CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 2805

Author: Eggman (D)

Introduced: 2/20/20

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-0, 7/30/20

AYES: Jackson, Borgeas, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Melendez, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0, 5/26/20 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Juveniles: reunification

SOURCE: California Judges Association

DIGEST:

This bill expands the scope of evidence that a court may consider when determining whether to order reunification services for a child who has been made a dependent of the juvenile court because the child, before reaching five years of age, was the victim of severe physical abuse by a parent or by any person known by the parent.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that a child may become a dependent of the juvenile court and be removed from their parents or guardian on the basis of abuse or neglect. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300.)^[1]
2. Requires, at the initial hearing on the petition for dependency, that the social worker report to the court reasons why the child has been removed from the family’s physical custody, the need, if any, for continued detention, the available services and referral methods to those services that could facilitate the return of the child to the custody of the their family, and whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child. (§ 319(b).)
3. Requires the court, if it orders the child to be detained, to state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the removal was necessary, reference evidence relied on in making the determination whether continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian is contrary to child’s welfare, order temporary placement and care of the child welfare department, and order services to be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and their family, if appropriate. (§ 319(g).)
4. Enumerates certain circumstances in which reunification need not be ordered unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child. (§ 361.5(b),(c)(2).)
5. Prohibits the court from ordering reunification services if the child was brought into the juvenile welfare system due to the parent’s (or someone known to the parent) severe physical abuse against the child when the child was under five years of age. Provides that this presumption may be rebutted if the court finds that those services are likely to prevent further abuse 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. Provides that such a finding may be based on competent testimony only. (§ 361.5(c)(3).)

This bill instead provides that a finding under 5), above, may be based on any competent evidence.

Background

When a child is brought into the foster care system, a dependency court is required to order the provision of service to attempt to reunify the child with their family. However, if the child was brought into the foster care system because of certain types of severe harm at the hands of the parent, there is a rebuttable presumption against reunification. In determining if the presumption has been rebutted, courts generally may consider any competent evidence. But in the case of severe physical abuse against a child under the age of five, existing law allows a court to consider testimony only.

This bill changes that provision so the court could consider any competent evidence, thereby aligning that presumption against reunification with other similar provisions and giving courts the ability to make a more holistic and accurate determination. This enables courts to consider this issue more holistically by admitting additional evidence, such as police reports or medical files. According to the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, which supports the bill, “[t]he allowance of more evidence will provide for better consideration of the child’s best interest.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/30/20)

California Judges Association (source)

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/30/20)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

While there are many types of evidence, current law only allows a Judge to consider one type – testimony – when considering if a WIC section 300(e) cases. Considering if a severely abused child under the age of five should be reunified with their parents or guardians is a monumental decision. Judges should be able to consider all types of evidence when making such an important decision. This bill will expand the information a Judge can consider when deciding if bypassing guardians for reunification services is in the best interest of the child.

The bill’s sponsor, California Judges Association, adds:

Dependency Court Judges must make difficult decisions that affect the lives of children and their families. AB 2805 will provide judges with more information to make better decisions, while also avoiding unnecessary hearings that delay services to families and permanency for children. The COVID-19 pandemic was particularly disruptive to the dependency system. Nearly all dependency hearings in every county were postponed, creating a massive backlog to an already overburdened system. Many have also been concerned that shelter-in-place restrictions might contribute to an increase in abuse and neglect of children. This bill is a needed change that will improve judicial decision-making and efficiency, especially under the additional systemic pressures caused by the public health crisis.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0, 5/26/20

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Diep, Maienschein, Quirk, Wicks

Prepared by: Josh Tosney / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

7/31/20 18:00:55

**** END ****

1. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2805 (Author:Eggman)

Version: February 20, 2020

Hearing Date: July 30, 2020

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: JT

SUBJECT

Juveniles: reunification

DIGEST

This bill expands the scope of evidence that a court may consider when determining whether to order reunification services for a young child who has been made a dependent of the juvenile court because the child suffered severe physical abuse by a parent or by any person known by the parent.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

When a child is brought into the foster care system, a dependency court is required to order the provision of service to attempt to reunify the child with their family. However, if the child was brought into the foster care system because of certain types of severe harm at the hands of the parent, there is a rebuttable presumption against reunification. In determining if the presumption has been rebutted, courts generally may consider any competent evidence. But in the case of severe physical abuse against a child under the age of five, existing law allows a court to consider testimony only.

