Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that the law enforcement agencies and the county welfare or probation department of each county develop and implement cooperative arrangements in order to coordinate existing duties in connection with the investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect cases. Existing law requires a local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over a reported case of child abuse to report to the county welfare or probation department that it is investigating the case, and requires the county welfare department or probation department, in certain cases, to evaluate what action or actions would be in the best interest of the child and to submit its findings to the district attorney, as specified.

This bill would authorize a county, in order to implement a multidisciplinary response to investigate reports involving child physical or sexual abuse, exploitation, or maltreatment, to use a Child Advocacy Center. The bill would require a Child Advocacy Center to meet specified standards, including the use of representatives from specified disciplines and providing dedicated child-focused settings for interviews and other services. The bill would authorize multidisciplinary team members to share with each other information in their possession concerning the child, the family of the child, and the person who is the subject of the abuse or neglect investigation, as specified. The bill would provide that a member of a multidisciplinary team and a child forensic interviewer or other provider of a childrens advocacy center shall not be civilly or criminally liable for providing services to children or nonoffending family members.

Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that the law enforcement agencies and the county welfare or probation department of each county develop and implement cooperative arrangements in order to coordinate existing duties in connection with the investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect cases. Existing law requires a local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over a reported case of child abuse to report to the county welfare or probation department that it is investigating the case, and requires the county welfare department or probation department, in certain cases, to evaluate what action or actions would be in the best interest of the child and to submit its findings to the district attorney, as specified.

This bill would authorize a county to initiate a formal interagency protocol agreement to create multidisciplinary teams in order to implement a coordinated multidisciplinary response to intervention in reports involving child physical or sexual abuse, exploitation, or maltreatment. The bill would require a county that initiates an interagency protocol agreement to include as members of the multidisciplinary team representatives from the district attorneys office, local city and county law enforcement agencies, and the child protective services agency, and would require the interagency protocol agreement to be signed by all members of the multidisciplinary team. The bill would require that representatives of the multidisciplinary team work together at a childrens advocacy center to conduct interviews and make informed decisions about the investigation, treatment, management, and prosecution of child abuse cases and to provide culturally competent services or referrals and would authorize multidisciplinary team members to share with each other information in their possession concerning the child, the family of the child, and the person who is the subject of the abuse or neglect investigation, as specified. The bill would provide that a member of a multidisciplinary team and a child forensic interviewer or other provider of a childrens advocacy center shall not be civilly or criminally liable for providing services to children or nonoffending family members.

Date of Hearing: April 4, 2017

Consultant: Adam Smith

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:March 20, 2017

SUMMARY: Authorizes counties to create Child Advocacy Centers in order to create and to facilitate multidisciplinary responses to child abuse. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes counties to utilize a Child Advocacy Center (CAC) in order to implement coordinated multidisciplinary responses to investigate reports involving child physical or sexual abuse, exploitation, or maltreatment.
2. Requires any county that utilizes a CAC to coordinate its multidisciplinary response to meet the following standards:
   1. The multidisciplinary team must have at least one representative from each of the following disciplines: law enforcement, child protective services, district attorney’s office, medical providers, mental health providers, victim advocate, or a representative of the CAC. Members of the multidisciplinary team may fill more than one role as needed;
   2. The multidisciplinary team, as utilized through the CAC, shall have cultural competency and diversity training to meet the needs of the community it serves;
   3. The CAC shall have a designated legal entity responsible for the governance of its operations. This entity shall oversee ongoing business practices of the CAC, including setting and implementing administrative policies, hiring and managing personnel, obtaining funding, supervising program and fiscal operations, and long-term planning;
   4. The CAC shall provide a dedicated child-focused setting designed to provide a safe, comfortable and neutral place where forensic interviews and other CAC services can be appropriately provided for children and families;
   5. The CAC shall produce written protocols for case review and case review procedures. Additionally, the Center shall use a case tracking system to provide information on essential demographics and case information;
   6. The CAC shall verify that members of the multidisciplinary team responsible for medical evaluations have specific training in child abuse or child sexual abuse examinations;
   7. The CAC shall verify that members of the multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health services are trained in, and deliver, trauma-focused, evidence supported, mental health treatments; and
   8. The CAC shall verify that interviews conducted in the course of investigations are conducted in a forensically sound manner and occur in a child-focused setting designed to provide a safe, comfortable and dedicated for children and families.
3. Provides that counties are not limited to utilizing one CAC.
4. Authorizes a multidisciplinary team at a CAC to share with other multidisciplinary team members any information or records concerning the child and family and the person who is the subject of the investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect for the sole purpose of facilitating a forensic interview or case discussion or providing services to the child or family; provided, however, that the shared information or records shall be treated as privileged and confidential to the extent required by law by the receiving multidisciplinary team members.
5. Creates the following legislative findings and declarations:
   1. Perpetration of child abuse and neglect is detrimental to children;
   2. All victims of child abuse or neglect deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, and sensitivity as a matter of high public importance;
   3. In any investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect, all persons participating in the investigation of the case should consider the needs of the child victim and do whatever is necessary to prevent psychological harm to the child and ensure that children disclosing abuse are not further victimized by the intervention systems designed to protect them;
   4. A multidisciplinary approach to investigating child abuse and neglect is associated with less anxiety, fewer interviews, and increased support for the child, as well as interagency collaboration, coordination, intervention, and sharing of information;
   5. A multidisciplinary response to allegations of child abuse and neglect has been found most effective and least traumatic when coordinated through a children’s advocacy center; and
   6. The use of multidisciplinary teams and the establishment of children’s advocacy centers throughout the State of California is necessary to coordinate investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect and to facilitate treatment referrals.
6. Adds child forensic interviewers and other personnel formally engaged with or employed by a CAC to the list of personnel that may make up a “child abuse multidisciplinary team.”
   
