minor parent has failed to reunify with her child should arguably not be a barrier to reunification services she might otherwise have access to for subsequent children later on in life. The Executive Committee for the Family Law Section of the State Bar (FLEXCOM), while supportive of the concept and appreciative of the author’s recent narrowing amendments, has expressed concern that the bill’s requirement to provide for reunification in these four circumstances would deprive judges of the discretion they need to protect children from abuse. FLEXCOM writes:
While limiting the number of 361.5 subparagraphs is a step in the right direction, we would like to see the Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(c)(4) amendment eliminated entirely. Even if the facts necessary to establish the application of a 361.5(b) bypass is present, the court can still grant reunification services under 361.5(c) upon a finding that it’s in the best interest of the child. We don’t see the necessity for mandating the provision of reunification services without a best interest of the child finding, even if it’s in limited circumstances. The court’s discretion in these cases should be preserved.
Accordingly, the author may wish to continue to work with FLEXCOM and other stakeholders to address concern regarding the ability of the court to provide for the best interests of children. As discussed below, there are two protections in existing law that potentially provide courts with the tools and discretion needed to protect these children from abuse.
A child need not be placed in a parent’s custody during reunification services
A good faith plan for reunifying the child with his or her parents is required by statute and by due process. In addition, the approach taken to reunify the child with his or her family should not be mechanical; instead, a reunification plan “must be appropriate for each family and be based on the unique facts relating to that family.” (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal. 4th 1768, 1777.) An appropriate plan will contain time frames and time limits that suit the circumstances. For example, not every parent needs a full-time drug program, or 52 weeks of domestic violence classes, or a parenting class. Visitation, however, is a vital component of reunification, and must typically be provided if the child is placed in foster care after the dispositional hearing and the court provides the parent with reunification services. (In re Alvin R. Jr. (2003) 108 Cal. 4th 962, 972.)
Accordingly, the fact that reunification services are ordered does not necessarily mean that the child will ever be returned to the custody of the offending parent. The court has routinely emphasized that compliance with a reunification services and the case plan is a different issue than the child’s best interest, which is always the court’s primary focus and what it looks to when determining whether to return a child to the parent’s custody. (See In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal. 4th 819; Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. 4th 689, 704; and Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal. 4th 1738, 1748.)
Any party, or the court, may seek termination of reunification services
In general, the court is only obligated to order six months of reunification services. If the child is not returned to the parents by that six-month date, and the court cannot make the significant findings required to continue reunification (e.g., the parent is not availing herself to the court-ordered services, criminal history subsequent to the child’s removal, efforts and/or progress of parent to create stable home for the child), the court can terminate reunification services at six months and refer the matter for a permanent plan implementation hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(a).)
Furthermore, any party, including a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court, may petition the court to terminate reunification services if it appears that a change of circumstance or new evidence exists that justifies termination of reunification services, or an action of the parent creates a substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 388(c).) Accordingly, if reunification services are not improving the chances that the parent will be able to create a safe home for the child, the court or any party (i.e., the child, the parent, or the county) may seek to terminate reunification services and start the process of finding the child a new, safe home.
Requiring courts to consider barriers unique to minor parents
Similar to the considerations a court must take into account when ordering reunification services for incarcerated, institutionalized, deported, or detained parents, this bill would require the court to consider the particular barriers of the parent in accessing court-mandated reunification services and her ability to maintain contact with her child. This bill would also allow up to six additional months of reunification services for minor parents who are making significant progress in a court-ordered reunification plan. The National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, writes in support that “maintaining the family units of minor parents eliminates the risk their children are exposed to and gives them a chance to grow up in a secure environment.”
The author writes that these provisions are necessary to address the numerous hurdles minor parents face which “are distinct from those encountered by adult parents and guardians. [They] must navigate an already complicated legal process which presumes the parent or legal guardian has ready access to court-ordered treatment programs. [However, these] parents are enrolled in school or pursuing other educational opportunities, which limits their chances to effectively utilize parenting skills enhancement programs. Minor parents also face substantial legal barriers that prevent access to fulltime employment, appropriate child care, transportation, and adequate housing.”
In support, Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, the sponsor of this bill, writes, “teen parents should be treated at least in the same manner which the State has recognized particular barriers to reunification for incarcerated parents, immigrant parents, and those in court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment programs. As with these other classes of parents, teen parents, who make consistent progress in establishing a safe home for their children’s return, should receive an additional six months of reunification services in order for them to have a chance at successful reunification with their children.”
Support: National Association of Social Workers
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc.
Related Pending Legislation: None known
Prior Legislation:
SB 977 (Liu, Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014) required social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of his/her parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility, and required the court to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of his/her parent in these situations, as specified.
SB 1064 (De León, Chapter 845, Statutes of 2012) authorized the court to extend the review hearing periods for reunification following consideration of a parent’s ability to comply with court ordered services where a child has been removed from the custody of a parent and the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained, or deported to his or her country of origin.
AB 2070 (Bass, Chapter 482, Statutes of 2008) required that courts take into consideration, among other factors, the particular barriers to accessing court-mandated services for institutionalized and incarcerated parents.
**************
Discussed in Hearing
View Older Hearings
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):