This bill would change that provision so the court could consider any competent evidence, thereby aligning that presumption against reunification with other similar provisions and giving courts the ability to make a more holistic and accurate determination. The bill is sponsored by the California Judges Association and supported by the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. The bill has no known opposition.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Provides that a child may become a dependent of the juvenile court and be removed from their parents or guardian on the basis of abuse or neglect. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300.)^[1]
2. Requires, at the initial hearing on the petition for dependency, that the social worker report to the court reasons why the child has been removed from the family’s physical custody, the need, if any, for continued detention, the available services and referral methods to those services that could facilitate the return of the child to the custody of the their family, and whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child. (§ 319(b).)
3. Requires the court, if it orders the child to be detained, to state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the removal was necessary, reference evidence relied on in making the determination whether continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian is contrary to child’s welfare, order temporary placement and care of the child welfare department, and order services to be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and their family, if appropriate. (§ 319(g).)
4. Enumerates certain circumstances in which reunification need not be ordered unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child. (§ 361.5(b),(c)(2).)
5. Additionally, prohibits the court from ordering reunification services if the child was brought into the juvenile welfare system due to the parent’s (or someone known to the parent) severe physical abuse against the child when the child was under five years of age. Provides that this presumption may be rebutted if the court finds that those services are likely to prevent further abuse 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. Provides that such a finding may be based on competent testimony only. (§ 361.5(c)(3).)

This bill instead provides that a finding under 5), above, may be based on any competent evidence.

COMMENTS

1. The juvenile welfare system

The child welfare system is intended to achieve a delicate balance of values, including “protecting children from harm, preserving family ties, and avoiding unnecessary intrusion into family life.” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 638) The overarching goal of dependency proceedings is to safeguard the welfare of California’s children. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 673.) There are approximately 60,000 children in California’s foster care system.

Juvenile court proceedings commence when a social worker files a petition under sections 311 and 332. The purpose of the petition is to protect the child from some parental deficiency, not to punish the parent. (See In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397; In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) If the child needs immediate care or is in immediate danger, the child may be removed from a parent’s physical custody and may be placed in the temporary custody of the social worker, a responsible relative, or guardian. (§§ 305, 306.) If the social worker determines that the child should be detained in custody, the social worker is required to file a petition with the juvenile court. (§ 290.1.) Within two court days, the court must hold a detention hearing to determine whether the child should be further detained. (§ 315.) The petition must establish a prima facie case that the child is a victim of abuse or neglect under specified conditions described in section 300, that continuance in the parent’s or guardian’s home is contrary to the child’s welfare, and that further harm will come to the child or the child does not want to return to the home due to abuse. (§ 319(c).)

If the court orders a child detained, the court must state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the initial removal was necessary, reference specified evidence, and order that temporary placement and care of the child be vested with the county welfare department pending the subsequent hearing known as the “jurisdictional” hearing under section 355, which must be held within 15 court days. (§ 319(g); 334.) If appropriate, the court must order services to be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and their family. (Id.)

Within 15 court days of a detention hearing or 30 calendar days of an initial petition hearing, the dependency court holds a “jurisdictional” hearing on the petition to determine whether the child is a victim of abuse or neglect under section 300. (§ 355.) Under section 300, the court has jurisdiction to adjudge the child a dependent if a preponderance of the evidence shows that the child has suffered or is at a substantial risk of suffering serious harm.

After sustaining the petition’s allegations and establishing jurisdiction over the child, the court holds a “dispositional” hearing to decide where the child will live. (§ 361(a).) A dependent child may not be taken from the physical custody of a parent, guardian, or custodian unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence that at least one of several specified conditions showing that the child is endangered applies. (Id. at (c).)

If the court decides the child should not be with the parents, family reunification services are provided and a review hearing is held at least every six months. (§§ 361.5(a); 366.21(e), (f).) At a review hearing, the court must return the child to their parents unless the court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the child would be in substantial risk of danger. (§ 366.21(e)(1).) The court must also make findings, based on clear and convincing evidence, that reasonable reunification services have been offered or provided to the parents. (§§ 362.21(g)(1)(C)(ii), 366.22(b)(3)(C); In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306.)

1. Authorizes any competent evidence to be considered for a particular finding

In deciding whether to order reunification services, a court must hold a dispositional hearing. (§ 361.5(c)(1).) The social worker must prepare a report that discusses whether such services should be provided. (Id.) In specified cases involving serious harm to the child, the court may not order reunification services, unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that reunification is in the best interest of the child. (Id. at (c)(2).) One such case is when the child came into the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300(e), which applies to children under the age of five who suffered severe physical abuse from the parent or a person known by the parent when the parent knew or reasonably should have known the person was physically abusing the child. In such circumstances, the court may not order reunification services unless it finds that those services are likely to prevent re-abuse 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. (§ 361.5(c)(3).) Such a finding must be based on competent testimony, which would typically come from the social worker or parent.

This bill would instead permit the finding to be based on any competent evidence, thereby broadening the scope of evidence that may be used in considering whether to order reunification services. This enables courts to consider this issue more holistically by admitting additional evidence, such as police reports or medical files. According to the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, which supports the bill, “[t]he allowance of more evidence will provide for better consideration of the child’s best interest.”

The author writes:

While there are many types of evidence, current law only allows a Judge to consider one type – testimony – when considering if a WIC section 300(e) cases. Considering if a severely abused child under the age of five should be reunified with their parents or guardians is a monumental decision. Judges should be able to consider all types of evidence when making such an important decision. This bill will expand the information a Judge can consider when deciding if bypassing guardians for reunification services is in the best interest of the child.

The bill’s sponsor, California Judges Association, adds:

Dependency Court Judges must make difficult decisions that affect the lives of children and their families. AB 2805 will provide judges with more information to make better decisions, while also avoiding unnecessary hearings that delay services to families and permanency for children. The COVID-19 pandemic was particularly disruptive to the dependency system. Nearly all dependency hearings in every county were postponed, creating a massive backlog to an already overburdened system. Many have also been concerned that shelter-in-place restrictions might contribute to an increase in abuse and neglect of children. This bill is a needed change that will improve judicial decision-making and efficiency, especially under the additional systemic pressures caused by the public health crisis.

SUPPORT

California Judges Association (sponsor)

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

SB 1021 (Durazo, 2020) aimed to strengthen the reunification process by promoting meaningful visitation and guiding the courts in crafting visitation orders. The bill was referred to this Committee but was not heard.

SB 1126 (Jones, 2020), which relates to juvenile court records, contained a provision identical to the one in this bill, but the provision was amended out. The bill is pending in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Prior Legislation: None known.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 75, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

1. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. ↑

Date of Hearing: May 11, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2805

Author:(Eggman) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2020

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: Juveniles: reunification

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD JUDGES BE ABLE TO CONSIDER BROADER evidence WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT REUNIFICATION SERVICES TO A PARENT WHOSE YOUNG CHILD HAS BEEN REMOVED from the parent’s home BECAUSE THE CHILD SUFFERED SEVERE PHYSICAL ABUSE BY THE PARENT OR SOMEONE CLOSE TO THE PARENT?

SYNOPSIS

California’s child welfare system is responsible for ensuring the protection and safety of children at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. When it is necessary for the state to remove a child from their parents, the primary objective of the child welfare system is to safely reunify the child with their family. To support that objective, in most cases the juvenile court orders reunification services, such as counseling or treatment, for the child and the child’s parents. If the child is under three years of age, these reunification services are offered for a period of six months. If the child is over the age of three, the services are offered for twelve months. In some circumstances, the time period for reunification services can be extended up to 24 months.

However, not all children can safely be reunited with their families and the Welfare & Institutions Code allows judges to forgo reunification services when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of 17 specific situations exist. These situations include a parent who caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect, a parent with a history of drug or alcohol abuse who has failed to comply with required treatment program, or, of relevance to this bill, when the child was made a dependent of the juvenile court under the age of five as the result of severe abuse inflicted by the parent or a person known to the parent, as provided. The court can still order reunification services if it finds it warranted, as provided. This bill seeks to expand the information that the court can consider when deciding to grant reunification services for a parent whose child was removed under the age of five as the result of severe abuse inflicted by the parent or a person known to the parent. Currently the court can only consider competent testimony. This bill, sponsored by the California Judges Association, would expand that to all competent evidence, which is consistent with the information that the court can consider in the other instances. This would allow the court to consider, among other things, police and medical reports, which should allow for a better informed ruling by the court. There is no reported opposition to the bill.

SUMMARY: Expands the information that a court may consider when determining whether to permit reunification services for a young child who has been made a dependent of the juvenile court because the child suffered severe physical abuse by a parent or by any person known by the parent. Specifically, this bill expands the evidence that a court can consider, from competent testimony to competent evidence, when the court considers whether to permit reunification services for a child, under five years old, who has been made a dependent of the juvenile court because the child suffered severe physical abuse by a parent or by any person known by the parent, if the parent knew or reasonably should have known that the person was physically abusing the child. In this case, prohibits the court from ordering reunification unless it, considering competent evidence, finds that those services are likely to prevent re-abuse 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.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the juvenile court with jurisdiction over children who are subject to abuse or neglect. Allows for the court to take jurisdiction of a child who is under the age of five years and has suffered severe physical abuse, as defined, by a parent, or by any person known by the parent, if the parent knew or reasonably should have known that the person was physically abusing the child. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.)
2. Provides that the purpose of the juvenile court dependency system is the maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being abused, neglected, or exploited. Provides that the focus is on the preservation of the family, as well as the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the child. (Section 300.2.)
3. Requires the juvenile court, if at the initial hearing it orders a child removed from the child’s parent due to abuse or neglect, to order that child welfare reunification services be provided to the family as soon as possible in order to reunify the child with their family, if appropriate. (Section 319 (e).)
4. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order the social worker to provide child welfare services to a child who has been removed from their parents' custody and to the parents in order to support the goal of reunification, for a specified time period, except under certain circumstances. 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, but that may be extended up to 18 or 24 months, as provided. (Section 361.5 (a).)
5. Provides that reunification services under 4), above, need not be provided if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that specified conditions exist, including:
   1. The parent is suffering from a mental disability that renders the parent incapable of using the reunification services;
   2. The parent has caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect;
   3. The child or a sibling has been adjudicated a dependent as the result of several physical or sexual abuse;
   4. The parent has been convicted of a violent felony;
   5. The parent has a history of drug or alcohol abuse and has failed to comply with treatment programs as provided; or
   6. The child, under five years old, has suffered severe physical abuse by the parent or by any person known by the parent, if the parent knew or reasonably should have known that the person was physically abusing the child. (Section 361.5 (b).)
6. Prevents a court from ordering reunification services for a parent in specified situations, including the situations set forth in 5), (b)-(e), above, unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the child's best interest. (Section 361.5 (c)(2).)
7. Prohibits a court from ordering reunification for a child in the situation set forth in 5) f), above, unless the court finds, based on competent testimony, that those services are likely to prevent re-abuse 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. Requires the social worker to 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. (Section 361.5 (c)(3).)
8. Allows any party to petition the court to terminate reunification services early, and allows the court to terminate those services after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that:
   1. Circumstances now exist that, had they previously existed would have led the court to bypass or not order reunification services; or,
   2. The action or inaction of the parent creates a substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur, including but not limited to the parent's or guardian’s failure to visit the child, or the failure to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan. (Section 388 (c).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: California’s child welfare system is responsible for ensuring the protection and safety of children at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. When it is necessary for the state to remove a child from their parents, the primary objective of the child welfare system is to safely reunify the child with their family. To support that objective, in most cases the juvenile court orders reunification services, such as counseling or treatment, for the child and the child’s parents. If the child is under three years of age, these reunification services are offered for a period of six months. If the child is over the age of three, the services are offered for twelve months. In some circumstances, the time period for reunification services can be extended up to 24 months.

However not all children can safely be reunited with their families and the Welfare & Institutions Code allows judges to forgo reunification services when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of 17 specific situations exist. These situations include a parent who caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect, a parent with a history of drug or alcohol abuse who has failed to comply with required treatment program, or, of relevance to this bill, when the child was made a dependent of the juvenile court under the age of five as the result of severe abuse inflicted by the parent or a person known to the parent, as provided. The court can still order reunification services if it finds it warranted, as provided. This bill seeks to expand the information that the court can consider when deciding to grant reunification services for a parent whose child was removed under the age of five as the result of severe abuse inflicted by the parent or a person known to the parent. Currently the court can only consider competent testimony. This bill would expand that to all competent evidence.

In support of the bill, the author states:

While there are many types of evidence, current law only allows a Judge to consider one type – testimony – when considering if a WIC section 300(e) cases. Considering if a severely abused child under the age of five should be reunified with their parents or guardians is a monumental decision. Judges should be able to consider all types of evidence when making such an important decision. This bill will expand the information a Judge can consider when deciding if bypassing guardians for reunification services is in the best interest of the child.

Parents generally offered reunification services, but exemptions exist in order to protect foster children from further abuse. Since the goal of the dependency system is, whenever possible, to reunite children with their families, parents are generally provided services in order to safely reunify with their children in foster care. These services are designed to address the circumstances that caused the child to be removed from the parents in the first place, such as drug or alcohol treatment, anger management counseling or parenting classes, so that the child can be safely returned to their home. However, there are currently 17 instances when a parent or guardian can be denied reunification services, generally because the parent's or guardian's behavior is such that denial of services is necessary in order to protect the child from further harm. In particular, if the juvenile court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of the following specified instances exists reunification services can be denied:

• • The parent cannot be located;
  • The parent is suffering from a mental disability that renders the parent incapable of using the reunification services;
  • The child or a sibling had previously been adjudicated a dependent as the result of physical or sexual abuse and the child is now being removed due to additional physical or sexual abuse;
  • The parent caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect;
  • The child was made a dependent under the age of five as the result of severe abuse inflicted by the parent or a person known to the parent, as provided;
  • The child or a sibling has been adjudicated a dependent as the result of severe physical or sexual abuse;
  • The parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling of the child because of #'s 3, 5 or 6, above;
  • The child was conceived as the result of rape or incest with a minor and the parent seeking services committed the rape or incest;
  • The parent willfully abandoned the child;
  • The court previously terminated reunification services, and the parent has not made subsequent efforts to address the parent's underlying problems;
  • The parent's parental rights for another child have been terminated, and the parent has not made subsequent efforts to treat the problems that led to the termination;
  • The parent has been convicted of a violent felony;
  • The parent has a history of drug or alcohol abuse and has failed to comply with treatment programs as provided;
  • The parent has told the court that she or he is not interested in receiving services;
  • The parent willfully abducted the child or a sibling;
  • The parent is a registered sex offender; or
  • The parent knowingly participated in, or permitted, the sexual exploitation of the child. (Section 361.5 (b).)

However, even in these cases, a court may still choose to grant reunification services to the parent if the court determines that it is appropriate. In most cases, though, the court may only do so if it finds, again by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the child's best interest. (Section 361.5 (c).) Foregoing reunification services generally speeds up the timeframe for finding an alternative permanency plan for the child, whether adoption or tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or even long-term foster care.

This bill expands the information that a court can consider in determining whether to grant reunification services in one instance. As discussed above, a court can remove a child from their parents and make the child a dependent of the juvenile court if the child is under the age of five years and has suffered severe physical abuse, as defined, by a parent, or by any person known by the parent, if the parent knew or reasonably should have known that the person was physically abusing the child. (Section 300 (e).) In this situation, the court can deny reunification services to the parent if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the abuse occurred.

The court, however, may still choose to grant reunification services in these cases. To do so, the court must find, based on competent testimony, that those services are likely to prevent re-abuse 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 is required to 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. (Section 361.5 (c)(3).)

Currently law only allows the court to consider testimony – certainly that of the social worker and perhaps others, such as the parent – when making its determination. This limits the court from considering any other relevant information that may help it make its decision, such as police reports and medical reports. This bills expands the information that the court can consider to include all competent evidence, which is consistent with the information that a court can consider in other reunification exception situations. This should help ensure that the court has the best information available when making the difficult decisions required in these cases.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter writes that will “allow courts to consider all types of evidence when deciding if reunification services are appropriate. The allowance of more evidence will provide for better consideration of the child’s best interest. . . . This bill would help youth through the already difficult court process and reduce the stress and trauma of the experience.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Judges Association (sponsor)

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334