7. Adds CACs to the list of provider agencies that may share confidential information through a child abuse multidisciplinary team.
   

EXISTING LAW:

1. States the legislative intent that the law enforcement agencies and the county welfare or probation department in each county shall develop and implement cooperative arrangements in order to coordinate existing duties in connection with the investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect cases. (Pen. Code, § 11166.3, subd. (a).)
   
2. Requires the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over a mandated child abuse or neglect case, as specified, shall report to the county welfare or probation department that it is investigating the case within 36 hours after starting its investigation. (Pen. Code § 11166.3, subd. (a).)
   
3. Requires the county welfare department or probation department, in cases where a minor is a victim of child molestation, as specified, and a dependency petition has been filed with regard to the minor, to evaluate what action or actions would be in the best interest of the child victim. (Pen. Code § 11166.3, subd. (a).)
   
4. Provides notwithstanding any other provision of law, the county welfare department or probation department shall submit in writing its findings and the reasons therefor to the district attorney on or before the completion of the investigation. The written findings and the reasons therefor shall be delivered or made accessible to the defendant or his or her counsel. (Pen. Code § 11166.3, subd. (a).)
   
5. Mandates a local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over a reported child abuse or neglect case to report to the district office of the State Department of Social Services any case reported under this section if the case involves a specified facility and the licensing of the facility has not been delegated to a county agency. The law enforcement agency shall send a copy of its investigation report and any other pertinent materials to the licensing agency upon the request of the licensing agency. (Pen. Code § 11166.3, subd. (b).)
   
6. Mandates the Department of Justice, in cooperation with the State Department of Social Services, to prescribe by regulation guidelines for the investigation of child abuse or neglect, as defined, in facilities licensed to care for children. (Pen. Code § 11174.1, subd. (a).)
7. Authorizes members of a multidisciplinary personnel team engaged in the prevention, identification, and treatment of child abuse to disclose and exchange information and writings to and with one another relating to any incidents of child abuse that may also be part of a juvenile court record or otherwise designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification or treatment of child abuse. (Welf. and Inst. Code, § 830.)
   
8. Provides that counties may establish child abuse multidisciplinary personnel teams within that county to allow provider agencies to share confidential information in order for provider agencies to investigate reports of suspected child abuse and neglect, as specified, or for the purpose of child welfare agencies making a detention determination. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (a).)
   
9. Defines "multidisciplinary personnel" as any team of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, and treatment of child abuse and neglect cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to child abuse. The team may include but not be limited to:
   
   1. Psychiatrists, psychologists or other trained counseling personnel;
      
   2. Police officers or other law enforcement agents;
      
   3. Medical personnel with sufficient training to provide health services;
      
   4. Social workers with training or experience in child abuse prevention; and,
      
   5. Any public or private school teacher, administrative officer, supervisor of child welfare and attendance, or certificated pupil personnel employee. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (b)(1).)
      
