Existing law delegates to the Department of Child Support Services and local child support agencies the responsibility for collecting and enforcing child support obligations, including child support delinquencies, as defined. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to promulgate regulations for county child welfare departments, including, but not limited to, any case of separation or desertion of a parent from a child that results in foster care assistance payments, payments for a minor child placed in the same home as a minor or nonminor dependent parent, and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) payments to a caretaker relative of a child who comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Existing law requires those regulations to require the county child welfare department to determine whether it is in the best interests of the child or nonminor to have the case referred to the local child support agency for child support services. Existing law, on or before October 1, 2023, further requires those regulations to require the county child welfare department to presume that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification.

This bill would, on or before January 1, 2025, require the Department of Child Support Services to identify all child support referrals made pursuant to the above-described provisions prior to January 1, 2023. The bill would require the department to direct local child support agencies to rescind those referrals, cease enforcement of the child support orders, cease enforcement of arrearages assigned to the state for the reimbursement of foster care placements and seek modification of the child support orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, as specified. including the cancellation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest. The bill would also require the department, on or before June 1, 2024, to implement these provisions by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions.

By increasing the duties of the county child welfare department and the local child support agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law delegates to the Department of Child Support Services and local child support agencies the responsibility for collecting and enforcing child support obligations, including child support delinquencies, as defined. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to promulgate regulations for county child welfare departments, including, but not limited to, any case of separation or desertion of a parent from a child that results in foster care assistance payments, payments for a minor child placed in the same home as a minor or nonminor dependent parent, and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) payments to a caretaker relative of a child who comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Existing law requires those regulations to require the county child welfare department to determine whether it is in the best interests of the child or nonminor to have the case referred to the local child support agency for child support services. Existing law, on or before October 1, 2023, further requires those regulations to require the county child welfare department to presume that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification.

This bill would, on or before January 1, 2025, require county child welfare departments the Department of Child Support Services to identify all child support referrals made pursuant to the above-described provisions prior to January 1, 2023, and rescind those referrals by notifying the local child support agency that the referrals are contrary to the best interest of the child. The bill would require the local child support agency to cancel, or request the cancellation of, any applicable child support arrears, as specified. The bill would require, on or before June 1, 2024, the State Department of Social Services to implement those provisions by means of all-county letter or similar written instructions. 2023. The bill would require the department to direct local child support agencies to rescind those referrals, cease enforcement of the child support orders, and seek modification of the orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, as specified. The bill would also require the department, on or before June 1, 2024, to implement these provisions by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions.

By increasing the duties of the county child welfare department and the local child support agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law delegates to the Department of Child Support Services and local child support agencies the responsibility for collecting and enforcing child support obligations, including child support delinquencies, as defined. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to promulgate regulations for county child welfare departments, including, but not limited to, any case of separation or desertion of a parent from a child that results in foster care assistance payments, payments for a minor child placed in the same home as a minor or nonminor dependent parent, and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) payments to a caretaker relative of a child who comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Existing law requires those regulations to require the county child welfare department to determine whether it is in the best interests of the child or nonminor to have the case referred to the local child support agency for child support services. Existing law, on or before October 1, 2023, further requires those regulations to require the county child welfare department to presume that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification.

This bill would, on or before January 1, 2025, require county child welfare departments to identify all child support referrals made pursuant to the above-described provisions prior to January 1, 2023, and rescind those referrals by notifying the local child support agency that the referrals are contrary to the best interest of the child. The bill would require the local child support agency to cancel, or request the cancellation of, any applicable child support arrears, as specified. The bill would require, on or before June 1, 2024, the State Department of Social Services to implement those provisions by means of all-county letter or similar written instructions.

By increasing the duties of the county child welfare department and the local child support agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1324 (Bryan) - Child welfare agencies: enforcement

Bill Summary:

AB 1324 would require the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) on or before January 1, 2025, to identify specified child support referrals, cease enforcement of arrearages assigned to the state for the reimbursement of foster care placements, and direct Local Child Support Agencies (LCSA) to seek modification of support orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown revenue loss to the state as a result of ceasing enforcement of arrearages in foster care cases, as specified. See Staff comments for additional detail.
  
• Unknown costs to the DCSS to identify all child support referrals made prior to January 1, 2023, as specified, notify LCSAs of the new practice of not enforcing specified arrearages, update the procedures manual, and implement AB 1324 by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions. (General Fund).
  
• Unknown costs to LCSAs to seek modification of child support orders as directed by the DCSS to eliminate ongoing obligations, including the cancellation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest (local funds, General Fund). General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
  
• Likely minor and absorbable court workload cost pressures to review petitions for modification of child support orders (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Background:

Child support is generally associated with cases in which parents have divorced or no longer share finances. Federal law also requires, as a condition of funding under certain benefits programs, certain parents whose children are in foster care can be ordered to pay child support to reimburse the state for the benefits provided to the child. Specifically, federal law requires states to have a procedure whereby the state can collect support from the parent undergoing reunification services where appropriate.

Last year, however, DHHS issued new guidance for states’ implementation of the federal requirement that encouraged states to significantly cut down on the number of cases in which a local child support agency pursues support from a parent with a child in foster care. AB 1686 (Bryan, Ch. 755, Stats. 2022) was subsequently passed to implement the new federal policy moving forward. AB 1686 requires a county child welfare agency, when determining whether to refer a case to a local child support agency to seek child support for a child in the foster system, to presume that the payment of support by a parent is likely to impose a barrier to reunification. This presumption against seeking support is consistent with the federal guidance that seeking child support from parents of children in the foster system “should not be required except in very rare circumstances.”

Proposed Law:

• Requires, on or before January 1, 2025, DCSS to identify all child support referrals made prior to January 1, 2023, for a child in specified circumstances.
• Requires DCSS to direct local child support agencies to rescind identified referrals and cease enforcement of these child support orders.
• Requires DCSS to direct local child support agencies to seek modification of these orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, including cancelation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest.
• Requires DCSS to implement the above provisions on or before June 1, 2024, through means of departmental letters or similar written instructions without taking any further regulatory action. Provides that these departmental letters or similar written instructions shall have the same force and effect as regulations.

Related Legislation:

• SB 343 (Skinner, 2023) modifies the statewide uniform child support guideline and low-income adjustment, modifies certain related provisions relating to childcare costs and other aspects of calculating support, and makes changes to the procedures for court-ordered child support to bring California’s laws into conformity with federal requirements. SB 343 is pending on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
• AB 1755 (Assembly Committee on Judiciary, 2023) is identical to SB 343 and serves as the Assembly counterpart. AB 1755 is pending in this Committee.
• AB 1148 (Bonta, 2023) suspends, for 18 months after a parent is released from incarceration or involuntary institutionalization, the parent’s obligation to pay child support, and requires a court, within 90 days before the obligation is reinstated, to hold a hearing to determine whether the court-ordered child support amount should be modified. AB 1148 is pending on this Committee’s suspense file.
• SB 618 (Rubio, 2023) prohibits the Department of Child Support Services or a local child support agency from collecting interest that has accrued on child support owed or assigned to the state or the county, and prohibits child support owed or assigned to the state or the county from accruing interest. SB 618 was held on this Committee’s suspense file.
• AB 1686 (Bryan, Ch. 755, Stats. 2022) added the presumption that requiring a parent to make support payments for a child in the dependency system is not in the best interest of the child and required DSS to revise its regulations accordingly by October 1, 2023.
• AB 1092 (Jones-Sawyer, 2019) would have eliminated interest on child support arrears assigned to the state or county and would have limited the state’s ability to collect on all arrearages. AB 1092 was vetoed by the Governor.

Staff Comments:

DCSS reports that the total amount of interest on Permanently Assigned Arrears (PAP) owed to the state is approximately $4 billion. Much of this debt is likely uncollectible. In 2022, however, there were collections of approximately $38.2 million, of which $18 million went to the General Fund as recoupment. According to DCSS, as of January 2022, there were approximately 48,000 foster care cases in the child support caseload. It is unknown at this time how many of those 48,000 foster care cases have support obligations in arrears nor how much DCSS is able to collect on those arrears on an annual basis. Revenue loss resulting from this bill cannot be known with certainty, and will depend on how much would otherwise be collected on the arrears in foster care cases absent the passage of AB 1324.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Alvarado-Gil, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Subject: Child welfare agencies: enforcement

SUMMARY

This bill requires the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) on or before January 1, 2025, to identify and rescind specified child support referrals, cease enforcement of the child support orders, and seek modification of the orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, as specified, for child support ordered while a child was in foster care. The bill also requires the department, on or before June 1, 2024, to implement these provisions by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions

ABSTRACT

Existing Law:

1. Establishes DCSS as the statewide agency responsible for administering and managing California's child support enforcement program. (FAM 17202)
   
2. Defines "support order" as a child, family, or spousal support order for purposes of modification, termination, or set aside of support orders. (FAM 3650)
   
3. Requires each county to maintain a LCSA, responsible for promptly and effectively establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations. (FAM 17400)
   
4. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with DCSS, to establish regulations by which the county welfare department can determine if it is contrary to the best interests of a child to refer their child welfare case to the local child services agency LCSA for child support services. Further requires all of the following factors to be considered:
   
   1. Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification in that the payment of support will compromise the parent's ability to meet the requirements of the parent's reunification plan.
      
   2. Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification in that the payment of support will compromise the parent's current or future ability to meet the child's financial needs. (FAM 17552(a))
      
5. Requires regulations to provide that where the county child welfare department determines it is not in the child's best interest to seek a support order against the parent, the county child welfare department should refrain from referring the case to the LCSA. (FAM 17552(b))
   
6. Requires regulations to provide that where the county welfare department determines that it is not in the child's best interest to have the case referred to the local child support agency, the county welfare department should review that determination periodically to coincide with the redetermination of specified public benefits programs. Further, requires the department to refer the child's case to the LCSA upon the determination that due to a change in circumstance, it is no longer contrary to the child's best interest to have the case referred to the LCSA. (FAM 17552(c))
   
7. Establishes a statewide uniform guideline to ensure the state complies with federal child support regulations. (FAM 4050 et seq.)
   
8. Allows for the modification or termination of a support order at any time as the court determines to be necessary. (FAM 3651(a))
   
9. Requires DCSS to establish and operate a statewide compromise of arrears program to take into consideration the needs of the children subject to the child support order and the obligor's ability to pay. (FAM 17560)
   
10. 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 of abuse and neglect or who have been abused or neglected, as specified. (WIC 202)
    
11. Provides that the purpose of the juvenile court dependency system is maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being abused, neglected, or exploited. Provides that the focus of the juvenile court dependency system is the preservation of the family and the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the child. (WIC 300.2)
    
12. Defines "nonminor dependent" as a foster child who is a dependent child or ward of the juvenile court, or who is a nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and satisfies all criteria, as specified. (WIC 11400(v))
    
13. States legislative intent to preserve and strengthen a child's family ties whenever possible and to reunify a foster youth with their biological family whenever possible, or to provide a permanent placement alternative. (WIC 16000)
    
14. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order a 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. Further, 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 specified. (WIC 361.5(a))
    
15. Provides that reunification services need not be provided if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of 17 specified conditions exist, generally, situations where reunification would be dangerous for the child. (WIC 361.5(b))
    
16. Requires a county department, in cases in which the paternity of a child has not been established to the satisfaction of that department, to refer the applicant to a local child support agency at the time the application is signed, as specified. (WIC 11479)
    
17. Requires money from noncustodial parents paid for child or spousal support with respect to whom an assignment has been made according to CalWORKs rules to be paid directly to the LCSA and not directly to the family, as specified. (WIC 11457)
    
18. Provides, under Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act, that, where appropriate, all steps be taken to secure an assignment to the state of any child support rights to support on behalf of each child receiving foster care maintenance payments, as specified. (42 United States Code 617 (a)(17))
    
19. Requires, as a condition of eligibility for CalWORKs aid, each applicant or recipient to cooperate with the county welfare department and local child support agency in establishing the paternity of a child of the applicant or recipient born out of wedlock with respect to whom aid is claimed, and in establishing, modifying, or enforcing a support order with respect to a child of the individual for whom aid is requested or obtained, unless the applicant or recipient qualifies for a good cause exception, as specified. (WIC 11477(b)(1))
    
20. Establishes that a child may not be denied Aid to Families with Dependent Children either initially or subsequently because a parent or other caretaker relative fails to cooperate with the child support agency. (45 Code of Federal Regulations 233.90(b)(4)(i)).

This Bill:

1. Requires CDSS by January 1, 2025 to identify all child support referrals made prior to January 1, 2023 in all of the following circumstances:
   
   1. The child receives foster care assistance payments
      
   2. The child receives assistance payments as a voluntary placement
      
   3. The child receives benefits as a minor child placed in the same home as a minor or nonminor dependent parent
      
   4. The child is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and a caretaker relative receives payments pursuant to either CalWORKS or Kin-GAP or the child receives child welfare.
      
   5. The child is the subject of a referral through DSS regulations requiring a county child welfare department, when a child is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and certain benefits are paid in connection with that child’s placement, to refer the case to the local child support agency to seek child support from the child’s parent.
      
2. Requires CDSS to direct local child support agencies to rescind the referrals identified pursuant to the above and cease enforcement of these child support orders.
   
3. Requires CDSS to direct local child support agencies to seek modification of these orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, including the cancellation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest.
   
4. Provides that on or before June 1, 2024, the Department of Child Support Services shall implement, interpret, or make specific this section, in whole or in part, by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions, without taking any further regulatory action. These departmental letters or similar written instructions shall have the same force and effect as regulations.
   

FISCAL IMPACT

The Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates savings to LCSAs in the tens of millions of dollars annually (General Fund (GF), federal funds, local funds) in decreased staffing costs. DCSS reports potential elimination of over 250 full-time equivalent positions from LCSAs because this bill will result in closure of about 48,000 foster care cases. Per DCSS, LCSAs would experience a statewide reduction to program costs of approximately $39 million ($13.3 million GF) annually. Savings will occur over time as the provisions of the bill are implemented. DCSS anticipates workload to notify LCSAs of this new practice, update the procedures manual, and update relevant case closure forms to be absorbed within existing resources. Costs to LCSAs of an unknown amount (GF, federal funds, local funds) to implement the new duties assigned by this bill. LCSAs may experience a short-term increase in workload as they rescind referrals and modify existing child support orders. GF costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. Revenue loss (GF) likely in the millions of dollars due to reduced child support collections and recoupment. In fiscal year 2021-22, DCSS collected $26.4 million in child support orders for foster care cases and distributed the funds to state ($5.8 million), federal ($9 million), and county ($11.6 million) governments for assistance recoupment. DCSS reports that those collections and recoupment would be eliminated once this bill is fully

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Purpose of the Bill:

According to the author, “Despite state and federal guidance encouraging counties to end the practice of billing parents for their child’s time in foster care, thousands of families in California are still in crippling debt owed to the state because they were billed this guidance went into effect. Parents carrying the weight of these debts - and the 10% interest these debts accrue - are kept in poverty, increasing the risk of foster care re-entry. Moreover, not only is the vast majority of this debt already deemed uncollectable by county agencies, but the practice of collecting on these ‘foster care arrears’ is cost-ineffective. AB 1324 will forgive foster care debt for parents whose children were previously in out-of-home care. Eliminating arrears for these families aligns child welfare and child support policies with federal guidance and ensures greater family financial stability for our state’s most vulnerable families.”

Child Welfare Services (CWS)

The CWS system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. Social workers in each county receive reports of abuse or neglect, and work to investigate and resolve those reports. When a case is substantiated, a family is either provided with services to ensure a child’s wellbeing and avoid court involvement, or a child is removed from the family and placed into foster care. In 2022, the state’s child welfare agencies received 440,212 reports of abuse or neglect. Of these, 51,806 reports contained allegations that were substantiated and 19,953 children were removed from their homes and placed into foster care via the CWS system.

After the county child welfare department becomes involved with families, approximately 12 months of services are provided to children who are able to remain safely in their home while the family receives services. This is considered family preservation services and the child does not come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency court during this time.

If it is determined that a child cannot remain in the home, even with family preservation and support services, the child comes under the jurisdiction of the county’s juvenile dependency court while the family is served by a CWS system social worker. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible.

Generally, if a child cannot be safely returned home after the time allotted for reunification services ends, the court terminates the parental rights of the child’s parents. The child’s case plan then focuses on permanency services, in an effort to connect the child to a permanent placement through adoption or guardianship. If an adoption or guardianship is not established, a child may remain in long-term foster care. The child is always supposed to be placed in the most family like setting, with short-term residential treatment programs used only as necessary to provide intensive services. A child remains eligible for services for the length of their time in the child welfare system; time limits relate to the provision of services to the child’s parents.

Child Support

Child support is generally associated with divorce, or other instances in which the parents of a child do not share finances. In these instances, the noncustodial parent is often responsible for paying child support payments to the custodial parent in order to financially support their child. In California, such child support arrangements may be established privately, through the use of an attorney, during divorce proceedings, or through the state child support system, which is administered by DCSS and run locally through 49 LCSAs. The state child support program establishes child support orders and collects payments from noncustodial parents to distribute to custodial parents and their children. These state child support program support obligations, as highlighted through recent DCSS data, fall disproportionately on low-income families.

Child Support Payments and Foster Care

Child support obligations established through the state child support program are not always between two parents for the provision of financial support to the custodial parent. Federal law requires, as a condition of funding under certain benefits programs that certain parents whose children are in foster care can be ordered to pay child support to the state. Specifically, federal law requires states to have a procedure whereby the state can collect support payments from parents undergoing reunification services.

California has typically fulfilled these federal requirements by requiring CDSS, in consultation with DCSS, to establish regulations by which the county welfare department can refer the child welfare case to the LCSA for child support services. Existing law also allows CDSS, again in consultation with DCSS, to establish regulations by which the county welfare department can determine it is contrary to the best interest of the child to refer the child welfare case to the LCSA for child support services, preventing the parent or guardian from owing support payments to the state. Existing law requires these regulations have the county child welfare department consider the following:

• Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification, in that the payment of support will compromise the parent’s ability to meet the requirements of the parent’s reunification plan; and,

• Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification in that the payment of support will compromise the parent’s current or future ability to meet the financial needs of the child.

Existing law also permits a case to be referred to the local child support agency where reunifications services are not offered or have been terminated, unless the child’s permanent plan is legal guardianship with a relative who is receiving Kin-GAP, and the payment of support by the parent may compromise the stability of the placement, or the permanent plan is transitional foster care for the nonminor. The existing regulations require the county child welfare agencies to consider the best interests of the child and the circumstances of the family, such as whether the parent or guardian is employed, their housing status, availability of community-based services, efforts to reunify, whether parental rights have been terminated, and whether the family is connected to other safety net services, as provided.1 When reunification is in the case plan, these regulations encourage the social worker to also consider both the parent’s ability to meet the reunification plan, and to meet the current or future financial needs of the child if the case is referred to the LCSA.

These existing laws and regulations are intended to help ensure that enforcement of child support against the child’s parent or guardian does not compromise the child’s ability to reunify with the parent or guardian, or the child’s placement with a relative. Research shows that a referral to child support enforcement makes reuniting the parent with the child more difficult, and often delays the child’s ability to return home. This is in part likely due to the fact that child support obligations for families with children in the child welfare system fall disproportionately on low-income households. The Legislative Analysis’s Office recently found that “families involved with child protective services are disproportionately poor and overrepresented by certain racial groups, and are often single-parent households living in low-income neighborhoods.”

Additionally, the funds taken from typically low-income families, which in turn hamper reunification efforts, do not go towards the support of the child in foster care or to the child’s resource family. Rather, the payments go to the state, helping to recoup the state and federal 1 government’s child welfare expenses. This essentially means the state charges these families for the removal of their child from their care. If these implications are not negative enough, it is also important to note that for every dollar California spends to collect on child support orders levied against a parent in reunification services, it collects only 27 cents.4 Suggesting the state loses much more than it gains, in both the financial and policy outcome sense, by enforcing these child support orders.

The federal government has recently recognized the shortcomings of this approach, with the federal Children’s Bureau removing its prior guidance recommending that the appropriateness of a child support assignment be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Children’s Bureau replaced this advice with the following on June 8, 2022:

“Securing an assignment of the rights to child support is generally deemed not to be cost effective as analyses have shown that very low levels of collection are obtained, particularly in comparison to the costs for administering child support for children in title IV-E foster care [citations]. On addition, children receiving title IV-E [benefits] have been removed from households where they would have qualified for Aid to Families for Dependent Children (AFDC) under a state’s July 16, 1996, standard of need. This means that the parent(s) of these children are likely to be living in poverty. It is almost never the case that securing an assignment of the rights to child support is in the best interest of a child during the time the child is in title IV-E foster care.”

This new federal guidance recommends that state agencies should consider across-the-board polices that ordering child support for children in title IV-E foster care, except in very rare instances, will have an adverse effect on the child or their ability to successfully reunify. This bill aligns with the Children’s Bureau’s new guidance, requiring CDSS update existing regulations to create a presumption that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification of the child and their parent or guardian, as provided. Under this revised presumption, the referral of child welfare cases to LCSAs will likely not occur, except in very rare circumstances, as provided.

This bill is in line with the guidance given on the federal level. This bill also builds on policy passed by the legislature last year in AB 1686 (Bryan, Chapter 766, Statutes of 2022) which required CDSS, by October first of this year, to revise its regulations to require that all county welfare departments to presume the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification. CDSS has since determined that regulations do not need to be revised to implement AB 1686.

Related/Prior Legislation:

AB 1686 (Bryan, Chapter 755, Statutes of 2022) required county welfare departments, in making a determination to refer a case to the LCSA for child support services, to presume that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification.

AB 79 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 11, Statutes of 2020) among other provisions, increased the amount of monthly child support passed through to CalWORKs recipients from $50 per family to $100 for a family with one child or $200 for a family with two or more children.

SB 380 (Bradford, Chapter 729, Statutes of 2017) allowed, in certain instances, a CalWORKs assistance unit to receive the full child support payments for a step-sibling or half-sibling in that unit, and prohibited those child support payments from impacting CalWORKs eligibility or benefit level determination.

AB 1654 (Bonilla, 2014) would have increased the amount of monthly child support passed through to CalWORKs recipients from $50 per family to $100 for a family with one child or $200 for a family with two or more children. AB 1654 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1449 (Keeley, Chapter 463, Statutes of 2001) required CDSS, in consultation with DCSS, to promulgate regulations by which the county welfare department, in any case of separation or desertion of a parent or parents from a child that results in CalWORKs aid, shall determine whether it is in the best interests of the child to have the case referred to the local child support agency for child support services. Specified that if reunification services are not offered or are terminated, the case may be referred to the local child support agency and specified the factors that the county child welfare department shall consider.

COMMENTS

The language of AB 1686 was prospective only and did not impact families who had previously been ordered to pay child support while their child was in foster care, and regardless of if it posed a barrier to the reunification. This bill seeks to address that by requiring DCSS to identify child support referrals made for parents with children in foster care, and to direct local child support agencies to rescind the referrals and cease enforcement of the orders. The local child support agency must seek to modify orders as necessary to eliminate the ongoing obligations, and all arrears and accrued interest owed to the state must be canceled. This would bring equity to families who had previously been charged for child support while involved in the child welfare system.

PRIOR VOTES

POSITIONS

Support:

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC. (Sponsor)

Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Dependency Attorneys for Parents

California Families Rise

Children Now

Children's Institute

East Bay Children's Law Offices

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Grace Institute - End Child Poverty in Ca

Legal Services for Prisoner with Children

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Public Counsel

Root & Rebound

Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition

Oppose:

None received

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1324 (Author:Bryan)

Version: March 13, 2023

Hearing Date: June 27, 2023

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Child welfare agencies: enforcement

DIGEST

This bill requires the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) on or before January 1, 2025, to identify and rescind all child support referrals, cease enforcement of the child support orders, and seek modification of the orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, as specified. The bill also requires the department, on or before June 1, 2024, to implement these provisions by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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 this objective, the juvenile court orders reunification services, such as counseling for the family, and parenting classes and drug or alcohol treatment for the child’s parents in most cases.

Until recently, federal law required states to have a policy requiring certain parents with children in the foster system to pay child support to reimburse the state for benefits provided to the child in care. In 2022, however, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) announced that it was changing its guidance with respect to collecting support in these cases and asked state child welfare agencies to implement a policy where the default position is not to refer parents to the child support agency. DHHS changed its position after multiple studies showed that attempting to collect child support for children in foster care frustrates the goal of reunifying families and that the costs of enforcement are larger than the actual amounts collected.

This bill, in recognition of the new DHHS policy, requires DCSS to identify all child support referrals made under the prior policy made prior to January 1, 2023, direct all local child support agencies to rescind the referrals, and direct local child support agencies to seek modifications of the orders when necessary to eliminate any ongoing obligations under such orders, including the cancellation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest. According to the author and sponsors, this will fully align state policy with the federal guidance and ensure greater family financial stability.

This bill is sponsored by the Alliance for Children’s rights and Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. and is supported by over two dozen organizations dedicated to equity in child support and protecting families. There is no known opposition. If this Committee passes this bill, it will be heard by the Senate Human Services Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the juvenile court, which is intended to provide for the protection and safety of the public and minors falling under its jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 202, 245, 300.2.)
2. Provides that a child may become a dependent of the juvenile court and be removed from the custody of their parent or guardian^[1] on the basis of enumerated forms of abuse or neglect. (Welf. Inst. Code, § 300(a)-(j).)
3. Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS), in consultation with the DCSS, to promulgate regulations by which a county child welfare department shall determine whether to refer a case in which a child is in the dependency system, and specified benefits are being paid in connection with the child’s placement, to the local child support agency in order for the local child support agency to seek child support payments from the parent. (Fam. Code, § 17552.)
4. Provides that the regulations in 3) must provide the factors a child county welfare department shall consider in deciding whether to make a referral, including:
   1. Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification, in that the payment of support will compromise the parent’s ability to meet the requirements of the parent’s reunification plan.
   2. Whether the payment of support by the parents will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification in that the payment of support will compromise the parent’s current or future ability to meet the financial needs of the child.
   3. A presumption that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification. (Fam. Code, § 17552(a).)
5. Requires a county child welfare department that determines it is not in the child’s best interest to refer a case to a local child support agency pursuant to 3) to periodically review the determination and refer the case to the local child support agency if, due to changed circumstances, it is no longer contrary to the child’s best interest to refer the case to the local child support agency. (Fam. Code, § 17552(d).)

This bill:

1. Requires, on or before January 1, 2025, DCSS to identify all child support referrals made prior to January 1, 2023, for a child in any of the following circumstances:
   1. The child receives foster care assistance payments under section 11400 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   2. The child receives assistance payments as a voluntary placement under section 11401.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   3. The child receives benefits as a minor child placed in the same home as a minor or nonminor dependent under section 11401.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   4. The child is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a dependent or ward of the court and a caretaker relative receives payments pursuant to CalWORKS, Kin-GAP, or section 10101 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   5. The child is the subject of a referral through DSS regulations requiring a county child welfare department, when a child is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and certain benefits are paid in connection with that child’s placement, to refer the case to the local child support agency to seek child support from the child’s parent.
2. Requires DCSS to:
   1. Direct local child support agencies to rescind referrals identified pursuant to the findings in 1) and cease enforcement of these child support orders; and
   2. Direct local child support agencies to seek modification of these orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, including cancelation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest.
3. Requires DCSS to implement 1)-2) on or before June 1, 2024, through means of departmental letters or similar written instructions without taking any further regulatory action. These departmental letters or similar written instructions shall have the same force and effect as regulations.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

Despite state and federal guidance encouraging counties to end the practice of billing parents for their child’s time in foster care, thousands of families in California are still in crippling debt owed to the state because they were billed this guidance went into effect. Parents carrying the weight of these debts - and the 10% interest these debts accrue - are kept in poverty, increasing the risk of foster care re-entry. Moreover, not only is the vast majority of this debt already deemed uncollectable by county agencies, but the practice of collecting on these “foster care arrears” is cost-ineffective. AB 1324 will forgive foster care debt for parents whose children were previously in out-of-home care. Eliminating arrears for these families aligns child welfare and child support policies with federal guidance and ensures greater family financial stability for our state’s most vulnerable families.

2. The shift in federal and state policy regarding the collection of child support from parents with children in foster care to reimburse the state for benefits provided to the children

Child support is generally associated with cases in which parents have divorced or no longer share finances. But federal law also requires, as a condition of funding under certain benefits programs, certain parents whose children are in foster care can be ordered to pay child support to reimburse the state for the benefits provided to the child. Specifically, federal law requires states to have a procedure whereby the state can collect support from the parent undergoing reunification services where appropriate.^[2]

Last year, however, DHHS issued new guidance for states’ implementation of the federal requirement that encouraged states to significantly cut down on the number of cases in which a local child support agency pursues support from a parent with a child in foster care.^[3] The new guidance explains:

Many parent(s) of children who receive [foster care maintenance payments] are living in poverty and are too often required to pay child support to the state to offset the cost of their child placed in foster care. This can negatively impact a family that is trying to develop and maintain familial and economic stability to reunify with their child. It is not in the best interest of any family to be pursued for child support when they have already been whipsawed by economic insecurity, family instability, and separation…

We ask that child welfare agencies make the necessary amendments to their systems to effectively implement a policy where the default position is not to refer parents to the child support agency.^[4]

The federal Child Welfare Policy Manual also reflects this change in policy:

It is almost never the case that securing an assignment of the rights to child support is in the best interests of a child during the time the child is in title IV-E foster care. Parent(s) are typically required to engage in a variety of efforts and services to be successfully reunified with their child. This may include regular family time, therapy, parenting courses, and/or treatment for a substance use disorder. It’s likely that reducing the income of the child’s parent(s) could impede their ability to engage in reunification efforts, potentially extending the time the child spends in foster care. Given this, previous policy directing title IV-E agencies to determine “where appropriate” on a case-by-case basis is withdrawn. Consequently, while each title IV-E agency may determine what constitutes “where appropriate”, agencies should consider across-the-board policies. These policies may reflect that an assignment of the rights to child support for children in title IV-E foster care is not required except in very rare instances where there will be positive or no adverse effects on the child, or the assignment will not impede successful achievement of the child’s permanency plan.^[5]

Last year, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, AB 1686 (Bryan, Ch. 755, Stats. 2022) to implement the new federal policy moving forward. AB 1686 requires a county child welfare agency, when determining whether to refer a case to a local child support agency to seek child support for a child in the foster system, to presume that the payment of support by a parent is likely to impose a barrier to reunification.^[6] This presumption against seeking support is consistent with the federal guidance that seeking child support from parents of children in the foster system “should not be required except in very rare circumstances.”^[7]

3. This bill requires DCSS to eliminate existing child support obligations for parents who have, or had, children in foster care

This bill conforms the state’s new approach with respect to child support orders for children in foster care that were entered prior to the effective date of AB 1686. The bill requires DCSS, on or before January 1, 2025, to identify all child support referrals made for parents with children in foster care, as specified, and to direct local child support agencies to rescind the referrals and cease enforcement of the orders. The local child support agency must seek to modify orders as necessary to eliminate the ongoing obligations, and all arrears and accrued interest owed to the state must be canceled.^[8] The bill also charges DCSS with implementing the bill’s requirements through departmental letters or other similar written instructions.

According to the Alliance for Children’s Rights, one of the sponsors of the bill:

Thousands of families in California who were sent a bill for their child’s stay in foster care prior to AB 1686 will continue to be burdened. According to a California-based study, in 2018, almost 40,000 parents were in debt on those overdue bills. Because of their low income, many parents do not have the ability to pay. Parents in arrears on these debts may have their driver’s or business license suspended, their passport taken, their wages garnished, and disability or Veterans benefits withheld. Parents eligible for an Earned Income Tax Credit—designed to support the wellbeing of low-income families and children—see these tax credits intercepted. Moreover, referrals to credit reporting bureaus have significant effects on these parents’ capacity to rent an apartment, secure a car loan, set up utilities for gas or water, or get a job. Parents carrying the weight of these debts are kept in poverty, increasing the risk of foster care re-entry. Meanwhile, counties will continue to recoup very little of the debt owed.

AB 1324 offers a simple solution: cancel foster care-related debts for parents whose children were previously in out-of-home care. Eliminating these arrears would fully align state policy with federal guidance and ensure greater family financial stability.

SUPPORT

Alliance for Children’s Rights (co-sponsor)
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. (co-sponsor)

Alliance for Boys and Men of Color

Both Sides of the Conversation

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Dependency Attorneys for Parents
California Families Rise

Children’s Institute

Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations

East Bay Children’s Law Offices

Good+ Foundation

GRACE – End Child Poverty in California

Growing Greatness Now

Homeboy Industries

Legal Link

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc.

Parent Voices

Public Counsel

Root & Rebound

Rubicon Programs

San Bernardino Fatherhood

San Francisco Foundation

Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition

The Maven Collaborative

The San Francisco Financial Justice Project

Western Center on Law and Poverty

Young Community Developers

Youth ALIVE!

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: SB 618 (Rubio, 2023) prohibits the Department of Child Support Services or a local child support agency from collecting interest that has accrued on child support owed or assigned to the state or the county, and prohibits child support owed or assigned to the state or the county from accruing interest. SB 618 is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 1686 (Bryan, Ch. 755, Stats. 2022) added the presumption that requiring a parent to make support payments for a child in the dependency system is not in the best interest of the child and required DSS to revise its regulations accordingly by October 1, 2023.

AB 1092 (Jones-Sawyer, 2019) would have eliminated interest on child support arrears assigned to the state or county and would have limited the state’s ability to collect on all arrearages. The Governor stated in his veto message that, while he “appreciate[d] the author’s concern that charging interest on past due child support arrears can lead to uncollectable debt and make it harder for families to escape poverty,” he could not support the bill because “it would lead to an estimated revenue loss of millions of dollars outside the budget process.”

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 62, Noes 13)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 3)

Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 1)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 2)

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

1. Going forward, this analysis uses “parent” to include “guardian.” ↑

2. 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(17). ↑

3. See United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Letter re: new question and answer in the Child Welfare Policy Manual (Jul. 29, 2022); United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, § 8.4C, Question 5 (new Jun. 8, 2022), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/public_html/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=170&utm_. All links in this analysis are current as of June 23, 2023. ↑

4. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Letter re: new question and answer in the Child Welfare Policy Manual, supra. ↑

5. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, § 8.4C, Question 5, supra. ↑

6. AB 1686 (Bryan, Ch. 755, Stats. 2022); Fam. Code, § 17552(a)(2). ↑

7. Child Welfare Policy Manual, § 8.4C, Question 5, supra. ↑

8. The Bradley Amendment, which prohibits a retroactive modification of a child support obligation (see 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)) does not prevent a state from agreeing to compromise or settle a debt owed to the state, “on the same grounds as exist for any other judgment in the State.” (United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Office of Child Support Services, Policy Supporting Two Parent Families/Compromise of Arrearages, PIQ-99-03 (Mar. 22, 1999), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/policy-supporting-two-parent-families/compromise-arrearages. There is therefore no federal bar to the State agreeing to eliminate outstanding child support amounts owed to the State. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1324

Author:(Bryan)

As Amended Ver:March 13, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires child welfare agencies to forgive foster care payments owed by parents.

Major Provisions

Requires the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), on or before January 1, 2025, to identify and rescind all child support referrals for foster care payments, cease enforcement of the child support orders for foster care payments, and seek modification of the orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, as specified. The bill also requires the department, on or before June 1, 2024, to implement these provisions by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions.

COMMENTS

This bill appears to be a natural follow-up to the author's AB 1686 (Chapter 755, Statutes of 2022). That bill created a presumption that requiring parents to pay child support for time spent in foster care is likely to pose a barrier to reunification. This bill goes a step further and requires county child welfare agencies to forgive payment requirements altogether. Existing federal law gives states the discretion to charge or not charge parents for the time that their children spent in foster care while they were separated; however, federal guidance on this matter now suggests that payments either not be charged, or should be forgiven. Evidence and the experience of child welfare workers strongly suggest that requiring such payments only adds to parents' financial insecurity and makes family reunification – the underlying policy goal – much more difficult. Moreover, because parents who have lost their children often are not well off financially, it is difficult and impractical to collect the payments. As a result, the policy is not cost effective, as enforcement costs exceed actual collections.

Enforcement of Payments of Foster Care. 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 this objective, the juvenile court orders reunification services, such as counseling for the family, and parenting classes and drug or alcohol treatment for the child's parents, where appropriate. At the same time, when a child is removed from their family, child welfare agencies are required, where appropriate, to refer the parents to the state's child support program, which may require the parents to make reimbursement payments, though states are given significant discretion to decide if referral and payments are in the best interest of the child. (42 U.S.C. Section 671 (a)(17); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual.) Unfortunately, a referral to child support enforcement can make reunifying a child with their parents much harder, delaying reunification and increasing fiscal uncertainty for the family.

In addition to delaying family reunification, requiring parents to make these payments is economically inefficient, both for the families and for the county agencies. Any money collected does not go where it is most needed – to support the child or family – but to recoup previous expenditures. Moreover, the cost of enforcement typically exceeds the amounts collected. For example, the background information provided to the Judiciary Committee by the author cites a California-based study showing that, in 2018, almost 40,000 of the parents who remained in debt for payments had little hope of realistically repaying them. In addition, parents who find themselves in arrears on these payments may have their driver's license suspended, lose their Earned Income Tax Credit, or have their wages garnished. Moreover, referrals to credit reporting bureaus may impact a parent's capacity to rent an apartment or secure a car loan, which in turn may impact the ability to obtain employment. Needless to say, none of this bodes well for establishing the economic security that is often necessary for successful family reunification.

According to the Author

According to the author, "despite state and federal guidance encouraging counties to end the practice of billing parents for their child's time in foster care, thousands of families in California are still in crippling debt owed to the state," some of whom were billed before new federal guidelines went into effect. Insisting upon the collection of these "foster care arrears," the author maintains, not only frustrates the underlying policy goal of family reunification, it is not at all cost effective. AB 1324, therefore, "will forgive foster care debt for parents whose children were previously in out-of-home care," thereby bringing California policy into alignment with federal guidelines.

Arguments in Support

The Alliance for Children's Rights, the sponsor of AB 1324, argues that requiring child welfare agencies to collect foster care payments from parents runs contrary to the broader policy goals of child and family welfare, economic self-sufficiency, and family reunification. According to the Alliance, "parents carrying the weight of these debts are kept in poverty, increasing the risk of foster care reentry. Meanwhile, counties will continue to recoup very little of the debt owed." The Alliance concludes that "eliminating these arrears would fully align state policy with federal guidance and ensure greater family financial stability."

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Savings to LCSAs in the tens of millions of dollars annually (General Fund (GF), federal funds, local funds) in decreased staffing costs. DCSS reports potential elimination of over 250 full-time equivalent positions from LCSAs because this bill will result in closure of about 48,000 foster care cases. Per DCSS, LCSAs would experience a statewide reduction to program costs of approximately $39 million ($13.3 million GF) annually. Savings will occur over time as the provisions of the bill are implemented. DCSS anticipates workload to notify LCSAs of this new practice, update the procedures manual, and update relevant case closure forms to be absorbed within existing resources.
2. Costs to LCSAs of an unknown amount (GF, federal funds, local funds) to implement the new duties assigned by this bill. LCSAs may experience a short-term increase in workload as they rescind referrals and modify existing child support orders. GF costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
3. Revenue loss (GF) likely in the millions of dollars due to reduced child support collections and recoupment. In fiscal year 2021-22, DCSS collected $26.4 million in child support orders for foster care cases and distributed the funds to state ($5.8 million), federal ($9 million), and county ($11.6 million) governments for assistance recoupment. DCSS reports that those collections and recoupment would be eliminated once this bill is fully implemented.

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 8-2-1

YES: Maienschein, Connolly, Haney, Kalra, Pacheco, Papan, Reyes, Robert Rivas

NO: Dixon, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 5-1-2

YES: Jackson, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Garcia

NO: Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Bonta

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-3-1

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: March 13, 2023

CONSULTANT: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000434

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1324

Author:(Bryan) – As Amended Ver:March 13, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) to identify all child support referrals made before January 1, 2023, for specified children, including those in foster care. The bill requires DCSS to direct local child support agencies (LCSAs) to rescind the referrals identified by DCSS, stop enforcing the related child support orders, and, where necessary, modify child support orders to eliminate any outstanding debt on the orders.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Savings to LCSAs in the tens of millions of dollars annually (General Fund (GF), federal funds, local funds) in decreased staffing costs. DCSS reports potential elimination of over 250 full-time equivalent positions from LCSAs because this bill will result in closure of about 48,000 foster care cases. Per DCSS, LCSAs would experience a statewide reduction to program costs of approximately $39 million ($13.3 million GF) annually. Savings will occur over time as the provisions of the bill are implemented. DCSS anticipates workload to notify LCSAs of this new practice, update the procedures manual, and update relevant case closure forms to be absorbed within existing resources.
2. Costs to LCSAs of an unknown amount (GF, federal funds, local funds) to implement the new duties assigned by this bill. LCSAs may experience a short-term increase in workload as they rescind referrals and modify existing child support orders. GF costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
3. Revenue loss (GF) likely in the millions of dollars due to reduced child support collections and recoupment. In fiscal year 2021-22, DCSS collected $26.4 million in child support orders for foster care cases and distributed the funds to state ($5.8 million), federal ($9 million), and county ($11.6 million) governments for assistance recoupment. DCSS reports that those collections and recoupment would be eliminated once this bill is fully implemented.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author:

Despite state and federal guidance encouraging counties to end the practice of billing parents for their child’s time in foster care, thousands of families in California are still in crippling debt owed to the state because they were billed this before guidance went into effect. Parents carrying the weight of these debts - and the 10% interest these debts accrue - are kept in poverty, increasing the risk of foster care re-entry. Moreover, not only is the vast majority of this debt already deemed uncollectable by county agencies, but the practice of collecting on these “foster care arrears” is cost-ineffective. [This bill] will forgive foster care debt for parents whose children were previously in out-of-home care. Eliminating arrears for these families aligns child welfare and child support policies with federal guidance and ensures greater family financial stability for our state’s most vulnerable families.

1. Background. Noncustodial parents are often responsible for paying child support payments to custodial parents and their shared children. A child support order provides the amount of child support that a noncustodial parent must pay. In California, these orders can be established privately, using an attorney, during divorce proceedings, or using the state child support system to help establish an order. The state child support program, administered by DCSS and run locally through 49 LCSAs, establishes child support orders and collects payments from noncustodial parents to distribute to custodial parents and their children. When a child is removed from their family and placed in foster care, the child’s noncustodial parents may be required to make payments to reimburse the state for the cost of providing foster care services to the child. As described in the policy committee analyses for this bill, noncustodial parents of foster children often have very little income, and attempting to collect debts from them is costly for the government with little, if any, resulting benefit to the children in foster care. Outstanding debts can also place noncustodial parents at a further financial disadvantage.

This bill would require LCSAs to rescind specified referrals and stop enforcing child support orders for children in foster care and would require LCSAs to seek modification of child support orders for children in foster care to eliminate ongoing obligations, including cancelling any outstanding debts owed to the state and any accrued interest. As a result, noncustodial parents whose children are in foster care will not be obligated to make additional payments on their child support orders, and may have any outstanding debts to the state eliminated. As discussed above, this will result in revenue loss (because noncustodial parents are no longer making child support payments) and reduced costs to LCSAs (because they no longer need staff to handle foster care child support cases).

1. Prior Legislation. AB 1686 (Bryan), Chapter 755, Statutes of 2022, required county welfare departments, in making a determination to refer a case to the LCSA for child support services, to presume that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Corey A. Jackson, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1324 (

Author:Bryan) – As Amended Ver:March 13, 2023

SUBJECT: Child welfare agencies: enforcement

SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) to identify all child support referrals made prior to January 1, 2023, for child welfare-involved youth, and to direct local child support agencies to rescind the referrals and cease enforcement of these child support orders. Further requires DCSS to direct local child support agencies to seek modification of these orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, including the cancellation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, on or before January 1, 2025, DCSS to identify all child support referrals made prior to January 1, 2023, for a child in any of the following circumstances:
2. The child receives foster care assistance payments;
3. The child receives assistance payments as a voluntary placement;
4. The child receives benefits as a minor child placed in the same home as a minor or nonminor dependent (NMD) parent;
5. The child is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and a caretaker relative receives any of the following payments:
6. California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) payments as a result of the death, physical or mental incapacity, or incarceration of a parent; the unemployment of a parent; or continued absence of a parent due to divorce, separation, desertion or any other reason, as specified;
   
7. Kinship Guardian Assistance Payment Program (Kin-GAP) payments; or,
8. The child receives child welfare aid.
9. The child’s welfare arrears is the subject of a referral to the local child services agency (LCSA) for child support services.
10. Requires DCSS to direct local child support agencies to rescind the referrals identified pursuant to 1) and cease enforcement of these child support orders. Further requires DCSS to direct local child support agencies to seek modification of these orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, including the cancellation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest.
11. Requires DCSS, on or before June 1, 2024, to implement, interpret, or make specific these provisions, in whole or in part, by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions, without taking any further regulatory action. These departmental letters or similar written instructions shall have the same force and effect as regulations.
12. Specifies that to the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes DCSS as the statewide agency responsible for administering and managing California's child support enforcement program. (Family Code Section [FAM] 17202)
2. Defines "support order" as a child, family, or spousal support order for purposes of modification, termination, or set aside of support orders. (FAM 3650)
3. Requires each county to maintain a LCSA, responsible for promptly and effectively establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations. (FAM 17400)
4. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with DCSS, to establish regulations by which the county welfare department can determine if it is contrary to the best interests of a child to refer their child welfare case to the local child services agency LCSA for child support services. Further requires all of the following factors to be considered:
   1. Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification in that the payment of support will compromise the parent's ability to meet the requirements of the parent's reunification plan.
   2. Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification in that the payment of support will compromise the parent's current or future ability to meet the child's financial needs. (FAM 17552(a))
5. Requires regulations to provide that where the county child welfare department determines it is not in the child's best interest to seek a support order against the parent, the county child welfare department should refrain from referring the case to the LCSA. (FAM 17552(b))
6. Requires regulations to provide that where the county welfare department determines that it is not in the child's best interest to have the case referred to the local child support agency, the county welfare department should review that determination periodically to coincide with the redetermination of specified public benefits programs. Further, requires the department to refer the child's case to the LCSA upon the determination that due to a change in circumstance, it is no longer contrary to the child's best interest to have the case referred to the LCSA. (FAM 17552(c))
7. Establishes a statewide uniform guideline to ensure the state complies with federal child support regulations. (FAM 4050 et seq.)
8. Allows for the modification or termination of a support order at any time as the court determines to be necessary. (FAM 3651(a))
9. Requires DCSS to establish and operate a statewide compromise of arrears program to take into consideration the needs of the children subject to the child support order and the obligor's ability to pay. (FAM 17560)
10. 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 of abuse and neglect or who have been abused or neglected, as specified. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section [WIC] 202)
11. Provides that the purpose of the juvenile court dependency system is maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being abused, neglected, or exploited. Provides that the focus of the juvenile court dependency system is the preservation of the family and the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the child. (WIC 300.2)
12. Defines "nonminor dependent" as a foster child who is a dependent child or ward of the juvenile court, or who is a nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and satisfies all criteria, as specified. (WIC 11400(v))
13. States legislative intent to preserve and strengthen a child's family ties whenever possible and to reunify a foster youth with their biological family whenever possible, or to provide a permanent placement alternative. (WIC 16000)
14. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order a 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. Further, 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 specified. (WIC 361.5(a))
15. Provides that reunification services need not be provided if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of 17 specified conditions exist, generally, situations where reunification would be dangerous for the child. (WIC361.5(b))
16. Requires a county department, in cases in which the paternity of a child has not been established to the satisfaction of that department, to refer the applicant to a local child support agency at the time the application is signed, as specified. (WIC 11479)
17. Requires money from noncustodial parents paid for child or spousal support with respect to whom an assignment has been made according to CalWORKs rules to be paid directly to the LCSA and not directly to the family, as specified. (WIC 11457)
18. Provides, under Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act, that, where appropriate, all steps be taken to secure an assignment to the state of any child support rights to support on behalf of each child receiving foster care maintenance payments, as specified. (42 United States Code 617 (a)(17))
19. Requires, as a condition of eligibility for CalWORKs aid, each applicant or recipient to cooperate with the county welfare department and local child support agency in establishing the paternity of a child of the applicant or recipient born out of wedlock with respect to whom aid is claimed, and in establishing, modifying, or enforcing a support order with respect to a child of the individual for whom aid is requested or obtained, unless the applicant or recipient qualifies for a good cause exception, as specified. (WIC 11477(b)(1))
20. Establishes that a child may not be denied Aid to Families with Dependent Children either initially or subsequently because a parent or other caretaker relative fails to cooperate with the child support agency. (45 Code of Federal Regulations 233.90(b)(4)(i)).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown, this bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

Background: Child support. Noncustodial parents are often responsible for paying child support payments to custodial parents and their children. A child support order provides the amount of child support that a noncustodial parent must pay. In California, these orders can be established privately, using an attorney, during divorce proceedings, or using the state child support system to help establish an order. The state child support program, administered by DCSS and run locally through 49 LCSAs, establishes child support orders and collects payments from noncustodial parents to distribute to custodial parents and their children. Data show that often child support obligations fall disproportionately on low-income families.

Federal law requires the child support program to establish and enforce orders “where appropriate” for parents who have a child in foster care, and is designed to offset the cost of foster care maintenance payments that are provided to the foster parents.

Currently, over half of parents with children in foster care who have a child support order have an annual income of less than $10,000. In 2018, among the foster care cases that had orders of child support, the median monthly child support order was $250. According to the Orange County Department of Child Support Services, these orders are costly and for every dollar it expends, only $.27 is collected, and no money goes directly to support the child.

In July of 2022, the federal Children’s Bureau released guidance to more narrowly define when it would be appropriate to issue child support orders so that the default position in these determinations will be to not seek child support for children receiving foster care maintenance payments. This change was in recognition that reducing the income of the child’s parent could impede their ability to engage in reunification efforts, potentially extending the time the child spends in foster care. Given this, previous policy directing agencies to determine “where appropriate” on a case-by-case basis was withdrawn.

Child Welfare Services. California’s Child Welfare Services (CWS) system exists to protect children from abuse and neglect, and in doing so, to provide for their health, safety, and overall well-being. When suspicions of abuse or neglect arise, often as a result of a report by a mandated reporter like a healthcare provider or teacher, Child Protective Services is tasked with investigating the report. If the allegation of abuse or neglect is substantiated, it is then determined whether it is in the best interest of the child to remain in their parent’s custody or be placed within the CWS system. If a child is suspected to be at risk of neglect, abuse, or abandonment, the juvenile court holds legal jurisdiction, and the CWS system appoints a social worker to ensure that the needs of the youth are met.

CDSS secures federal funding to support child welfare services programs, provides statewide best practices training for social workers, and conducts program regulatory oversight and administration, and is responsible for the development of policy while also providing direct services such as adoption placements. Foster parents receive a monthly payment to meet the needs of the youth placed in their care and is intended to cover food, clothing, transportation, and vary based on the child, their age, and any special needs they may have.

As of January 1, 2023, there are 52,265 youth between birth and up to 21 years old in foster care.

Author’s statement: According to the Author, “Despite state and federal guidance encouraging counties to end the practice of billing parents for their child’s time in foster care, thousands of families in California are still in crippling debt owed to the state because they were billed this before guidance went into effect. Parents carrying the weight of these debts - and the 10% interest these debts accrue - are kept in poverty, increasing the risk of foster care re-entry. Moreover, not only is the vast majority of this debt already deemed uncollectable by county agencies, but the practice of collecting on these “foster care arrears” is cost-ineffective. [This bill] will forgive foster care debt for parents whose children were previously in out-of-home care. Eliminating arrears for these families aligns child welfare and child support policies with federal guidance and ensures greater family financial stability for our state’s most vulnerable families.”

Need for this bill: This bill continues the momentum that began with the implementation of
AB 1686 (Bryan), Chapter 755, Statutes of 2022, which required county welfare departments, in determining whether to refer a case for child support services, to presume that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification.

This bill would now require LCSAs to rescind the referrals and cease enforcement of child support orders for child welfare-involved youth and to seek modification of these orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, including the cancellation of all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest.

Federal guidance acknowledges what has been understood for years: that seeking child support for the parents of foster youth is not cost effective and only exacerbates family reunification efforts.

Equity Impact: Data from Orange County Department of Child Support Services shows that 57% of the parents who have children in foster care and also have child support cases are non-White. The families who have children in foster care tend to be deeper in poverty and the parent who is required to pay child support is more often to be the mother. By stopping the practice of referring parents of foster youth for child support cases, these families, who are already grappling with the effects of poverty and structural racism in the child welfare system, can be provided the opportunity to address the root causes of what led to their child being placed into care without having to climb out of debt first.

Double referral: This bill passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 21, 2023, with an 8-2 vote.

RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION:

AB 1686 (Bryan), Chapter 755, Statutes of 2022, required county welfare departments, in making a determination to refer a case to the LCSA for child support services, to presume that the payment of support by the parent is likely to pose a barrier to the proposed reunification.

AB 79 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 11, Statutes of 2020, among other provisions, increased the amount of monthly child support passed through to CalWORKs recipients from $50 per family to $100 for a family with one child or $200 for a family with two or more children.

SB 380 (Bradford), Chapter 729, Statutes of 2017, allowed, in certain instances, a CalWORKs assistance unit to receive the full child support payments for a step-sibling or half-sibling in that unit, and prohibited those child support payments from impacting CalWORKs eligibility or benefit level determination.

AB 1654 (Bonilla) of 2014, would have increased the amount of monthly child support passed through to CalWORKs recipients from $50 per family to $100 for a family with one child or $200 for a family with two or more children. AB 1654 was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file.

AB 1449 (Keeley), Chapter 463, Statutes of 2001, required CDSS, in consultation with DCSS, to promulgate regulations by which the county welfare department, in any case of separation or desertion of a parent or parents from a child that results in CalWORKs aid, shall determine whether it is in the best interests of the child to have the case referred to the local child support agency for child support services. Specified that if reunification services are not offered or are terminated, the case may be referred to the local child support agency and specified the factors that the county child welfare department shall consider.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alliance for Children's Rights (Co-Sponsor)

A Home Within

Advokids

Aouon Orange County

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Family Resource Association

Center for Public Interest Law/Children's Advocacy Institute/University of San Diego

Child Abuse Prevention Center

Children Now

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto

Dependency Advocacy Center

Dependency Legal Services

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Executive Director

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Justice2Jobs Coalition

Juvenile Law Center

Legal Services for Prisoners With Children

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC.

Movement for Family Power

National Center for Youth Law

Public Counsel

Root & Rebound

Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition

Starting Over, INC.

Sycamores

The California Children's Trust

The Law Offices of Dale Wilson

Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition

Young Women's Freedom Center

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089

Date of Hearing: March 21, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Brian Maienschein, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1324

Author:(Bryan) – As Amended Ver:March 13, 2023

SUBJECT: Child welfare agencies: enforcement

KEY ISSUE: In order to facilitate family reunification and align state law with federal guidance, should local child welfare agencies forgive foster care payments owed by parents whose children were in foster care?

SYNOPSIS

This bill marks the culmination of a state and federal policy trend to reduce, if not end, the practice of charging parents for the time their children spend in foster care homes. There are times when protecting children requires removing them from an unsafe home and, usually, placing them in foster care. If and when the children are reunified with their parents, federal and state law authorizes county child welfare agencies to recover payments from the parents for the costs associated with keeping the children in foster care. A number of studies, as well as practical experience, has demonstrated the economically inefficient and counter-productive nature of this policy. There is now widespread agreement that requiring such payments frustrates the goal of family reunification and is not cost effective, as the costs of enforcement exceed the amounts collected. In recognition of these facts, recent guidance from the U.S. Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, authorizes the states to end the counterproductive practice of requiring parents to make these payments. The guidance noted that most children are placed in foster care come from families already suffering from economic hardships; requiring such payments only exacerbates the hardship and delays the process of family reunification. The new federal guidelines suggest that such payments should be abandoned entirely, or required only “in very rare circumstances.” This bill is a follow up to last year’s AB 1686, by the same author, which created a presumption that requiring parents to pay for the time that their children spent in foster care creates an obstacle to the goal of family reunification. This bill takes the logical next step by requiring child welfare agencies to forgive foster care payments owed by parents. The bill is supported by several organizations dedicated to children’s rights and welfare; there is no opposition to this seemingly common sense measure that eliminates an inefficient and counterproductive policy. Should this bill be approved by this Committee, it would be referred to the Assembly Human Services Committee.

SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), on or before January 1, 2025, to identify and rescind all child support referrals, cease enforcement of the child support orders, and seek modification of the orders when necessary to eliminate ongoing obligations, as specified. The bill also requires the department, on or before June 1, 2024, to implement these provisions by means of departmental letters or similar written instructions.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes that the purpose of the juvenile court dependency system is 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. (Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 300.2.)
2. If at the initial hearing the juvenile court orders a child removed from their parent due to abuse or neglect, requires the court 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. (WIC Section 319 (e).)
3. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order a 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. (WIC Section 361.5 (a).)
4. Provides that reunification services under 3), above, need not be provided if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of 17 specified conditions exist, generally situations where reunification would be dangerous for the child. Despite this limitation, allows a court to order reunification services in those instances if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the child's best interest. (WIC Section 361.5 (b), (c).)
5. Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS), in consultation with DCSS, to establish regulations by which the county welfare department can determine if it is contrary to the best interests of a child to refer their child welfare case to the local child services agency (LCSA) for child support services. Provides that if reunification services are not offered or are terminated the case may be referred to the LCSA, unless the child’s permanent plan is legal guardianship with a relative who is receiving Kin-GAP and the payment of support by the parent may compromise the stability of the placement or the permanent plan is transitional foster care for the non-minor. In making the determination, requires DSS to provide factors for the county child welfare department to consider, including:
   1. Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification, in that the payment of support will compromise the parent’s ability to meet the requirements of the parent’s reunification plan; and
   2. Whether the payment of support by the parent will pose a barrier to the proposed reunification in that the payment of support will compromise the parent’s current or future ability to meet the financial needs of the child. (Family Code Section 17552.)
6. Requires DCSS, in consultation with DSS, to establish regulations for the compromise of child support arrearages owed as reimbursement for public assistance when the child is returned to the custody of the obligor in either of the following circumstances: (a) the child had been adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court, but has since been reunified with the obligor pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; or (b) the child had been placed with a guardian or relative caregiver, who received public assistance for the child, and the child has since been returned to the home of the obligor. (Family Code Section 17550.)
7. Provides, under Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act, that, where appropriate, all steps be taken, to secure an assignment to the state of any child support rights to support on behalf of each child receiving foster care maintenance payments, as provided. (42 U.S.C. Section 617 (a)(17).)

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

COMMENTS: According to the author, “despite state and federal guidance encouraging counties to end the practice of billing parents for their child’s time in foster care, thousands of families in California are still in crippling debt owed to the state,” some of whom were billed before new federal guidelines went into effect. Insisting upon the collection of these “foster care arrears,” the author maintains, not only frustrates the underlying policy goal of family reunification, it is not at all cost effective. AB 1324, therefore, “will forgive foster care debt for parents whose children were previously in out-of-home care,” thereby bringing California policy into alignment with federal guidelines.

This bill appears to be a natural follow-up to the author’s AB 1686 (Chap. 755, Stats. 2022). That bill created a presumption that requiring parents to pay child support for time spent in foster care is likely to pose a barrier to reunification. The bill now under consideration goes a step further and requires county child welfare agencies to forgive payment requirements altogether. Existing federal law gives states the discretion to charge or not charge parents for the time that their children spent in foster care while they were separated; however, federal guidance on this matter now suggests that payments either not be charged, or should be forgiven. Evidence and the experience of child welfare workers strongly suggest that requiring such payments only adds to parents’ financial insecurity and makes family reunification – the underlying policy goal – much more difficult. Moreover, because parents who have lost their children often are not well off financially, it is difficult and impractical to collect the payments. As a result, the policy is not cost effective, as enforcement costs exceed actual collections.

Enforcement of Payments of Foster Care. 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 this objective, the juvenile court orders reunification services, such as counseling for the family, and parenting classes and drug or alcohol treatment for the child’s parents, where appropriate. At the same time, when a child is removed from their family, child welfare agencies are required, where appropriate, to refer the parents to the state’s child support program, which may require the parents to make reimbursement payments, though states are given significant discretion to decide if referral and payments are in the best interest of the child. (42 U.S.C. Section 671 (a)(17); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual.) Unfortunately, a referral to child support enforcement can make reunifying a child with their parents much harder, delaying reunification and increasing fiscal uncertainty for the family.

In addition to delaying family reunification, requiring parents to make these payments is economically inefficient, both for the families and for the county agencies. Any money collected does not go where it is most needed – to support the child or family – but to recoup previous expenditures. Moreover, the cost of enforcement typically exceeds the amounts collected. For example, the background information provided to the Committee by the author cites a California-based study showing that, in 2018, almost 40,000 of the parents who remained in debt for payments had little hope of realistically repaying them. In addition, parents who find themselves in arrears on these payments may have their driver’s license suspended, lose their Earned Income Tax Credit, or have their wages garnished. Moreover, referrals to credit reporting bureaus may impact a parent’s capacity to rent an apartment or secure a car loan, which in turn may impact the ability to obtain employment. Needless to say, none of this bodes well for establishing the economic security that is often necessary for successful family reunification.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Alliance for Children’s Rights, the sponsor of AB 1324, argues that requiring child welfare agencies to collect foster care payments from parents runs contrary to the broader policy goals of child and family welfare, economic self-sufficiency, and family reunification. According to the Alliance, “parents carrying the weight of these debts are kept in poverty, increasing the risk of foster care reentry. Meanwhile, counties will continue to recoup very little of the debt owed.” The Alliance concludes that “eliminating these arrears would fully align state policy with federal guidance and ensure greater family financial stability.”

Over two dozen other advocacy groups support this bill for the same common sense reasons articulated above.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alliance for Children’s Rights (sponsor)

A Home Within

ACLU California Action

All of Us or None of Us, Orange County

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)

Californians for Safety and Justice

Children Now

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto

Dependency Legal Services (UNREG)

East Bay Family Defenders

Inland Juvenile Panel Attorneys

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC.

Movement for Family Power

Public Counsel

Root & Rebound

Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition

The California Children's Trust

The Law Offices of Dale Wilson

Young Women's Freedom Center

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334