10. Defines "provider agency" as any governmental or other agency that has as one of its purposes the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse or neglect. The provider agencies serving children and their families that may share information shall include, but not be limited to the following entities or agencies:
    
    1. Social services;
       
    2. Children's services;
       
    3. Health services;
       
    4. Mental health services;
       
    5. Probation;
       
    6. Law enforcement; and,
       
    7. Schools. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (b)(2).)
       
11. Provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, during a 30-day period, or longer if good cause exists following a report of suspected child abuse or neglect, members of a child abuse multidisciplinary team engaged in the prevention, identification, and treatment of child abuse may disclose to, and exchange with one another information and writing that relate to any incident of child abuse that may also be designated as confidential if the member of that team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, and treatment of child abuse. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(1).)
    
12. States that all information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a child abuse or neglect investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by all applicable statutory and common law protections. Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by team members. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (h).)
    
13. Provides that any county may establish a computerized data base system within that county to allow provider agencies, as defined, to share specified identifying information regarding families at risk for child abuse and neglect, for the purposes of forming multidisciplinary personnel teams. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.5, subd. (a).)
14. Provides that no employee of a provider agency which serves children and their families shall be civilly or criminally liable for furnishing or sharing information, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.5, subd. (g).)
    
15. Authorizes each county to establish an interagency child death review team to assist local agencies in identifying and reviewing suspicious child death and facilitating communication among persons who perform autopsies and the various persons and agencies involved in child abuse or neglect cases. (Pen. Code § 11174.32, subd. (a).)
    

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "In 2015, California had 500,976 reports (allegations) of child abuse and neglect in California. Of those, 74,327, or 15%, were substantiated (verified) by the state child welfare system. Children ages 0-5 make up nearly half of all substantiated cases of child abuse/neglect in California. Statewide, child abuse and neglect cases disproportionately involve children of color.

“CACs are tasked with coordinating the multi-agency response required when an allegation of abuse or neglect is made involving a child or adult with developmental disability. CACs bring together a multi-disciplinary team including law enforcement, child protection, medical, mental health providers and district attorneys to e3nsure that any response to an allegation of child abuse is coordinated among these agencies and that the needs of the child stay at the forefront of all investigations. Interviews are conducted in child friendly environments by forensically trained staff so that a child is not re-traumatized by multiple, inconsistent interviews from different agencies.

“CACs provide a crucial role in helping to protect children when they are at their most vulnerable after abuse or neglect has occurred. Further, they help parents and caregivers navigate services and providers to help abused children receive the care and treatment they need.

“AB 320 creates a statutory definition of what a CAC is and what duties it generally performs within a county. This definition will help CACs draw down federal dollars for services. Without a definition in place, there is a concern that other agencies in California may call themselves ‘CACs’ and draw down this funding without actually performing the work that children’s advocacy centers do. Because CACs do not receive any other source of stable state funding in California, being able to fully access available federal funds, is vital to the continued advancement of CAC’s in California and their ability to serve California’s most vulnerable Children.”

1. Existing Authority to Create Multidisciplinary Teams: Counties are currently permitted to create advocacy centers and multidisciplinary agreements without the express authority in this proposed bill. While this bill would codify some additional guidelines and requirements, the Welfare and Institutions Code already authorizes multidisciplinary teams to investigate instances of child abuse. In addition, CACs and multidisciplinary teams can currently receive accreditation through the National Children's Alliance which requires each child advocacy program to meet specified standards for the composition of members, medical evaluations, mental health and forensic interviews. [National Children's Alliance Standards for Accredited Members <http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/index.php?s=76> (as of February 28, 2017).]
   
2. Governor’s Veto Message: SB 1352 (Corbett), of the 2011-2012 Legislative Session, proposed substantially similar language regarding the authorization of counties to create CACs and interagency protocol agreements. According to the Governor’s veto message, “Currently 33 counties in the state have established CACs, indicating that state prescription in this area is unnecessary. More to the point, this bill would lock into statute specific requirements for these centers that may not fit with what the local county leaders see as the best way to handle these sensitive cases. A “one-size-fits-all” approach goes against the goals of the Child Welfare Services Realignment, which was designed to give counties flexibility to tailor programs as they deem appropriate.” (Governor’s veto message to Sen. On Sen. Bill No. 1352 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.)(July 3, 2012). AB 320 would create restrictions and requirements that would not be as strict as the requirements proposed in SB 1352 but may limit flexibility of county leaders nonetheless.
3. Argument in Support: According to the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, “No single agency, working alone, can be expected to possess the expertise required to effectively eliminate all child abuse and neglect fatalities. Responsibility for protecting children must be shared among many sectors of the community, all working together, to strengthen prevention and early intervention, surveillance, CPS intervention, and cross-system collaboration. We strongly support the principles behind AB 320 to build coordination and collaboration between county agencies.”
   
4. Argument in Opposition: According to the California Right to Life Committee, “CRLC questions why there is a need for a California sponsored bill to allow a county to authorize a Child Advocacy Center. According to the National Children’s Alliance there are presently 67 centers listed as California Advocacy Centers with 40% of our counties presently members of the NCA. Those California centers which have received accreditation number 21.
   
   “CRLC questions whether this is a strategy for receiving grant monies from the National Children’s Alliance. The NAC works with the Children’s Advocacy Centers of California in a coalition, and the NAC provides training and national accreditation along with grant monies.
   
   “Would AB 320 now require that the non-profit and non-governmental child advocacy centers become accredited in order to function as or with a county center? Would this jeopardize their private agency status as a result of adhering to the specified standards of the bill?”
   
5. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 406 (Torres), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2013, removed the sunset clause contained in AB 2229.
   2. SB 1352 (Corbett), of the 2011-2012 Legislative Session, would have authorized each county to establish a CAC and interagency protocol agreements with similar requirements to the proposed bill. SB 1352 was vetoed by the Governor.
   3. AB 2322 (Feuer), Chapter 551, Statutes of 2010, broadened the scope of information that can be included in county multidisciplinary personnel team databases and authorizes case managers from the California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids program to participate on child abuse multidisciplinary personnel teams.
      
   4. AB 2229 (Brownley), Chapter 464, Statutes of 2010, revised the definition of a "multidisciplinary personnel team" to mean any team of two or more persons created to investigate a report of suspected child abuse, as specified, and required that the sharing of information permitted in the period following a report of suspected child abuse or neglect be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared to ensure that confidential information is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law.
      
   5. SB 1279 (Pavley), Chapter 116, Statutes of 2010, authorized the County of Los Angeles to establish a pilot project to develop protocols for identifying and assessing minors, upon arrest or detention by law enforcement, who may be victims of commercial sexual exploitation, and to develop a diversion program reflecting the best practices to address the needs and requirements of those minors.
      
   6. SB 153 (Migden), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, would have allowed a county to enter into grants for interview services with the Office of Emergency Services for the recovery of costs associated with the provision of child victim forensic evidentiary interviews conducted by CACs. SB 153 was later amended to a different subject and vetoed.
      
   7. SB 1761 (Poochigian), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session, would have redistributed the money in the State Penalty Fund and establish grant programs for CACs and Victim Trauma Recovery Centers. SB 1761 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   8. AB 1657 (Evans), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session, would have authorized counties to establish CACs to coordinate the activities of the various agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution of alleged child abuse and mitigation of family violence, would have required each county that establishes a CAC to develop and interagency protocol agreement, as specified. AB 1657 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   9. AB 2294 (Wolk), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session, would have allowed counties to establish Multidisciplinary Interview Centers (MDICs) and submit claims to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board for costs incurred by the MDICs associated with child victim forensic interviews. AB 2294 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   10. AB 1497 (Negrete-McLeod), of the 2001-02 Legislative Session, would have allowed counties to submit claims to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board for costs incurred by multidisciplinary teams or centers associated with child victim forensic interviews. AB 1497 was vetoed.
       
   11. AB 1724 (Gallegos), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session, would have established the Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Intervention Account, funded by the General Fund, to provide support for child abuse multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary centers. AB 1724 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
       
   12. SB 647 (Rainey), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session, would have established an account in the General Fund for local child abuse multidisciplinary teams and centers. SB 647 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (Co-sponsor)

Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing and Coordination Center

Harbor-UCLA K.I.D.S.

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Opposition

California Right to Life Committee

Analysis Prepared by: