GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 273

Author:(Ramos)

As Enrolled Ver:September 18, 2023

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Imposes specific requirements on social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth are missing from foster care to notify the youth's family and support systems about court hearings; safely return the youth to their placements; and further protect these vulnerable youth.

Major Provisions

Imposes specific requirements on social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth are missing from foster care to notify the youth's family and support systems about court hearings; safely return the youth to their placements; and further protect these vulnerable youth.

1. Requires, when a social worker receives information that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, the social worker to do all of the following:
2. Engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care.
3. Request through county counsel that the juvenile court schedule a hearing within 10 court days to review the placement and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care.
   1. The social worker's request must be made on the date they learn of the absence or, if the court is closed, on the first court day thereafter.
   2. Provides that the hearing may be rescinded upon stipulation by all parties if the minor or nonminor dependent is found prior to the hearing or if the hearing coincides with a previously scheduled hearing in the case that falls within the 10 court days.
4. As soon as possible and at least five court days before the hearing described in 3), below, notify all of the following persons whose whereabouts are known about the hearing. In the event that the hearing is set to occur in less than five court days, notice shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the hearing:
5. The child's parents, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
6. The child's legal guardians, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
7. The attorney for the parents or legal guardians, if applicable.
8. The attorney or attorneys of record for the child receiving child welfare services.
9. The child's tribe or tribal representative, if the child is an Indian child.
10. Any known sibling of the child who is required to be notified of a hearing pursuant to existing law.
11. The child's Court-Appointed Special Advocate, if one has been appointed.
12. Prepare, submit, and serve a report at the hearing and any subsequent hearings describing their ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving welfare services, and comply with this subdivision and all other requirements of existing law.
    1. The social worker shall work to address the factors that contributed to the child receiving child welfare services becoming absent from care in subsequent placements with the child and family team. If the absence from care is habitual and an ongoing occurrence, the social worker shall seek the input of the child and family team to discuss the factors that are contributing to the child being absent from care and develop appropriate plans to stabilize the placement or change the placement.
    2. Information gathered for purposes of preparing the report shall be used for purposes of determining treatment needs, developing case plans to support the child receiving welfare services.
    3. Unless otherwise required by law, the information disclosed by the child receiving welfare services shall not be used as the basis for terminating the dependency jurisdiction of the court, filing a petition pursuant to Section 602, detaining the child in juvenile hall including for their own safety or for purposes of securing treatment or services, or for any purpose other than tailoring services for the child receiving welfare services.
13. Upon the return to foster care of the child receiving child welfare services, immediately and no later than 24 hours after learning of the return, conduct an in-person interview with the child immediately and do the following:
14. Assess and make a plan to address the immediate needs of the child.
15. Within three business days, do all of the following:
    1. Document the reasons why the child was absent from care and the experiences of the child while absent.
    2. Assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return.
    3. Request the recall of any protective custody warrant. The social worker or probation officer is not required to detain any child described in this section pending recall of a warrant.
16. Requires the clerk of the juvenile court, upon being notified by the social worker that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, to set the matter for hearing on the court's hearing calendar as soon as possible and no later than ten court days from the date of such notice.
17. Requires the court to continue to periodically review the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care at least every 30 calendar days, in accordance with this section, until the child returns from being absent from foster care.
18. Defines "ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts."

Senate Amendments

1. Add a requirement for the social worker to request the hearing on the date they learn of the absence or, if the court is closed, on the first court day thereafter.
2. Eliminate the requirement that a social worker request a protective custody order for a child receiving child welfare services who is a minor or file a missing person's report in the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is a nonminor dependent.
3. Clarify that a social worker’s request to schedule a juvenile court hearing is made through county counsel.
4. Eliminate the requirement for the social worker to notify the court of record of the hearing.
5. Require, in a case where a child’s absence from care is habitual and an ongoing occurrence, that the social worker shall seek the input of the child and family team to discuss the factors that are contributing to the child being absent from care and develop appropriate plans to stabilize the placement or change the placement.
6. Extend the time period from 24 hours to three business days after learning of the child’s return for the social worker to conduct an in-person interview with the child; document why the child was absent from care and the experiences they had while absent from care; and assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return. Add a requirement that the social worker, within three business days of learning of the child’s return, to request the recall of any protective custody warrant issued for the child. Clarify that the social worker or probation officer is not required to detain any child described in this section pending recall of a warrant.
7. Add a definition of "ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts."

Governor’s Veto Message

This bill would establish additional requirements for social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when a child or non-minor dependent (NMD) is missing from foster care, including immediate notification requirements, hearing timelines, and due diligence reporting deadlines.

Locating missing children in foster care is a time-sensitive and critical undertaking for the safety and well-being of the child. More can always be done to protect this vulnerable population, which is why I am directing the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to work with county partners to assess existing protocols and identify any needed improvements. With that information, CDSS will work with the author and stakeholders to inform additional guidance, training, or recommend statutory changes to protect all foster youth, especially tribal youth.

This bill, however, would result in estimated ongoing costs of $10 million General Fund to support the administrative workload for counties, automation costs, and additional workload for the courts, funding not contemplated in the annual budget.

In partnership with the Legislature, we enacted a budget that closed a shortfall of more than $30 billion through balanced solutions that avoided deep program cuts and protected education, health care, climate, public safety, and social service programs that are relied on by millions of Californians. This year, however, the Legislature sent me bills outside of this budget process that, if all enacted, would add nearly $19 billion of unaccounted costs in the budget, of which $11 billion would be ongoing. 

With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure.

COMMENTS

This bill, co-sponsored by Yurok Tribe and California Tribal Families Coalition, seeks to address the problem of foster children and nonminor dependents who go missing from foster care to ensure that these youth are located, returned to safe homes, and supported (including by being screened for involvement in sex trafficking) as soon as possible.

Missing and Exploited Children – Connection to Child Sex Trafficking. In 2020, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received more than 17,000 reports of possible child sex trafficking. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG).) According to the OIG for DHHS, "traffickers are known to prey on vulnerable children with low self-esteem and minimal social support, and histories of abuse, neglect, and trauma-traits that are common among children in foster care." Tribal and native children are at especially high risk of exploitation. For them, going missing or running away while in foster care is a pipeline to the disproportionately high rates of violence and exploitation that is experienced by Native Americans, especially Native American women and youth.

This bill. The bill seeks to bring county practices into compliance with both federal and state law, as well as the minimum standards guidance of the CDSS, by enacting several specific requirements for social workers (and in some cases, probation officers) to locate and return children who receive welfare services to foster care when they are missing and at risk, and for courts to review the continuing efforts to return, stabilize, and protect those children. The bill's requirements include the following:

Notification that the child is missing from foster care. While current law requires county welfare departments to adopt policies that require a number of actions when a social worker determines that a child is missing from foster care, the policies do not specifically require that law enforcement, the court with jurisdiction over the child, the child's family, the child's attorney, and the child's tribe or tribal representative (if applicable) are notified. Nor does the law provide a timeline for when such notifications must occur. The bill in print does so.

Expedited court review of the child's case. Current law does not require the juvenile court to hold a special hearing to review the case of a child who is missing from foster care, nor does it specify timelines for doing so, other than any regularly scheduled review hearing. The bill in print would establish those requirements.

According to the Author

In continuation of addressing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Crisis (MMIP) AB 273 will build on past efforts and formalize best practices by requiring notification when a child or non-minor dependent, or tribal and native children in foster care is missing. This bill also furthers legislative intent and helps to better protect, locate, place and stabilize children and nonminor dependents when they go missing while in foster care.

Arguments in Support

The California Tribal Families Coalition, sponsor of this bill, writes the following about why the bill will protect missing foster youth:

AB 273 (Ramos) will protect not only Native foster children, but all foster children by creating a more family-centered and child-focused process to locate, return, and stabilize children and youth who go missing while in the care, custody, and control of the child welfare system. Current state law requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate any child missing from foster care. However, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state laws, including the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) minimum standards guidance.

The bill creates a more inclusive notification protocol when a child goes missing from care and creates a stronger oversight role for the courts. It gives the court with jurisdiction over a child a real-time opportunity to assess whether the current placement is in fact safe for the child before the child is returned there, and it reduces the recurrence of abuse and sexual exploitation, which current federal and state laws were enacted to combat.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time General Fund automation costs, likely hundreds of thousands in 2023-24, for the Child Welfare Services California Automated Response and Engagement System (CARES).
2. Unknown ongoing local costs, likely millions (General Fund and federal funds), for county welfare departments for social worker resources to conduct the required activities. Unknown General Fund costs to county probation departments for probation officers to conduct the required activities. To the extent the bill increases county costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment, the bill would apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increases.
3. Ongoing General Fund cost pressures, likely hundreds of thousands, for additional court workload. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, if funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases.

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-2

YES: Addis, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Mathis

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caballero

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0-0

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: September 18, 2023

CONSULTANT: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002556

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 273

Author:(Ramos)

As Amended Ver:September 1, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Imposes specific requirements on social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth are missing from foster care to notify the youth's family and support systems about court hearings; safely return the youth to their placements; and further protect these vulnerable youth.

Major Provisions

Imposes specific requirements on social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth are missing from foster care to notify the youth's family and support systems about court hearings; safely return the youth to their placements; and further protect these vulnerable youth.

1. Requires, when a social worker receives information that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, the social worker to do all of the following:
2. Engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care.
3. Request through county counsel that the juvenile court schedule a hearing within 10 court days to review the placement and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care.
   1. The social worker's request must be made on the date they learn of the absence or, if the court is closed, on the first court day thereafter.
   2. Provides that the hearing may be rescinded upon stipulation by all parties if the minor or nonminor dependent is found prior to the hearing or if the hearing coincides with a previously scheduled hearing in the case that falls within the 10 court days.
4. As soon as possible and at least five court days before the hearing described in 3), below, notify all of the following persons whose whereabouts are known about the hearing. In the event that the hearing is set to occur in less than five court days, notice shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the hearing:
5. The child's parents, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
6. The child's legal guardians, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
7. The attorney for the parents or legal guardians, if applicable.
8. The attorney or attorneys of record for the child receiving child welfare services.
9. The child's tribe or tribal representative, if the child is an Indian child.
10. Any known sibling of the child who is required to be notified of a hearing pursuant to existing law.
11. The child's Court-Appointed Special Advocate, if one has been appointed.
12. Prepare, submit, and serve a report at the hearing and any subsequent hearings describing their ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving welfare services, and comply with this subdivision and all other requirements of existing law.
    1. The social worker shall work to address the factors that contributed to the child receiving child welfare services becoming absent from care in subsequent placements with the child and family team. If the absence from care is habitual and an ongoing occurrence, the social worker shall seek the input of the child and family team to discuss the factors that are contributing to the child being absent from care and develop appropriate plans to stabilize the placement or change the placement.
    2. Information gathered for purposes of preparing the report shall be used for purposes of determining treatment needs, developing case plans to support the child receiving welfare services.
    3. Unless otherwise required by law, the information disclosed by the child receiving welfare services shall not be used as the basis for terminating the dependency jurisdiction of the court, filing a petition pursuant to Section 602, detaining the child in juvenile hall including for their own safety or for purposes of securing treatment or services, or for any purpose other than tailoring services for the child receiving welfare services.
13. Upon the return to foster care of the child receiving child welfare services, immediately and no later than 24 hours after learning of the return, conduct an in-person interview with the child immediately and do the following:
14. Assess and make a plan to address the immediate needs of the child.
15. Within three business days, do all of the following:
    1. Document the reasons why the child was absent from care and the experiences of the child while absent.
    2. Assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return.
    3. Request the recall of any protective custody warrant. The social worker or probation officer is not required to detain any child described in this section pending recall of a warrant.
16. Requires the clerk of the juvenile court, upon being notified by the social worker that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, to set the matter for hearing on the court's hearing calendar as soon as possible and no later than ten court days from the date of such notice.
17. Requires the court to continue to periodically review the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care at least every 30 calendar days, in accordance with this section, until the child returns from being absent from foster care.
18. Defines "ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts."

Senate Amendments

1. Add a requirement for the social worker to request the hearing on the date they learn of the absence or, if the court is closed, on the first court day thereafter.
2. Eliminate the requirement that a social worker request a protective custody order for a child receiving child welfare services who is a minor or file a missing person's report in the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is a nonminor dependent.
3. Clarify that a social worker’s request to schedule a juvenile court hearing is made through county counsel.
4. Eliminate the requirement for the social worker to notify the court of record of the hearing.
5. Require, in a case where a child’s absence from care is habitual and an ongoing occurrence, that the social worker shall seek the input of the child and family team to discuss the factors that are contributing to the child being absent from care and develop appropriate plans to stabilize the placement or change the placement.
6. Extend the time period from 24 hours to three business days after learning of the child’s return for the social worker to conduct an in-person interview with the child; document why the child was absent from care and the experiences they had while absent from care; and assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return. Add a requirement that the social worker, within three business days of learning of the child’s return, to request the recall of any protective custody warrant issued for the child. Clarify that the social worker or probation officer is not required to detain any child described in this section pending recall of a warrant.
7. Add a definition of "ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts."

COMMENTS

This bill, co-sponsored by Yurok Tribe and California Tribal Families Coalition, seeks to address the problem of foster children and nonminor dependents who go missing from foster care to ensure that these youth are located, returned to safe homes, and supported (including by being screened for involvement in sex trafficking) as soon as possible.

Missing and Exploited Children – Connection to Child Sex Trafficking. In 2020, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received more than 17,000 reports of possible child sex trafficking. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG).) According to the OIG for DHHS, "traffickers are known to prey on vulnerable children with low self-esteem and minimal social support, and histories of abuse, neglect, and trauma-traits that are common among children in foster care." Tribal and native children are at especially high risk of exploitation. For them, going missing or running away while in foster care is a pipeline to the disproportionately high rates of violence and exploitation that is experienced by Native Americans, especially Native American women and youth.

This bill. The bill seeks to bring county practices into compliance with both federal and state law, as well as the minimum standards guidance of the CDSS, by enacting several specific requirements for social workers (and in some cases, probation officers) to locate and return children who receive welfare services to foster care when they are missing and at risk, and for courts to review the continuing efforts to return, stabilize, and protect those children. The bill's requirements include the following:

Notification that the child is missing from foster care. While current law requires county welfare departments to adopt policies that require a number of actions when a social worker determines that a child is missing from foster care, the policies do not specifically require that law enforcement, the court with jurisdiction over the child, the child's family, the child's attorney, and the child's tribe or tribal representative (if applicable) are notified. Nor does the law provide a timeline for when such notifications must occur. The bill in print does so.

Expedited court review of the child's case. Current law does not require the juvenile court to hold a special hearing to review the case of a child who is missing from foster care, nor does it specify timelines for doing so, other than any regularly scheduled review hearing. The bill in print would establish those requirements.

According to the Author

In continuation of addressing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Crisis (MMIP) AB 273 will build on past efforts and formalize best practices by requiring notification when a child or non-minor dependent, or tribal and native children in foster care is missing. This bill also furthers legislative intent and helps to better protect, locate, place and stabilize children and nonminor dependents when they go missing while in foster care.

Arguments in Support

The California Tribal Families Coalition, sponsor of the bill, writes the following about why the bill will protect missing foster youth:

AB 273 (Ramos) will protect not only Native foster children, but all foster children by creating a more family-centered and child-focused process to locate, return, and stabilize children and youth who go missing while in the care, custody, and control of the child welfare system. Current state law requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate any child missing from foster care. However, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state laws, including the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) minimum standards guidance.

The bill creates a more inclusive notification protocol when a child goes missing from care and creates a stronger oversight role for the courts. It gives the court with jurisdiction over a child a real-time opportunity to assess whether the current placement is in fact safe for the child before the child is returned there, and it reduces the recurrence of abuse and sexual exploitation, which current federal and state laws were enacted to combat.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time General Fund automation costs, likely hundreds of thousands in 2023-24, for the Child Welfare Services California Automated Response and Engagement System (CARES).
2. Unknown ongoing local costs, likely millions (General Fund and federal funds), for county welfare departments for social worker resources to conduct the required activities. Unknown General Fund costs to county probation departments for probation officers to conduct the required activities. To the extent the bill increases county costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment, the bill would apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increases.
3. Ongoing General Fund cost pressures, likely hundreds of thousands, for additional court workload. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, if funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases.

VOTES:

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-2

YES: Addis, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones- Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Mathis

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caballero

UPDATED

VERSION: September 1, 2023

CONSULTANT: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002256

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 273

Author: Ramos (D), et al.

Amended: 9/1/23 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/19/23

AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Ochoa Bogh, Hurtado, Menjivar, Wahab

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 7/6/23

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Min, Niello, Stern, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/25/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Foster care: missing children and nonminor dependents

SOURCE: Alliance for Children's Rights

California Tribal Families Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill updates and expands the requirements on social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth and nonminor dependents (NMDs) are missing from foster care.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. 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 to have been abused or neglected, as specified. (WIC 202)
2. Establishes a system of juvenile dependency for children for specific reasons, and designates that a child who meets certain criteria is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and may be adjudged as a dependent child of the court, as specified. (WIC 300 et seq.)
3. Provides that the court may have within its jurisdiction any NMDs between the age of majority and 21 years, as defined. Further requires that a NMD retain all of their legal decision-making authority as an adult, except as specified. (WIC 303(a), (d))
4. Requires the status of every minor or NMD in foster care to be reviewed by the court at least once every six months, as specified. (WIC 366)
5. Requires any social worker in a county welfare department, or in an Indian tribe that has entered into an agreement pursuant to other provisions of law while acting within the scope of their regular duties under the direction of the juvenile court to take into and maintain temporary custody of, without a warrant, a child who has been declared a dependent child of the juvenile court or who the social worker has reasonable cause to believe has an immediate need for medical care or is in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse or the physical environment poses an immediate threat to the child’s health or safety. (WIC 306)
6. Requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to implement policies and procedures related to identification of and provision of services to sexually exploited children, as specified. (WIC 16501.35)

This bill:

1. Creates the Luke Madrigal Act.
2. Requires, when a social worker receives information that a child or NMD who is receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, the social worker to do all of the following:
   1. Engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care, as provided.
   2. Request through the county counsel that the juvenile court schedule a hearing within 10 court days to review the placement and the ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care.
   3. Request the hearing on the date they learn of the absence or if the court is closed, on the first court day thereafter.
   4. Provides that the hearing may be rescinded upon stipulation by all parties if the minor or NMD is found prior to the hearing or if the hearing coincides with a previously scheduled hearing in the case that it falls within the 10 court days.
   5. As soon as possible and at least five court days before the hearing described in 3b) above, notify all of the following persons whose whereabouts are known about the hearing:
      1. The child's parents, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
      2. The child's legal guardians, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
      3. The attorney for the parents or legal guardians, if applicable.
      4. The child's receiving child welfare services attorney or attorneys of record.
      5. The child's tribe or tribal representative, if the child is an Indian child, as specified.
      6. Any known sibling of the child who is required to be notified of a hearing pursuant to existing law.
      7. The child's Court-Appointed Special Advocate, if one has been appointed.
   6. Prepare, submit, and serve a report at the hearing and any subsequent hearings describing their ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving welfare services, and comply with this subdivision and all other requirements of existing law, and as provided.
   7. Work to address the factors that contributed to the child receiving child welfare services becoming absent from care with the child and family team.
   8. Seek the input of the child and family team to discuss the factors that are contributing to the child being absent from care and develop appropriate plans to stabilize the placement or change the placement, if the absence from care is habitual and an ongoing occurrence.
      1. Requires information gathered for purposes of preparing the court report to be used for purposes of determining treatment needs, developing case plans to support the child receiving welfare services.
      2. Prohibits, unless otherwise required by law, the information disclosed by the child receiving welfare services from being used as the basis for terminating the dependency jurisdiction of the court, filing a 602 petition, detaining the child in juvenile hall including for their own safety or for purposes of securing treatment or services, or for any purpose other than tailoring services for the child receiving welfare services.
3. Requires the social worker, upon the child receiving child welfare services who was the subject of the protective custody warrant or missing person’s report return to foster care, to do both of the following:
   1. Immediately, and no later than twenty-four hours after learning of the child's return, assess and make a plan to address the immediate needs of the child receiving child welfare services.
   2. Within three business days, conduct an in-person interview with the child receiving child welfare services.
      1. Document the reasons why the child was absent from care and the experiences of the child while absent.
      2. Assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return.
      3. Request the recall of any protective custody warrant request, as provided and specifies that the social worker or probation officer is not required to detain any child as described above section pending recall of a warrant.
4. Requires the county counsel, upon being notified that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, for the clerk of the juvenile court to set the matter for hearing on the court's hearing calendar as soon as possible and no later than ten court days from the date of such notice.
5. Permits the hearing in 4) above to be rescinded upon stipulation by all parties if the child receiving child welfare services, who is the subject of a protective custody warrant or missing person’s report is located and returned to foster care prior to the hearing.
6. Requires the court to continue to periodically review the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care at least every 30 calendar days, until the child returns from being absent from foster care, as specified.
7. Stipulates that the court is not prohibited from reviewing the placement of a child or ward of the juvenile court, and the ongoing intensive due diligence efforts to locate, stabilize and return the child at a regularly scheduled hearing, if that hearing is held within the timeline established in 6) above.
8. Requires the court to consider the safety of the child receiving child welfare services absent from foster care and to determine both of the following:
   1. The extent of the activities and compliance of the county with the case plan in making ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child to a safe placement. If it is known, or there is reason to know, that the child receiving child welfare services is an Indian child, the court must also determine whether the county has made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, as specified.
   2. The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement when the child receiving child welfare services returns from being absent from foster care.
9. Duplicates, in a new section of the Welfare and Institutions Code that deals with juvenile wards and youth who are involved with child welfare and probation, all of the above provisions, making them applicable to dual status youth and the social workers and probation officers who work with those youth.
10. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) by June 1, 2024, in consultation with the same stakeholders with whom CDSS was required to consult on the development of model policies and procedures, in addition to “tribes in California”, to enact updated model policies and procedures regarding the identification of children receiving child welfare services who are, or are at risk of becoming, victims of commercial sexual exploitation and support for those youth described above in 9), as specified.
11. Requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to implement the above changes to their protocols to locate any child or NMD absent from foster care by no later than January 1, 2025.
12. Defines “absent from foster care” to mean when the whereabouts of a child receiving child welfare services is unknown to the county child welfare agency or probation department or when the county child welfare agency or probation department has located the child receiving child welfare services in a location not approved by the court that may pose a risk to the child receiving child welfare services, taking into account the age, intelligence, mental functioning, and physical condition of the child.
13. Defines “child receiving child welfare services” to mean a child or NMD placed in a foster care placement or in the home of an emergency, and includes dependents, NMD, and minors who have been taken into temporary custody who are in foster care, as specified.
14. Defines “ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts” must include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
    1. Immediately, and no later than 24 hours after learning of the absence from foster care for a child receiving child welfare services, do all of the following:
       1. Request a protective custody warrant for a child receiving child welfare services who is under 18 years of age, unless there is an objection from the attorney of the child receiving child welfare services.
       2. Directing the caregiver to immediately contact the local law enforcement agency, if such action is warranted, as specified.
       3. File a missing person’s report with local law enforcement for a child receiving child welfare services who is a NMD in a supervised independent living placement, if such action is warranted.
       4. Report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children pursuant to the requirements as required under current state law.
    2. As new information is provided and no less frequently than every seven days, contacting individuals known to the child or NMD to inquire if they know their whereabouts, including, but not limited to, parents, legal guardians, nonrelative extended family members, siblings, tribal representatives, former out-of-home caregivers, relatives, current and former service providers.
       1. Permits the child welfare agency to contact others with whom the child receiving child welfare services spends time, and in consultation with the caregiver, contact neighbors, friends, roommates, current and previous schools and others with whom the child spends time without disclosing confidential information.
    3. As new information is available, but no less frequently than every 30 calendar days to both search social media accounts of the child or NMD and known acquaintances who may have information about their whereabouts and attempt to make contact with the child or NMD; and physically check all places where the child receiving child welfare services is known to frequent or where the social worker or probation officer has been informed the child may be located.

Comments

According to the author, “Confronting the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People, the majority of whom are women and girls, has been a legislative priority since my election to the Assembly. The rates of murdered and missing people in Native American communities is a shameful state and national tragedy that does not receive the scrutiny and attention it deserves. AB 273 is one aspect of this issue as it deals with missing foster youth, especially with tribal youth. The bill works to formalize best practices by requiring notification when a child goes missing in foster care. We need to better protect, locate, place, and stabilize children when they go missing in foster care.”

According to the sponsors of this bill, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state statutes, and the CDSS minimum standards guidance required for compliance in All County Letter 16‒15. The sponsors note that in current practice, notification does not include the child’s tribe/tribal representative or parents and court monitoring is sporadic and inconsistent. This bill seeks to codify these best practices into state law.

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Human Services Committee analysis or Senate Judiciary Committee analysis for more detailed background information on this bill.]

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee

• One-time General Fund automation costs, likely hundreds of thousands in 2023-24, for the Child Welfare Services California Automated Response and Engagement System (CARES).
• Unknown ongoing local costs, likely millions (General Fund and federal funds), for county welfare departments for social worker resources to conduct the required activities. Unknown General Fund costs to county probation departments for probation officers to conduct the required activities. To the extent the bill increases county costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment, the bill would apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increases.
• Ongoing General Fund cost pressures, likely hundreds of thousands, for additional court workload. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, if funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/2/23)

Alliance for Children's Rights (co-source)

California Tribal Families Coalition (co-source)

ACLU California Action

Alliance of Child and Family Services

Bakersfield American Indian Health Project

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Coalition for Youth

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Pit River Tribe

Public Counsel

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/2/23)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/25/23

AYES: Addis, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Mathis

Prepared by: Bridgett Hankerson / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524

9/4/23 9:26:43

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 273 (Ramos) - Foster care: missing children and nonminor dependents

Bill Summary:

AB 273 would update and expand the obligations of social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth and nonminor dependents are missing from foster care.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on September 1, 2023

Fiscal Impact:

• One-time General Fund automation costs, likely hundreds of thousands in 2023-24, for the Child Welfare Services California Automated Response and Engagement System (CARES).
• Unknown ongoing local costs, likely millions (General Fund and federal funds), for county welfare departments for social worker resources to conduct the required activities. Unknown General Fund costs to county probation departments for probation officers to conduct the required activities. To the extent the bill increases county costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment, the bill would apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increases.
• Ongoing General Fund cost pressures, likely hundreds of thousands, for additional court workload. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, if funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases.

Author Amendments:

Author amendments make revisions, including:

• Make revisions to requirements for “ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts” of social workers and probation officers.
• Authorize that the required hearing may be rescinded upon stipulation by all parties if the minor or nonminor dependent is found prior to the hearing or if the hearing coincides with a previously scheduled hearing in the case that falls within the 10 court days.
• Require that if the absence from care is habitual and an ongoing occurrence, the social worker must seek the input of the child and family team to discuss the factors that are contributing to the child being absent from care and develop appropriate plans to stabilize the placement or change the placement.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 273 (Ramos) - Foster care: missing children and nonminor dependents

Bill Summary:

AB 273 would update and expand the obligations of social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth and nonminor dependents are missing from foster care.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) estimates one-time General Fund automation costs of $825,000 in 2023-24 for the Child Welfare Services California Automated Response and Engagement System (CARES).
• The CDSS estimates local costs of $13.1 million ($9.9 million General Fund and $3.2 million federal funds) in 2023-24 and $12.3 million ($9 million General Fund and $3.3 million federal funds) ongoing thereafter for county welfare departments for social worker resources to conduct the required activities. Unknown General Fund costs to county probation departments for probation officers to conduct the required activities. To the extent the bill increases county costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment, the bill would apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increases.
• The Judicial Council estimates ongoing General Fund cost pressures between $200,000 and $720,000 for additional court workload. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, if funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases.

Background:

Under the state’s Child Welfare Services system, social workers in each county who receive reports of abuse or neglect, investigate and resolve those reports. When a case is substantiated, a family is either provided with services to ensure a child’s well-being and avoid court involvement, or a child is removed and placed into foster care.

Current law requires county welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement protocols to expeditiously locate any child missing from foster care, which must, at a minimum, do all of the following:

• Describe the efforts used by county child welfare or probation staff to expeditiously locate any child or nonminor dependent missing from care, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for reporting missing youth, the individuals or entities entitled to notice that a youth is missing, any required initial and ongoing efforts to locate youth, and plans to return youth to placement.
• Require the social worker or probation officer to do all of the following:
  • Determine the primary factors that contributed to the child or nonminor dependent running away or otherwise being absent from care.
  • Respond to the factors identified in subsequent placements, to the extent possible.
  • Determine the child's or nonminor dependent's experiences while absent from care.
  • Determine whether the child or nonminor dependent is a possible victim of commercial sexual exploitation.
  • Document the activities and information, as specified, for federal reporting purposes, consistent with instructions from the CDSS.

In 2016, CDSS issued guidance to counties to “provide instructions regarding the policies and procedures counties are required to develop to locate and respond to youth, dependents or wards, who go missing from foster care.” The letter advised counties, in developing protocols, that they should consider the feasibility of implementing several best practices that are not required by federal law, such as dedicated units or dedicated liaisons in the county. In addition, the letter advised counties about the elements that constitute the statewide minimum standards necessary to comply with federal law. Specifically, CDSS instructed counties that they must have reporting and noticing protocols for missing children and nonminor dependents, and due diligence requirements for social workers to search for and locate missing foster children.

Additionally, in 2017, CDSS issued a notice entitled “Promising Practices for Youth who are Missing or Run Away from Foster Care,” which provided counties with information on promising practices to locate and respond to youth who are missing from care. The notice was issued in recognition that foster youth are disproportionately more vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation than children not in foster care. The policy recommendations in part state, “when a youth leaves care without permission, they are often running from or to something. Many youth have underlying needs that must be addressed [that] may be unmet or inadequately met in the current placement.”

Proposed Law:

Specific provisions of the bill would:

• Require the social worker or probation officer, when they receive information that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care to:
  • Engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts, as defined, to locate, place, and stabilize the child.
  • Request a protective custody order for a child receiving child welfare services who is a minor or file a missing person’s report in the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is a nonminor dependent.
  • Request that the juvenile court schedule a hearing within 10 court days to review the placement and the ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care; and notify specific persons whose whereabouts are known about the hearing.
  • Prepare, submit, and serve a report at the hearing and any subsequent hearings describing their ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving child welfare services.
  • Upon the return to foster care of the child receiving child welfare services, conduct an in-person interview with the child receiving child welfare services immediately and conduct specified activities.
• Require the juvenile court to:
• Upon being notified by the social worker that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, set the matter for hearing as soon as possible, but no later than 10 court days from the date of that notice.
• Determine the extent of the activities and compliance of the county in making ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child to a safe placement.
• Determine the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement when the child receiving child welfare services returns from being absent from foster care.
• Periodically review the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care at least every 30 calendar days, until the child receiving child welfare services returns from being absent from foster care.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 273 (Author:Ramos)

Version: June 23, 2023

Hearing Date: July 6, 2023

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Foster care: missing children and nonminor dependents

DIGEST

This bill updates and expands the obligations of social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth and nonminor dependents are missing from foster care.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Though foster care is intended to help children who experience, or are at risk of experiencing, abuse or neglect, foster care itself can cause even greater trauma. Disruptive events like placement changes, school changes, and changes in visitation with family members, as well as issues like substance abuse and poor relationships with resource families, can make foster children feel like their best option is to leave their placement. Native children (referred to as “Indian children” to remain consistent with the statutes), who are overrepresented in the foster care system, are especially at risk of running away. Tragically, children who run away are likely to experience additional trauma, such as violence, human trafficking, and murder.

The fact that high numbers of foster children run away from their placements is not news. Nevertheless, current law governing how social workers and others must respond when a foster child goes missing is sparse, and generally delegates to the State Department of Social Services (DSS) the task of developing best practices in such cases. According to the author and sponsor, DSS’s current policies are insufficient, and many counties fail to comply with even the bare minimum requirements.

This bill seeks to provide more robust protections for foster children, wards, and nonminor dependents who go missing from foster care or temporary placements to ensure that these youth are located, returned to safe homes, and supported as soon as possible. To that end, the bill expands the current procedures for attempting to locate missing children and return them to their homes (or a new placement). The bill’s requirements fall into three general categories: (1) notification that the child is missing from foster care, including, when the child is an Indian child, notification of the child’s tribe or tribal representative; (2) expedited court review of the child’s case and ongoing court oversight; and (3) definitions to maximize the protection of children missing from foster care. DSS must update its policies and procedures to implement the bill’s changes no later than June 1, 2024, and county child welfare agencies and probation departments must implement the changes by January 1, 2025. The author has agreed to minor clarifying amendments relating to when the juvenile court must receive notice when a child in care has gone missing.

This bill is sponsored by the California Tribal Families Coalition and the Yurok Tribe (co-sponsor), and is supported by ACLU California Action, the Alliance for Children’s Rights, the Bakersfield American Indian Health Project, the California Alliance of Caregivers, the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, California Coalition for Youth, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Tribe, the National Association of Social Workers – California Chapter, the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, the Pit River Tribe, and Public Counsel. There is no known opposition. The Senate Human Services Committee passed this bill with a vote of 5-0.

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, and a state and local system of child welfare services for children who have been adjudged to be dependents of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 202, 245.)
2. Provides that a minor 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. Authorizes a peace officer to take temporary custody of a child who may be adjuged a dependent of the juvenile court, if specified imminent dangers are present, and authorizes a social worker to take custody of the child pending a determination of whether the child may be returned to their parent.
   1. If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) imposes a higher burden regarding when a social worker may retain custody, as well as specified procedures regarding notification to the child’s tribe and determining whether the child is already under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribal proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§305, 306.)
4. Authorizes a juvenile court to issue a protective custody warrant when a dependent child has run away from their court-ordered placement; any child taken into protective custody pursuant to such a warrant shall immediately be delivered to the social worker who shall conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 340.)
5. Requires county welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement protocols to expeditiously locate any child missing from foster care, which must, at a minimum, do all of the following:
   1. Describe the efforts used by county child welfare or probation staff to expeditiously locate any child or nonminor dependent missing from care, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for reporting missing youth, the individuals or entities entitled to notice that a youth is missing, any required initial and ongoing efforts to locate youth, and plans to return youth to placement.
   2. Require the social worker or probation officer to do all of the following:
      1. Determine the primary factors that contributed to the child or nonminor dependent running away or otherwise being absent from care.
      2. Respond to the factors identified in subsequent placements, to the extent possible.
      3. Determine the child's or nonminor dependent's experiences while absent from care.
      4. Determine whether the child or nonminor dependent is a possible victim of commercial sexual exploitation.
      5. Document the activities and information described in (i)-(iv), for federal reporting purposes, consistent with instructions from the Department of Social Services (DSS). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 16501.35(b).)

This bill:

1. Establishes the Luke Madrigal Act.
2. Makes findings and declarations as follows:
   1. The release of a 2022 audit by the DHHS Office of the Inspector General showed that there are several barriers and other deficiencies in California agencies’ policies and procedures related to missing foster youth.
   2. It is the intent of the Legislature to create stronger protections for youth who are missing from foster care in order to expeditiously locate them when they are absent from foster care, improve outcomes for missing foster youth, and reduce the number of instances of missing foster youth by (1) creating notification requirements, including notice to tribes, the court, and other interested parties, when a youth is absent from foster care; (2) requiring all involved parties to engage in collaborative and timely efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the youth when they return to foster care; and (3) ensure there is judicial oversight of the requirements in (1) and (2).
3. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Absent from foster care” means the whereabouts of a child receiving child welfare services is unknown to the county child welfare agency or probation department, or when the county child welfare agency or probation department has located the child receiving child welfare services in a location not approved by the court that may pose a risk to the child receiving child welfare services, taking into account the age, intelligence, mental functioning, and physical condition of the child receiving child welfare services.
   2. “Child receiving child welfare services” means a child or nonminor dependent placed in a foster care placement, as specified, and includes dependents, nonminor dependents, wards, and minors who have been taken into temporary custody as potential wards of the court who are in foster care.
   3. “Ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts” include, but are not limited to, directing the caregiver to immediately contact the local law enforcement agency to file a missing person’s report, where appropriate and with the assistance of the social worker where necessary; no less frequently than every seven days, contacting parents and other specified persons with whom the child receiving child welfare services spends time; contacting roommates, if the child receiving child welfare services is a nonminor dependent in a supervised living placement with roommates; for children under 18 years of age, initiating the protective custody warrant process within 24 hours of learning the child is absent; no less frequently than every 30 days, and as new information is available, searching the child’s social media accounts and those of the child’s acquaintances and attempting to contact the child through social media; no less frequently than every 30 days, and as new information is available, physically checking all places where the child receiving child welfare services is likely to be located; and reporting to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
4. Requires a social worker who receives information that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care (the child) to do all of the following:
   1. Engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child.
   2. Request a protective custody order for the child or, if the child is a nonminor dependent, file a missing person’s report.
   3. Request that the juvenile court schedule a hearing to review the placement and the ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child in no later than 10 calendar days.
   4. As soon as possible, but at least five days before the hearing in (c), notify specified persons of the hearing, including the parents (unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court), the attorneys for the parents and child, the court of jurisdiction, if the child is an Indian child, the tribe or tribal representative of the child, siblings who are entitled to receive notice of the hearing, as specified, and the child’s court-appointed special advocate. If the hearing is set to occur in fewer than five court days, the notice must be provided at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.
   5. Prepare, submit, and serve a report at the hearing and any subsequent hearings describing their ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child, and to comply with existing county protocols. To the extent possible, the social worker must work to address the factors that contributed to the child being absent from care in subsequent placements.
   6. Upon the return to foster care of the child, conduct an in-person interview with the child immediately and, within 24 hours of learning of the return: assess and make a plan to address the child’s immediate needs; document the reasons why the child was absent from care and the experiences the child had while absent; assess the appropriate placement for the child upon their return; and request the recall of any protective custody warrant issued under (b).
5. Requires the clerk of the juvenile court, upon being notified by the social worker that a child is absent from foster care, to set the matter for hearing on the court’s hearing calendar as soon as possible, but no later than 10 court days from the date of the notice.
6. Permits the court, at the hearing under 4), to inquire of interested parties who may be able to provide information leading to the safe return of the child and direct the social worker to take appropriate actions to locate the child.
7. Requires the court to consider the safety of the child and determine both of the following:
   1. The extent of the activities and the compliance of the county with the case plan in making ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child to a safe placement. If it is known, or there is reason to know, that the child is an Indian child, the court shall also determine whether the county has made active efforts, as defined, to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
   2. The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement when the child returns. If the court has issued a warrant, the court may order the social worker or probation officer to place, rather than detain, the court if the child returns to care before the court can recall the warrant.
8. Requires the court to periodically review the case of the child at least every 30 calendar days until the child returns. The court may conduct the review at a regularly scheduled hearing if it falls within the 30-day timeline.
9. Establishes the same framework set forth in 3)-8) for wards of the juvenile court who are absent from foster care, with the social worker sharing certain responsibilities with the child’s probation officer.
10. Requires the existing policies developed and implemented by county child welfare agencies and probation policies to expeditiously locate any child absent from foster care to also apply to nonminor dependents, and adds additional requirements as follows:
    1. The policies must describe the intensive due diligence efforts imposed by this bill and require compliance with those requirements.
    2. When a social worker or probation officer determines that a child or nonminor dependent is absent from foster care, they must provide notification immediately, and in no case later than 24 hours from discovery, to the persons listed in 4)(d) and the local law enforcement agency. The notice must include an agency contact that noticed persons may reach for additional information.
11. Requires DSS, in consultation with stakeholders including, but not limited to, the County Welfare Directors Association of California, the Chief Probation Officers of California, former foster youth, child advocacy organizations, and Indian tribes in California, to update its existing model policies and protocols for absent foster children, no later than June 1, 2024, to implement the changes made by this bill. County child welfare agencies and probation departments must implement the changes to their protocols no later than January 1, 2025.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

Confronting the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People, the majority of whom are women and girls, has been a legislative priority since my election to the Assembly. The rates of murdered and missing people in Native American communities is a shameful state and national tragedy that does not receive the scrutiny and attention it deserves. AB 273 is one aspect of this issue as it deals with missing foster youth, especially with tribal youth. The bill works to formalize best practices by requiring notification when a child goes missing in foster care. We need to better protect, locate, place, and stabilize children when they go missing in foster care.

2. Children in foster care go missing at alarmingly high rates

In 2018, investigative reporters found that tens of thousands of foster children had gone missing and, apparently, no one was trying to find them.^[2] Records showed that, since 2000, “child welfare agencies across the country closed the cases of more than 53,000 foster kids listed as ‘runaway’ and at least another 61,000 children listed as ‘missing.’ ”^[3] The Children’s Bureau within DHHS determined that, as of September 2018, an estimated 4,247 youth in foster care were currently reported to have run away.^[4] Foster youth who have run away “are at high risk of being sexually or physically victimized, engaging in delinquent behavior, using drugs or alcohol, or being the victims of human trafficking.”^[5]

In response to the reports of states closing cases on missing foster children, the DHHS Office of Inspector General conducted a series of audits related to children missing from foster care, pursuant to its oversight authority under the federal foster care program authorized by Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. An audit released in May 2022 found that, between 2001 and 2021, there were 110,446 missing children episodes; in most states, the average time that a child was missing ranged from 7 to 46 days, but 9 states reported average times of over 50 days.^[6] California reported 10,893 missing children episodes in that period, comprising about five percent of the State’s foster population, with an average duration of 41 days.^[7]

The State’s Native population is particularly likely to suffer when the State’s child welfare agencies do not proactively work to find missing children. As explained by the California Tribal Families Coalition, one of the bill’s sponsors:

Native people, especially Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately affected by violence, human trafficking, and murder, and become “missing” at much higher rates than people of other racial groups. Native children also enter the child welfare system at a rate that is 2.7 times their representation in the population, the highest of any racial group (NICWA 2017). National data shows that 85 percent of all missing Indigenous children over a 10-year period were endangered runaways.

3. The State’s current policies and procedures for identifying and locating runaway foster youth

In 2015, the Legislature passed SB 794 (Senate Committee on Human Services, Ch. 425, Stats. 2015), which implemented the current framework for county child welfare departments and probation departments when a child has gone missing from foster care. The bill was intended to bring State law into conformity with new federal requirements regarding state programs for sex trafficking prevention, intervention, data collection and reporting; the reasonable and prudent parent standards; adoption incentives payments; successor guardianship, and successful adulthood.

DSS subsequently issued administrative guidance for the implementation of SB 794, establishing minimum statewide standards necessary to comply with federal law.^[8] The guidance made clear that counties could add additional local requirements.^[9] In 2017, DSS issued another guidance which provided counties with information on promising practices to locate and respond to youth who are missing from care.^[10] Nevertheless, neither the current statutes nor administrative guidance require counties to implement known best practices, nor do they include commonsense measures such as, when an Indian child is missing, contacting the child’s tribe; there are also no requirements that the juvenile court be notified or conduct any oversight into the attempts to locate the child.

Additionally, the author and sponsors report that counties are frequently out of compliance with federal, state, and administrative requirements. For example, according to the Yurok Tribe, a sponsor of the bill:

As of March 2023, Humboldt County failed to conduct investigations within the 40 calendar days required by Div. 31 regulations in 234 of the county’s 351 open “Emergency Response” Investigations. Of those 351 open cases, 61 investigations involved Yurok Tribal members and 54 of those, 88.5 percent, were out of compliance with the 40-day report requirement. This experience is not unique to the Yurok Tribe. California’s northern tribes reported to California’s Department of Social Services in March 2023 that Humboldt County has continued ineffective past practices of tribal family separation by failing to comply with their investigation obligations in 83 percent of the cases involving tribal families. Nothing the Yurok Tribe has observed since March suggests any of that has changed since the tribes’ meeting with California’s Department of Social Services.

4. This bill establishes an enhanced procedural framework for responding to a child reported missing from foster care

This bill imposes specific statutory requirements and processes for when a child in foster care (including a nonminor dependent or a ward of the court in temporary custody under certain circumstances) goes missing from their placement. The bill provides specific steps that caregivers, social workers, and, where relevant, probation officers must take when a child is discovered missing; and, importantly, charges the juvenile court with ongoing oversight into the efforts being made to locate the child.

First, the bill implements a series of steps the social worker (or probation officer, where appropriate) must take when they discover that a child is absent from foster care. The first step is to engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate the child, which include contacting persons in the child’s life such as friends, relatives, and, if the child is an Indian child, their tribe or tribal representative; searching the child’s social media accounts; directing the caregiver to file a missing person’s report or warrant, as appropriate; and physically checking all places where the child is likely to be located.

Second, the bill provides for court oversight of the attempt to find the child. Upon learning that the child is missing, the social worker must request that the juvenile court schedule a hearing for the court to review the missing child’s placement and the social worker’s ongoing efforts to locate the child. The clerk of the court must set the hearing for no later than 10 court days from the date of receiving the notice from the social worker. The social worker must prepare a report with specified information in advance of the hearing; notice of the hearing and the report must be provided to the child’s attorney(s), specified relatives, and, if the child is an Indian child, their tribe or tribal representative. The court may direct the social worker to take additional appropriate actions to find the child. In the unfortunate case where the child is not found quickly, the court must continue its oversight, holding hearings at least every 30 days. The author has agreed to clarifying amendments to ensure that the social worker or probation officer seeks a hearing as soon as they learn the child is missing and to clarify that the hearing must be held within 10 court days.

Third, the bill adds steps to ensure that, when a child is located, (1) the conditions that led them to leave are addressed, and (2) they are properly screened for any traumatic events they may have encountered while missing, including sex trafficking. Among other things, the court has the authority to determine that the child should not be returned to their prior placement. The social worker is also tasked with attempting to address, in subsequent placements and with the family team, the factors that led to the child going missing.

The bill requires DSS to implement the new framework through updated policies and procedures which must be in place by June 1, 2024. DSS must consult with stakeholders, including tribes in California and former foster youth, in developing those new policies and procedures. County child welfare agencies must implement the changes no later than January 1, 2025.

5. Amendments

As noted above, the author has agreed to amendments to clarify the social worker or probation officer’s obligation to contact the juvenile court after they learn that a child is missing. Specifically, the amendments clarify that the hearing must be scheduled within 10 court days (not calendar days) of when the social worker or probation officer learns that the child is missing; and that the social worker or probation officer must request the hearing the same day they learn the child is missing, or, if the court is closed when they learn the child is missing, on the next court day. The amendments are set forth below, subject to any nonsubstantive changes the Office of Legislative Counsel may make:

Amendment 1

On page 4, in line 8, after “hearing” insert “within 10 court days”.

Amendment 2

On page 4, in line 11, strike out “care in no case later than 10 calendar days.” and insert “care. The social worker shall request the hearing on the date they learn of the absence or, if the court is closed, on the first court day thereafter.”

Amendment 3

On page 8, in line 23, after “hearing” insert “within 10 court days”.

Amendment 4

On page 8, in line 26, strike out “care in no case later than 10 calendar days.” and insert “care. The social worker shall request the hearing on the date they learn of the absence or, if the court is closed, on the first court date thereafter.”

6. Arguments in support

According to Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Tribe:

AB 273 will protect children by creating a more family centered and child focused process to locate, return, and stabilize children and youth who go missing while in the care, custody, and control of the child welfare system. Current state law requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate any child missing from foster care. However, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state laws, and the California Department of Social Services minimum standards guidance.

AB 273 creates a more inclusive notification protocol for Tribes and families when a child goes missing from care, mandates action where there is merely guidance now, and creates a stronger oversight role for the courts. It gives the court with jurisdiction over a child a real time opportunity to assess whether the current placement is in fact safe for the child before the child is returned there, and it reduces the recurrence of abuse and sexual exploitation, which our current federal and state laws were enacted to combat.

SUPPORT

California Tribal Families Coalition (co-sponsor)
Yurok Tribe (co-sponsor)

ACLU California Action

Alliance for Children’s Rights
Bakersfield American Indian Health Project

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Coalition for Youth

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Tribe

National Association of Social Workers – California Chapter

Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians

Pit River Tribe

Public Counsel

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation: SB 794 (Senate Committee on Human Services, Ch. 425, Stats. 2015) among other things, added the requirement that county child welfare agencies and probation departments implement policies and procedures that require social workers and probation officers to take specified steps when a child has gone missing from foster care.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Human Services Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

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

1. Going forward, this analysis uses “parent” to include “guardian” and the single includes the plural. ↑

2. Rasmussen & Smith, Missing and Forgotten: Thousands of foster kids kicked out of the system, Boston 25 News (May 23, 2018), https://www.boston25news.com/news/missing-and-forgotten-thousands-of-foster-kids-kicked-out-of-the-system/755376482/. All links in this analysis are current as of June 30, 2023. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Child Welfare Information Gateway, Responding to Youth Missing From Foster Care (2020), p. 1, https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/missing_youth.pdf. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. DHHS, Office of Inspector General, National Snapshot of State Agency Approaches to Reporting and Locating Children Missing From Foster Care (May 2022) A-07-20-06905, p. 5. ↑

7. Id. at pp. 8-10. ↑

8. See DSS, All-County Letter No. 16-15 (Apr. 28, 2016). ↑

9. Id. at p. 4. ↑

10. DSS, All County Information Notice No. I-13-17 (Apr. 25, 2017). ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Alvarado-Gil, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Subject: Foster care: missing children and nonminor dependents

SUMMARY

This bill imposes specific requirements on social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth and nonminor dependents (NMDs) are missing from foster care to notify the youth's family and support systems about court hearings; safely return the youth to their placements; and to further protect these vulnerable youth.

ABSTRACT

Existing Law:

1. 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 to have been abused or neglected, as specified. (WIC 202)
2. Establishes a system of juvenile dependency for children for specific reasons, and designates that a child who meets certain criteria is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and may be adjudged as a dependent child of the court, as specified. (WIC 300 et seq.)
3. Provides that the court may have within its jurisdiction any NMD between the age of majority and 21 years, as defined. Further requires that a NMD retain all of their legal decision-making authority as an adult, except as specified. (WIC 303(a), (d))
4. Requires the status of every minor or NMD in foster care to be reviewed by the court at least once every six months, as specified. (WIC 366)
5. Requires any social worker in a county welfare department, or in an Indian tribe that has entered into an agreement pursuant to other provisions of law while acting within the scope of their regular duties under the direction of the juvenile court to take into and maintain temporary custody of, without a warrant, a child who has been declared a dependent child of the juvenile court or who the social worker has reasonable cause to believe has an immediate need for medical care or is in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse or the physical environment poses an immediate threat to the child’s health or safety. (WIC 306)
6. Requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to implement policies and procedures related to identification of and provision of services to sexually exploited children, as specified. (WIC 16501.35)
7. Allows a county to require a resource family or applicant to receive relevant specialized training for the purpose of preparing them to meet the needs of a particular child in care, such as understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to: commercially sexually exploited children; children who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender; and non-minor dependents, among others. (WIC 16519.5 (h))
8. Establishes the Commercially Sexually Exploited Children’s Program (CSEC) to provide funding to counties that elect to participate in the program for the provision of training to county children’s service workers to identify, intervene, and provide case management services to children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking, and to foster caregivers for the prevention and identification of potential victims. (WIC 16524.7)
9. Establishes the “Human Trafficking Victims Assistance Fund” in order to provide grants to support programs that assist victims of human trafficking. (GC 8590.7 (a))
10. Requires all local police and sheriffs’ departments to accept reports of missing persons without delay. Further required policy or sheriff’s departments, if the missing person is under 21 years of age, or is determined to be at risk, to broadcast a “Be on the Lookout” bulletin and to transmit the report to the Department of Justice (DOJ), as provided. (PC 14211)
11. Defines “commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC)” as children who are sexually trafficked or receive food or shelter in exchange for the performance of certain sexual acts, as specified. (WIC 300)
12. Defines a “nonminor dependent (NMD)” as a current or former foster youth who is between 18 and 21 years old, in foster care under the responsibility of the county welfare department (CWD), county probation department, or Indian Tribe, and participating in a transitional independent living plan, as specified. (WIC 11400(v))

This Bill:

1. Makes numerous Legislative findings and declarations including that the release of a 2022 audit by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) showed that there are several barriers and other deficiencies in California agencies’ policies and procedures related to missing foster youth.
2. Provides it is the intent of the Legislature to create stronger protections and increase judicial oversight for youth who are missing from foster care in order to expeditiously locate them when they are absent from foster care, improve outcomes for missing foster youth, and reduce the number of instances of missing foster youth, as specified.
3. Requires, when a social worker receives information that a child or NMD who is receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, the social worker to do all of the following:
4. Engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care.
5. Request a protective custody order for a child receiving child welfare services who is a minor or file a missing person's report in the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is a NMD.
6. Request that the juvenile court schedule a hearing to review the placement and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care in no case later than ten calendar days.
7. As soon as possible and at least five court days before the hearing described in 3c) above ­ or at least 24 hours prior if the hearing is set to occur in less than five court days ­ notify all of the following persons whose whereabouts are known about the hearing:
8. The child's parents, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
9. The child's legal guardians, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
10. The attorney for the parents or legal guardians, if applicable.
11. The child's attorney of record.
12. The court of jurisdiction.
13. The child's tribe or tribal representative, if the child is an Indian child, as specified.
14. Any known sibling of the child who is required to be notified of a hearing pursuant to existing law.
15. The child's Court-Appointed Special Advocate, if one has been appointed.
16. Prepare, submit, and serve a report at the hearing and any subsequent hearings describing their ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving welfare services, and comply with this subdivision and all other requirements of existing law.
    1. To the extent possible, the social worker must work to address the factors that contributed to the child receiving child welfare services being absent from care in subsequent placements with the child and family team.
    2. Information gathered for purposes of preparing the report must be used for purposes of determining treatment needs, developing case plans to support the child receiving welfare services.
    3. Unless otherwise required by law, the information disclosed by the child receiving welfare services will not be used as the basis for terminating the dependency jurisdiction of the court, filing a 602 petition, detaining the child in juvenile hall including for their own safety or for purposes of securing treatment or services, or for any purpose other than tailoring services for the child receiving welfare services.
17. Upon the child’s return to foster care, conduct an in-person interview with the child immediately and do the following no later than twenty-four hours after knowing of the child's return:
    • 1. Assess and make a plan to address the immediate needs of the child.
      2. Document the reasons why the child was absent from care and the experiences of the child while absent.
      3. Assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return.
18. Requires the clerk of the juvenile court, upon being notified by the social worker or probation officer that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, to set the matter for hearing on the court's hearing calendar as soon as possible and no later than ten court days from the date of such notice.
19. Requires the court to continue to periodically review the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care at least every 30 calendar days, until the child returns from being absent from foster care, as specified.
20. Stipulates that the court is not prohibited from reviewing the placement of a child or ward of the juvenile court, and the ongoing intensive due diligence efforts to locate, stabilize and return the child at a regularly scheduled hearing, if that hearing is held within the timeline established in 5) above.
21. Requires the court to consider the safety of the child receiving child welfare services absent from foster care and to determine both of the following:
    1. The extent of the activities and compliance of the county with the case plan in making ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child to a safe placement. If it is known, or there is reason to know, that the child receiving child welfare services is an Indian child, the court must also determine whether the county has made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, as specified.
    2. The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement when the child receiving child welfare services returns from being absent from foster care.
22. Duplicates, in a new section of the Welfare and Institutions Code that deals with juvenile wards and youth who are involved with child welfare and probation, all of the above provisions, making them applicable to dual status youth and the social workers and probation officers who work with those youth.
23. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) by June 1, 2024, in consultation with the same stakeholders with whom CDSS was required to consult on the development of model policies and procedures, in addition to “tribes in California”, to enact updated model policies and procedures regarding the identification of children receiving child welfare services who are, or are at risk of becoming, victims of commercial sexual exploitation and support for those youth described above in 8), as specified.
24. Defines the following terms:
    1. “Absent from foster care” to mean when the whereabouts of a child receiving child welfare services is unknown to the county child welfare agency or probation department or when the county child welfare agency or probation department has located the child receiving child welfare services in a location not approved by the court that may pose a risk to the child receiving child welfare services, taking into account the age, intelligence, mental functioning, and physical condition of the child.
    2. “Child receiving child welfare services” to mean a child or NMD placed in a foster care placement or in the home of an emergency, and includes dependents, NMD, and minors who have been taken into temporary custody who are in foster care, as specified.
    3. “Ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts” include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
       1. Directing the caregiver to immediately contact the local law enforcement agency, as specified.
       2. As new information is provided and no less frequently than every seven days, contacting parents, legal guardians, nonrelative extended family members, siblings, tribal representatives, former out-of-home caregivers, relatives, current and former service providers, and others with whom the child receiving child welfare services spends time, and in consultation with the caregiver, contact neighbors, friends, current and previous schools and others with whom the child spends time.
       3. Asking any roommates of the NMD if they know their whereabouts if the child is the NMD in a supervised independent living placement.
       4. Initiating the protective custody warrant process within 24 hours of the time when the social worker or probation officer learns that the child, who is under 18 years of age, is absent from foster care, unless there is an objection from the attorney of the child.
       5. As new information is available, but no less frequently than every 30 calendar days to search social media accounts of the child and known acquaintances and attempt to make contact, and physically check all places where the child receiving child welfare services is likely to be located.

FISCAL IMPACT

According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis, there are one-time costs of approximately $800,000 to $1 million General Fund to CDSS for case management system updates. County social workers report information about foster care youth to CDSS using a statewide case management system. CDSS anticipates updating its case management system to ensure compliance with the new duties required by this bill. Additional one-time costs to CDSS for staffing to update its model policies and procedures as required by the bill.

Workload cost pressures in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) for juvenile courts to hold the hearings required by this bill. Using data on missing foster care children from CDSS and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Judicial Council estimates this bill would result in approximately 1,400 additional juvenile court hearings each year. Costs will depend on the length of hearings required. If funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund.

Significant reimbursable costs (General Fund, Prop 30, local funds) of an unknown amount due to the additional responsibilities for social workers and probation officers created by this bill. County social services agencies' costs may be reimbursable to the extent determined by the Commission on State Mandates. County probation costs may be reimbursable due to Proposition 30, which provided that any legislation enacted after September 30, 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment applies to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Proposition 30 has not been litigated and it is unclear what constitutes a reimbursable state-mandated local program pursuant to Proposition 30.

The author of the bill submitted a budget request of $15 million annually to fulfill the requirements of this bill.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Purpose of the Bill:

According to the author, “Confronting the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People, the majority of whom are women and girls, has been a legislative priority since my election to the Assembly. The rates of murdered and missing people in Native American communities is a shameful state and national tragedy that does not receive the scrutiny and attention it deserves. AB 273 is one aspect of this issue as it deals with missing foster youth, especially with tribal youth. The bill works to formalize best practices by requiring notification when a child goes missing in foster care. We need to better protect, locate, place, and stabilize children when they go missing in foster care.”

Child Welfare Services (CWS)

The CWS system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. Social workers in each county who receive reports of abuse or neglect, investigate and resolve those reports. When a case is substantiated, a family is either provided with services to ensure a child’s well-being and avoid court involvement, or a child is removed 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. As of January 1, 2023, there were 52,265 children in the CWS system in California.

Missing and Exploited Children

According to a 2022 study by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 2020 received more than 17,000 reports of possible child sex trafficking. Sex trafficking of children means “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting a child under 18 years of age for the purpose of a commercial sex act” and may include “the exchange for money, food, shelter, and/or drugs.”^[1] The OIG report notes that children in foster care who are victims of sex trafficking may be negatively impacted by multiple physical and mental health issues that can have long-lasting effects. The OIG report also notes that “traffickers are known to prey on vulnerable children with low self-esteem and minimal social support, and histories of abuse, neglect, and trauma-traits that are common among children in foster care.”

Native children are at an increased risk of experiencing trafficking or exploitation. Recent studies reveal that over a 10-year period, nationally 85 percent of all missing Native children were endangered runaways. Foster children who runaway or go missing experience elevated rates of violence and exploitation, which is particularly true for Tribal and Native women and youth.

In January 2022, HHS announced the creation of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Task Force). According to HHS, the Task Force, chaired by the Secretary of State, is made up of 20 agencies across the federal government and is responsible for coordinating federal efforts to combat trafficking in persons. The Task Force’s focus includes “the enforcement of criminal and labor laws to end impunity for traffickers; victim-centered identification and trauma-informed assistance; innovations in data gathering and research; education and public awareness activities; and synchronization of strategically linked foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement.”^[2]

Federal Laws for Youth Missing From Foster Care

Enacted in 2014, the federal Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (The Act) (Public Law (P.L.) 113-183) was created in an effort to prevent and address sex trafficking of children in foster care. The Act required states to develop policies and procedures for the identification, documentation, and determination of appropriate services for children in the placement, care, or supervision of the state agency which believes they are, or are at risk of becoming victims of sex trafficking. The Act also requirements for states to develop policies and procedures for “expeditiously locating any child missing from foster care,” and “determining the child’s experiences while absent from care, including screening the child to determine if the child is a possible sex trafficking victim.” Further, child welfare agencies must report a child missing from care to both law enforcement and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children “immediately” (not to exceed 24 hours).

The Act made a number of changes to the Title IV-E Foster Care Program, including enacting new requirements regarding: sex trafficking prevention, intervention, data collection and reporting; the reasonable and prudent parent standards; adoption incentives payments; successor guardianship, and successful adulthood. However, the focus of this bill relates to the sex trafficking prevention, intervention, data collection and reporting aspects of the law. California codified The Act’s provisions through SB 794 (Committee on Human Services, Chapter 425, Statutes of 2015), which included training requirements for caseworkers (i.e. county social workers and probation officers) such as identifying, documenting and determining appropriate services for a child or youth in foster care who the caseworker has reasonable cause to believe is, or at risk of becoming, a sex trafficking survivor. These requirements are also outlined in CDSS’ 2016 all county letter (ACL) 16­‒15.

State Policy for Runaway and Missing Children

ACL 16­­‒15. In 2016, CDSS issued ACL 16‒­15 to “provide instructions regarding the policies and procedures counties are required to develop to locate and respond to youth, dependents or wards, who go missing from foster care.”^[3] The letter advised counties, in developing protocols, that they should consider the feasibility of implementing several best practices that are not required by federal law, such as dedicated units or dedicated liaisons in the county. In addition, the letter advised counties about the elements that constitute the statewide minimum standards necessary to comply with federal law. Specifically, CDSS instructed counties that they must have reporting and noticing protocols for missing children and NMD, and due diligence requirements for social workers to search for and locate missing foster children.

ACIN I‒13‒17. Additionally, in 2017, CDSS issued All County Information Notice (ACIN) I‒13‒17, entitled “Promising Practices for Youth who are Missing or Run Away from Foster Care,” which provided counties with information on promising practices to locate and respond to youth who are missing from care. ACIN I‒13‒17 was issued in recognition that foster youth are disproportionately more vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation than children not in foster care. The policy recommendations in part state, “when a youth leaves care without permission, they are often running from or to something. Many youth have underlying needs that must be addressed [that] may be unmet or inadequately met in the current placement.”

Several risk factors were noted as reasons a youth may leaving their care setting without permission, including “being 13 years or older, placement instability, substance abuse, youth being upset or overly preoccupied with visitation issues, problematic ties to the community associated with run risk (e.g. gang affiliation, romantic relationships), history of juvenile delinquency, psychological factors (e.g. impulsivity, poor judgment and insight, easily influenced, thrill seeking), etc.”^[4] ACIN I‒13‒17 advised several ways county staff could be prepared to respond should a youth go missing or leave care. These included creating a Safety and Support Plan, so that those that have a relationship with the child, such as family, friends, etc. may be contacted if necessary to aid in finding the missing child. It also outlined other best practices county social workers and probation officers can use while the child is missing and when the child is found and/or returns back to their placement.

County child welfare and probation departments are currently allowed some latitude in the development of their policies and procedures regarding how to handle cases when a child goes missing from care, as long as they meet federal and state requirements and CDSS’ minimum standards guide. This bill seeks to codify the best practices and standards into state law by requiring the child’s social worker or probation officer, if applicable, to diligently search for them and contact those persons in the child or NMD life, including the child’s Tribe or Tribal representative, who may be able to assist in finding the child or NMD quickly, so that they remain safe. The bill also requires the social worker to notify and request that the juvenile court schedule a hearing to review the placement and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care in no case later than ten calendar days.

According to the sponsors of this bill, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state statutes, and the CDSS minimum standards guidance required for compliance in All County Letter 16‒15. The sponsors note that in current practice, notification does not include the child’s tribe/tribal representative or parents and court monitoring is sporadic and inconsistent. This bill seeks to codify these best practices into state law.

Related/Prior Legislation:

SB 794 (Committee on Human Services, Chapter 425, Statutes of 2015) codified the federal Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act into state law, which included training requirements for caseworkers (i.e. county social workers and probation officers) such as identifying, documenting and determining appropriate services for a child or youth in foster care who the worker has reasonable cause to believe the child is, or at risk of being a victim of sex trafficking.

COMMENTS

According to the California Department of Justice website, in 2022 there were 62,200 missing children reports in the state. As Black and Indigenous children are disproportionately in the care of child welfare and/or probation systems, they are also at greater risk of experiencing exploitation if they go missing from care. According to the sponsors, this bill’s provisions will protect not only Native foster children, but all foster children by creating a more family-centered and child-focused process to locate, return, and stabilize children and youth who go missing while in the care, custody, and control of the child welfare system.

While current law requires county welfare departments to adopt policies that require a number of actions when a social worker or probation officer determines that a child is missing from foster care, the policies do not specifically require that law enforcement, the court with jurisdiction over the child, the child’s family, the child’s attorney, and the child’s tribe or tribal representative (if applicable) are notified. Current law also fails to provide a timeline for when such notifications must occur. This bill would require additional notifications and due diligence efforts to be made when a child or youth go missing from care.

Double Referral: This bill has been double-referred. Should this bill pass out of this Committee, it will be referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

PRIOR VOTES

POSITIONS

Support:

Alliance for Children's Rights (Co-Sponsor)

California Tribal Families Coalition (Co-Sponsor)

ACLU California Action

Alliance of Child and Family Services

Bakersfield American Indian Health Project

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Coalition for Youth

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Pit River Tribe

Public Counsel

Oppose:

None received

-- END --

1. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), Child Sex Trafficking Overview, 2021. Accessed at http://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/missingkids/pdfs/CST%20Identification%20Resource.pdf on November 5, 2021. ↑

2. https://www.state.gov/humantrafficking-interagency-task-force/ ↑

3. https://cdss.ca.gov/lettersnotices/EntRes/getinfo/acl/2016/16-15.pdf ↑

4. http://www.nrcpfc.org/fostering_connections/index.html ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 273

Author:(Ramos)

As Amended Ver:March 15, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Imposes specific requirements on social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts when foster youth are missing from foster care to notify the youth's family and support systems about court hearings; safely return the youth to their placements; and further protect these vulnerable youth.

Major Provisions

1. Requires, when a social worker receives information that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, the social worker to do all of the following:
2. Engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care.
3. Request a protective custody order for a child receiving child welfare services who is a minor or file a missing person's report in the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is a nonminor dependent.
4. Request that the juvenile court schedule a hearing to review the placement and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care in no case later than ten calendar days.
5. As soon as possible and at least five court days before the hearing described in 3), below, notify all of the following persons whose whereabouts are known about the hearing. In the event that the hearing is set to occur in less than five court days, notice shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the hearing:
6. The child's parents, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
7. The child's legal guardians, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
8. The attorney for the parents or legal guardians, if applicable.
9. The child's attorney of record.
10. The court of jurisdiction.
11. The child's tribe or tribal representative, if the child is an Indian child.
12. Any known sibling of the child who is required to be notified of a hearing pursuant to existing law.
13. The child's Court-Appointed Special Advocate, if one has been appointed.
14. Prepare, submit, and serve a report at the hearing and any subsequent hearings describing their ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving welfare services, and comply with this subdivision and all other requirements of existing law.
    1. To the extent possible, the social worker shall work to address the factors that contributed to the child receiving child welfare services being absent from care in subsequent placements with the child and family team.
    2. Information gathered for purposes of preparing the report shall be used for purposes of determining treatment needs, developing case plans to support the child receiving welfare services.
    3. Unless otherwise required by law, the information disclosed by the child receiving welfare services shall not be used as the basis for terminating the dependency jurisdiction of the court, filing a petition pursuant to Section 602, detaining the child in juvenile hall including for their own safety or for purposes of securing treatment or services, or for any purpose other than tailoring services for the child receiving welfare services.
15. Upon the return to foster care of the child receiving child welfare services, conduct an in-person interview with the child immediately and do the following no later than twenty-four hours after knowing of the child's return:
16. Assess and make a plan to address the immediate needs of the child.
17. Document the reasons why the child was absent from care and the experiences of the child while absent.
18. Assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return.
19. Requires the clerk of the juvenile court, upon being notified by the social worker that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, to set the matter for hearing on the court's hearing calendar as soon as possible and no later than ten court days from the date of such notice.
20. Requires the court to continue to periodically review the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care at least every 30 calendar days, in accordance with this section, until the child returns from being absent from foster care.

COMMENTS

This bill, co-sponsored by Yurok Tribe and California Tribal Families Coalition, seeks to address the problem of foster children and nonminor dependents who go missing from foster care to ensure that these youth are located, returned to safe homes, and supported (including by being screened for involvement in sex trafficking) as soon as possible. According to the author and co-sponsors, existing law requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate children who are missing from foster care. However, according to the author and co-sponsors, county practices are routinely out of compliance with both federal and state law, as well as the minimum standards guidance of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). They also observe that in current practice, notification does not include the child's tribe/tribal representative or parents.

Missing and Exploited Children – Connection to Child Sex Trafficking. In 2020, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received more than 17,000 reports of possible child sex trafficking. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), "In Five States, There Was No Evidence That Many Children in Foster Care Had a Screening for Sex Trafficking When They Returned After Going Missing" (07-05-2022) OEI-07-19-00371 (hereafter "OIG Report"), available at https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-07-19-00371.asp.) According to the OIG for DHHS, "traffickers are known to prey on vulnerable children with low self-esteem and minimal social support, and histories of abuse, neglect, and trauma-traits that are common among children in foster care."

Tribal and native children are at especially high risk of exploitation. For them, going missing or running away while in foster care is a pipeline to the disproportionately high rates of violence and exploitation that is experienced by Native Americans, especially Native American women and youth. National data shows that 85% of all missing Indigenous children over a ten-year period were endangered runaways. Nationally, American Indian or Alaska Native children had the highest rate of victimization at 14.8 per 1,000 children in the population of the same race or ethnicity (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021). Within the United States, California has emerged as a magnet for commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC). The FBI has determined that three of the nation's thirteen High Intensity Child Exploitation areas are in California: the San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego metropolitan areas. (See California Child Welfare Council, "Ending the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children" (June 2017), Page 1; available at https://www.chhs.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Committees/California-Child-Welfare-Council/Council-Information-Reports/Ending-CSEC-A-Call-for-Multi-System-Collaboration-in-CA-February-2013.pdf.)

This bill. The bill seeks to bring county practices into compliance with both federal and state law, as well as the minimum standards guidance of the CDSS, by enacting several specific requirements for social workers (and in some cases, probation officers) to locate and return children who receive welfare services to foster care when they are missing and at risk, and for courts to review the continuing efforts to return, stabilize, and protect those children. The bill's requirements fall into three general categories:

Notification that the child is missing from foster care. While current law requires county welfare departments to adopt policies that require a number of actions when a social worker determines that a child is missing from foster care, the policies do not specifically require that law enforcement, the court with jurisdiction over the child, the child's family, the child's attorney, and the child's tribe or tribal representative (if applicable) are notified. Nor does the law provide a timeline for when such notifications must occur. The bill in print does so.

Expedited court review of the child's case. Current law does not require the juvenile court to hold a special hearing to review the case of a child who is missing from foster care, nor does it specify timelines for doing so, other than any regularly scheduled review hearing. The bill in print would establish those requirements.

According to the Author

In continuation of addressing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Crisis (MMIP) AB 273 will build on past efforts and formalize best practices by requiring notification when a child or non-minor dependent, or tribal and native children in foster care is missing. This bill also furthers legislative intent and helps to better protect, locate, place and stabilize children and nonminor dependents when they go missing while in foster care.

Arguments in Support

The California Tribal Families Coalition, sponsor of the bill, writes the following about why the bill will protect missing foster youth:

AB 273 (Ramos) will protect not only Native foster children, but all foster children by creating a more family-centered and child-focused process to locate, return, and stabilize children and youth who go missing while in the care, custody, and control of the child welfare system. Current state law requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate any child missing from foster care. However, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state laws, including the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) minimum standards guidance.

The bill creates a more inclusive notification protocol when a child goes missing from care and creates a stronger oversight role for the courts. It gives the court with jurisdiction over a child a real-time opportunity to assess whether the current placement is in fact safe for the child before the child is returned there, and it reduces the recurrence of abuse and sexual exploitation, which current federal and state laws were enacted to combat.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis:

1. One-time costs of approximately $800,000 to $1 million (General Fund) to CDSS for case management system updates. County social workers report information about foster care youth to CDSS using a statewide case management system. CDSS anticipates updating its case management system to ensure compliance with the new duties required by this bill. Additional one-time costs to CDSS for staffing to update its model policies and procedures as required by the bill.
2. Workload cost pressures in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) for juvenile courts to hold the hearings required by this bill. Using data on missing foster care children from CDSS and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Judicial Council estimates this bill would result in approximately 1,400 additional juvenile court hearings each year. Costs will depend on the length of hearings required. If funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund.
3. Significant reimbursable costs (General Fund, Prop 30, local funds) of an unknown amount due to the additional responsibilities for social workers and probation officers created by this bill. County social services agencies' costs may be reimbursable to the extent determined by the Commission on State Mandates. County probation costs may be reimbursable due to Proposition 30, which provided that any legislation enacted after September 30, 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment applies to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Proposition 30 has not been litigated and it is unclear what constitutes a reimbursable state-mandated local program pursuant to Proposition 30.

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: March 15, 2023

CONSULTANT: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000723

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 273

Author:(Ramos) – As Amended Ver:March 15, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a social worker or probation officer to take specified actions if they learn that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, requires the clerk of the juvenile court to set a hearing on the court’s calendar within 10 days of being notified that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, and requires the juvenile court to review the child’s case at least every 30 days until the child returns. The bill also requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to update its model policies and procedures regarding children receiving child welfare services who are at risk of commercial sexual exploitation.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs of approximately $800,000 to $1 million (General Fund) to CDSS for case management system updates. County social workers report information about foster care youth to CDSS using a statewide case management system. CDSS anticipates updating its case management system to ensure compliance with the new duties required by this bill. Additional one-time costs to CDSS for staffing to update its model policies and procedures as required by the bill.
2. Workload cost pressures in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) for juvenile courts to hold the hearings required by this bill. Using data on missing foster care children from CDSS and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Judicial Council estimates this bill would result in approximately 1,400 additional juvenile court hearings each year. Costs will depend on the length of hearings required. If funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund.
3. Significant reimbursable costs (General Fund, Prop 30, local funds) of an unknown amount due to the additional responsibilities for social workers and probation officers created by this bill. County social services agencies’ costs may be reimbursable to the extent determined by the Commission on State Mandates. County probation costs may be reimbursable due to Proposition 30, which provided that any legislation enacted after September 30, 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment applies to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Proposition 30 has not been litigated and it is unclear what constitutes a reimbursable state-mandated local program pursuant to Proposition 30.

COMMENTS:

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

In continuation of addressing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Crisis (MMIP) AB 273 will build on past efforts and formalize best practices by requiring notification when a child or non-minor dependent, or tribal and native children in foster care is missing. This bill also furthers legislative intent and helps to better protect, locate, place and stabilize children and nonminor dependents when they go missing while in foster care.

1. Background. According to the analysis of this bill by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, the bill seeks to bring county practices into compliance with federal and state law, and the minimum standards established by CDSS, by detailing specific steps that social workers and probation officers must take if they learn that a child receiving child welfare services has gone missing from foster care. These required steps include engaging in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and place the child, requesting a protective custody order or filing a missing person’s report as appropriate, requesting a juvenile court hearing to review the child’s placement, notifying pertinent parties of the juvenile court hearing, including the child’s parents, legal guardians, their attorneys, and tribe or tribal representative, if applicable. The bill also requires CDSS, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to update its model policies and procedures relating to children receiving child welfare services who are at risk of commercial sexual exploitation. The author of the bill submitted a budget request of $15 million annually to fulfill the requirements of this bill.
2. Statement in Support. According to the Alliance for Children’s Rights:

Current state law requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate any child missing from foster care. However, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state laws, and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) minimum standards guidance. While counties have been required to develop policies and procedures to locate and respond to youth who go missing from foster care since 2016, those practices don’t require oversight of the court and notification and engagement from family members, tribes and tribal representatives, other supportive adults, including court appointed attorneys, and the Child and Family Team is sporadic and inconsistent.

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

Date of Hearing: March 14, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Brian Maienschein, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 273

Author:(Ramos) – As Introduced Ver:January 23, 2023

PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)

SUBJECT: Foster care: missing children and nonminor dependents

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS BE IMPOSED ON SOCIAL WORKERS, PROBATION OFFICERS, AND JUVENILE COURTS WHEN FOSTER YOUTH ARE MISSING FROM FOSTER CARE IN ORDER TO SAFELY RETURN AND FURTHER PROTECT THESE VULNERABLE YOUTH?

SYNOPSIS

Sex trafficking of missing foster youth (who voluntarily leave their placements, or who are abducted) is a serious nationwide problem. In 2020, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received more than 17,000 reports of possible child sex trafficking. Policymakers at both the state and federal government have attempted to address it, requiring the adoption of best practices by local welfare agencies. According to the author and sponsors, however, county practices are routinely out of compliance with both federal and state law, as well as the minimum standards guidance of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). They also observe that in current practice, notification does not include the child’s tribe/tribal representative or parents.

This bill, co-sponsored by Yurok Tribe and California Tribal Families Coalition, seeks to address the problem of foster children and nonminor dependents who go missing from foster care to ensure that these youth are located, returned to safe homes, and supported (including by being screened for involvement in sex trafficking) as soon as possible. It enacts several specific requirements for social workers (and in some cases, probation officers) to locate and return children who receive welfare services to foster care when they are missing and at risk, and for courts to review the continuing efforts to return, stabilize, and protect those children. The bill’s requirements fall into three general categories: (1) Notification that the child is missing from foster care; (2) Expedited court review of the child’s case; and (3) Definitions to maximize the protection of children missing from foster care.

The author also proposes extensive amendments to further strengthen and clarify the bill. The proposed amendments are reflected in the Summary of the bill, below, and explained in the analysis. The bill is supported by numerous tribal, legal, and youth advocacy organizations. As explained in the analysis, two organizations support the bill but seek clarifying amendments (which likely are either fully or partially included in the author’s proposed amendments). It has no opposition on file.

SUMMARY: Imposes specific requirements when foster youth are missing from foster care on social workers, probation officers, and juvenile courts to notify the youth’s family and support systems about court hearings, safely return the youth to their placements, and further protect these vulnerable youth. Specifically, this bill:

1. Finds and declares, on behalf of the Legislature, both of the following:
   • 1. The release of a 2022 audit by the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General showed that there are several barriers and other deficiencies in California agencies’ policies and procedures related to missing foster youth.
     2. It is the intent of the Legislature to create stronger protections for youth who are missing from foster care in order to expeditiously locate them when they are absent from foster care, improve outcomes for missing foster youth, and reduce the number of instances of missing foster youth by doing all of the following:
     3. Creating notification requirements, including notice to tribes, the court, and other interested parties, when a youth is absent from foster care.
     4. Requiring all involved parties to engage in collaborative and timely efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the youth when they return to foster care.
     5. Ensuring there is judicial oversight for the requirements described in i) and ii), above.
2. Requires, when a social worker receives information that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, the social worker shall do all of the following:
3. Engage in ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care.
4. Request a protective custody order for a child receiving child welfare services who is a minor or file a missing person’s report in the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is a nonminor dependent.
5. Request that the juvenile court schedule a hearing to review the placement and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care in no case later than ten calendar days.
6. As soon as possible and at least five court days before the hearing described in 3), below, notify all of the following persons whose whereabouts are known about the hearing. In the event that the hearing is set to occur in less than five court days, notice shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the hearing:
7. The child’s parents, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
8. The child’s legal guardians, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.
9. The attorney for the parents or legal guardians, if applicable.
10. The child’s attorney of record.
11. The court of jurisdiction.
12. The child’s tribe or tribal representative, if the child is an Indian child as defined in Section 224.1.
13. Any known sibling of the child who is required to be notified of a hearing pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.1.
14. The child’s Court-Appointed Special Advocate, if one has been appointed.
15. Prepare, submit, and serve a report at the hearing and any subsequent hearings describing their ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, place, and stabilize the child receiving welfare services, and comply with this subdivision and all other requirements of existing law.
    1. To the extent possible, the social worker shall work to address the factors that contributed to the child receiving child welfare services being absent from care in subsequent placements with the child and family team.
    2. Information gathered for purposes of preparing the report shall be used for purposes of determining treatment needs, developing case plans to support the child receiving welfare services.
    3. Unless otherwise required by law, the information disclosed by the child receiving welfare services shall not be used as the basis for terminating the dependency jurisdiction of the court, filing a petition pursuant to Section 602, detaining the child in juvenile hall including for their own safety or for purposes of securing treatment or services, or for any purpose other than tailoring services for the child receiving welfare services.
16. Upon the return to foster care of the child receiving child welfare services, conduct an in-person interview with the child immediately and do the following no later than twenty-four hours after knowing of the child’s return:
17. Assess and make a plan to address the immediate needs of the child.
18. Document the reasons why the child was absent from care and the experiences of the child while absent.
19. Assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return.
20. Requires the clerk of the juvenile court, upon being notified by the social worker that a child receiving child welfare services is absent from foster care, to set the matter for hearing on the court’s hearing calendar as soon as possible and no later than ten court days from the date of such notice.
21. At the hearing, authorizes the court to inquire of interested parties who may be able to provide information leading to the safe return of the child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care, and direct the social worker to take appropriate actions to locate the child.
22. Requires the court to consider the safety of the child receiving child welfare services absent from foster care and determine both of the following:
    1. The extent of the activities and compliance of the county with the case plan in making ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate and return the child receiving child welfare services to a safe placement. If it is known, or there is reason to know, that the child is an Indian child, as defined by Section 224.1, the court shall also determine whether the county has made active efforts, as defined in Section 224.1 and as described in Section 361.7, to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
    2. The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement when the child receiving child welfare services returns from being absent from foster care.
23. Requires the court to continue to periodically review the case of a child receiving child welfare services who is absent from foster care at least every 30 calendar days, in accordance with this section, until the child returns from being absent from foster care.
24. This section does not prohibit the court from reviewing the placement of a child receiving child welfare services and the ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts to locate, stabilize and return the child at a regularly scheduled hearing pursuant to Section 366 if that hearing is held within the timeline established by 4), above.
25. Clarifies that the above provisions of the bill do not affect the court’s ability to assume transition jurisdiction over the child receiving child welfare services pursuant to Sections 450 and 451, continue its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 452, or terminate or retain its jurisdiction as otherwise provided by law.
26. Defines, for purposes of the above provisions, the following terms to have the following meaning:
27. “Absent from foster care” means when the whereabouts of a child receiving child welfare services, including dependents or wards in foster care and nonminor dependents, who is placed in foster care are unknown to the county child welfare agency or probation department or when the county welfare agency has located the child receiving child welfare services in a location not approved by the court that may pose a risk to the child, taking into account the age, intelligence, mental functioning, and physical condition of the child.
28. “Ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts” must include at a minimum, but are not limited to, the following:
29. Directing the caregiver to immediately contact the local law enforcement agency in order to do one of the following, as appropriate:
30. If the child receiving child welfare services is a nonminor dependent in a Supervised Independent Living Placement, file a Missing Person Report and obtain the report number.
31. If the circumstances of their disappearance warrant such action, file a Missing Person Report and obtain and document the report number.
32. As new information is provided and no less frequently than every seven days, contacting parents, legal guardians, non-relative extended family members, siblings, Tribal representatives, former out of home caregivers, relatives, current and former service providers and others with whom the youth spends time, and in consultation with the caregiver, contact neighbors, friends, current and previous schools and others with whom the youth spends time.
33. If the youth is a nonminor dependent in a Supervised Independent Living Placement with roommates, asking any roommates of the youth if they know the whereabouts of the youth.
34. For children under age 18, initiating the Protective Custody Warrant process within 24 hours of the time when the social worker learns that the youth in need of support is absent from foster care, unless there is an objection from the child’s attorney.
35. As new information is available, and no less frequently than every 30 calendar days, searching social media accounts of the youth in need of support and known acquaintances and attempt to make contact with the child receiving welfare services.
36. As new information is available, and no less than every 30 calendar days, physically checking all places where the child receiving child welfare services is likely to be located.
37. “Child receiving child welfare services” means a child or nonminor dependent placed in a foster care placement described in Section 11402 or in the home of an emergency caregiver pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 319, and includes dependents, nonminor dependents, and minors who have been taken into temporary custody pursuant to Section 628 who are in foster care.
38. Duplicates, in a new section of the Welfare and Institutions Code that deals with juvenile wards and dual status youth, all of the above for dual-status youth, making those provisions applicable to dual status youth and both social workers and probation officers who work with those youth.
39. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with the same stakeholders with whom CDSS was required to consult on the development of model policies and procedures, in addition to “tribes in California”, to enact updated model policies and procedures regarding the identification of children receiving welfare services who are, or are at risk of becoming, victims of commercial sexual exploitation and support for those youth that is described above. Specifically, the updated model policies and procedures are required to include the following:
40. The notice requirements set forth in 2d), above.
41. The definition of “absent from foster care” set forth in 7a), above.
42. Finds that because the bill 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 within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state or otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the juvenile court with jurisdiction over children who are subject to abuse or neglect. (Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 300. All further statutory references are to this code, unless otherwise indicated.)
2. Defines commercially sexually exploited children as children who are sexually trafficked or receive food or shelter in exchange for the performance of certain sexual acts, as specified. (Section 300.)
3. Requires any social worker in a county welfare department, or in an Indian tribe that has entered into an agreement pursuant to other provisions of law while acting within the scope of their regular duties under the direction of the juvenile court to take into and maintain temporary custody of, without a warrant, a child who has been declared a dependent child of the juvenile court or who the social worker has reasonable cause to believe has an immediate need for medical care or is in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse or the physical environment poses an immediate threat to the child’s health or safety. (Section 306.)
4. Requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to implement policies and procedures related to identification of and provision of services to sexually exploited children, as specified. (Section 16501.35.)
5. Allows a county to require a resource family or applicant to receive relevant specialized training for the purpose of preparing the resource family to meet the needs of a particular child in care, including, understanding how to use best practices for providing care and supervision to commercially sexually exploited children, who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and non-minor dependents, among other topics. (Section 16519.5 (h).)
6. Establishes the “Human Trafficking Victims Assistance Fund” in order to provide grants to support programs that assist victims of human trafficking. (Government Code Section 8590.7 (a).)
7. Establishes the Commercially Sexually Exploited Children’s Program (CSEC) to provide funding to counties that elect to participate in the program for the provision of training to county children’s service workers to identify, intervene, and provide case management services to children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking, and to foster caregivers for the prevention and identification of potential victims. (Section 16524.7.)

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

COMMENTS: This bill, co-sponsored by Yurok Tribe and California Tribal Families Coalition, seeks to address the problem of foster children and nonminor dependents who go missing from foster care to ensure that these youth are located, returned to safe homes, and supported (including by being screened for involvement in sex trafficking) as soon as possible. According to the author and co-sponsors, existing law requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate children who are missing from foster care. However, according to the author and co-sponsors, county practices are routinely out of compliance with both federal and state law, as well as the minimum standards guidance of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). They also observe that in current practice, notification does not include the child’s tribe/tribal representative or parents. According to the author:

In continuation of addressing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Crisis (MMIP) AB 273 will build on past efforts and formalize best practices by requiring notification when a child or non-minor dependent, or tribal and native children in foster care is missing. This bill also furthers legislative intent and helps to better protect, locate, place and stabilize children and nonminor dependents when they go missing while in foster care.

Missing and Exploited Children – Connection to Child Sex Trafficking. In 2020, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received more than 17,000 reports of possible child sex trafficking. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), “In Five States, There Was No Evidence That Many Children in Foster Care Had a Screening for Sex Trafficking When They Returned After Going Missing” (07-05-2022) OEI-07-19-00371 (hereafter “OIG Report”), available at https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-07-19-00371.asp.) According to the OIG for DHHS, “traffickers are known to prey on vulnerable children with low self-esteem and minimal social support, and histories of abuse, neglect, and trauma-traits that are common among children in foster care.”

Tribal and native children are at especially high risk of exploitation. For them, going missing or running away while in foster care is a pipeline to the disproportionately high rates of violence and exploitation that is experienced by Native Americans, especially Native American women and youth. National data shows that 85% of all missing Indigenous children over a ten-year period were endangered runaways. Nationally, American Indian or Alaska Native children had the highest rate of victimization at 14.8 per 1,000 children in the population of the same race or ethnicity (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021). Within the United States, California has emerged as a magnet for commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC). The FBI has determined that three of the nation’s thirteen High Intensity Child Exploitation areas are in California: the San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego metropolitan areas. (See California Child Welfare Council, “Ending the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children” (June 2017), Page 1; available at https://www.chhs.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Committees/California-Child-Welfare-Council/Council-Information-Reports/Ending-CSEC-A-Call-for-Multi-System-Collaboration-in-CA-February-2013.pdf.)

Federal Funding and Requirements Relating to Children Missing From Foster Care. The 2014 Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (PSTA) was enacted in an effort to prevent and address sex trafficking of children in foster care. (See 2 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(A)(i).) The PSTA requires states to develop policies and procedures for identifying, documenting in agency records, and determining appropriate services for children in the placement, care, or supervision of the State Agency whom the State has reasonable cause to believe are, or are at risk of becoming, victims of sex trafficking. (42 U.S.C. 671 (a)(9)(C)(i).) Further, the PSTA added requirements that States develop policies and procedures for “expeditiously locating any child missing from foster care,” and “determining the child’s experiences while absent from care, including screening the child to determine if the child is a possible sex trafficking victim.” (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(A)(i), (iii).)

All County Letter 16-15. In 2016, in response to the federal PSTA, CDSS issued All County Letter 16 – 15 to “provide instructions regarding the policies and procedures counties are required to develop to locate and respond to youth, dependent or wards, who go missing from foster care.” (See https://cdss.ca.gov/lettersnotices/EntRes/getinfo/acl/2016/16-15.pdf.) The letter advised counties, in developing protocols, that they should consider the feasibility of implementing several best practices that are not required by federal law, such as dedicated units or dedicated liaisons in the county. In addition, the letter advised counties about the elements that constitute the statewide minimum standards necessary to comply with federal law. Specifically, CDSS advised counties that they must have reporting and noticing protocols for missing children and nonminor dependents, and due diligence requirements for social workers to search for and locate missing foster children.

Continuing Federal Focus on Foster Children Absent From Foster Care. In response to reports connecting a rise in child trafficking to the rise in children who were missing from foster care, the OIG for the federal DHHS identified five states that (1) reported the largest number of children in "runaway status" in fiscal year 2018, and (2) required children to be screened for sex trafficking after returning from going missing from foster care: Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Texas. From these states, the OIG selected a random sample of children. The OIG reviewed foster care case file documentation for 413 children to determine the extent to which the children in the sample were screened (as required by law) to identify whether they were victims of sex trafficking. Additionally, the OIG assessed the extent to which states' policies may have contributed to the screening practices that the OIG observed. In these five states, the OIG found that case files of 65 percent of children (268 out of 413 children) did not have evidence of a screening—following each child's return to foster care—to identify whether they were victims of sex trafficking, despite such screenings being required by federal law and state policy. (OIG Report, supra, Report in Brief.) Further, the OIG found that for male children, the proportion of case files that had no evidence of a screening was even greater than for female children (72 percent of males compared to 59 percent of females). (Ibid.)

We found that when screenings occurred, they often lacked the information needed to ensure that children were accurately identified as victims of sex trafficking. Documentation showed instances in which (1) screenings did not include comprehensive questions to determine children's experiences while missing from care; (2) screenings did not have evidence of followup when children did not answer screening questions; and (3) screeners relied on children's self-disclosures to make determinations. Additionally, one-third of screenings conducted did not have a conclusion documented (e.g., whether the child was a victim of sex trafficking, whether more information was needed). (OIG Report, supra, Report in Brief.)

In January 2022, the DHHS announced the formation of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. The task force, made up of 20 agencies across the federal government, is responsible for coordinating U.S. government-wide efforts to combat trafficking in persons. The Secretary of State chairs the task force that seeks to advance and coordinate federal policies and collaborate with a range of stakeholders. The task force’s focus include, according to the Secretary of State’s website, “the enforcement of criminal and labor laws to end impunity for traffickers; victim-centered identification and trauma-informed assistance; innovations in data gathering and research; education and public awareness activities; and synchronization of strategically linked foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement.” (U.S. Department of State, About Human Trafficking, Interagency Task Force, available at https://www.state.gov/humantrafficking-interagency-task-force/.)

This bill. The bill seeks to bring county practices into compliance with both federal and state law, as well as the minimum standards guidance of the CDSS, by enacting several specific requirements for social workers (and in some cases, probation officers) to locate and return children who receive welfare services to foster care when they are missing and at risk, and for courts to review the continuing efforts to return, stabilize, and protect those children. The bill’s requirements fall into three general categories:

Notification that the child is missing from foster care. While current law requires county welfare departments to adopt policies that require a number of actions when a social worker determines that a child is missing from foster care, the policies do not specifically require that law enforcement, the court with jurisdiction over the child, the child’s family, the child’s attorney, and the child’s tribe or tribal representative (if applicable) are notified. Nor does the law provide a timeline for when such notifications must occur. The bill in print does so.

Expedited court review of the child’s case. Current law does not require the juvenile court to hold a special hearing to review the case of a child who is missing from foster care, nor does it specify timelines for doing so, other than any regularly scheduled review hearing. The bill in print would establish those requirements.

Definitions to maximize the protection of children missing from foster care. The bill defines a number of terms relating to foster children who are missing from foster care, including the following: (A) “Absent from foster care”; (B) “Ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts”; and (C) “Child receiving child welfare services”.

It is hoped that the more specific and robust requirements of the bill will reduce the tragic outcomes that often occur when these vulnerable youth slip through the cracks of the foster care safety net.

Author’s amendments. While the bill in print addresses all of the issues discussed above, it is not as specific and comprehensive as arguably it could and should be. Therefore, in cooperation with the Committee and stakeholders, the author proposes to amend the bill as described below.

1. Notification to additional parties when the child is missing from foster care -- and exemptions from notice requirements. The bill in print requires that several parties must be notified, but does not take into account that they may not be entitled to notice of a court proceeding involving the minor, may not be appointed, or may not otherwise be required to be notified of court proceedings involving the child receiving welfare services. The proposed amendments also require notification of the child’s Court-Appointed Special Advocate, in the event one has been appointed.

(A) The child’s or nonminor dependent’s parents of the child receiving welfare services, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.

(B) The child’s or nonminor dependent’s legal guardians of the child receiving welfare services, unless such notification has been limited or terminated by the court.

(C) The attorney for the parents or legal guardians, if applicable.

(D) The child’s or nonminor dependent’s attorney of record for the child receiving welfare services.

(E) The court of jurisdiction.

(F) The child’s or nonminor dependent’s tribe or tribal representative of the child receiving welfare services, if the child is an Indian child as defined in Section 224.1.

(G) Any known sibling of the child or nonminor dependent receiving welfare services who is required to be notified of a hearing pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.1.

(H) The Court-Appointed Special Advocate of the child receiving welfare services, if one has been appointed.

1. Additional duties of social workers are specified. The bill in print does not specifically require the social worker to engage in efforts to locate the child. The bill in print does not require the social worker to request a protective custody order for the missing child; conduct an in-person interview with the child after they are returned; assess and make a plan to address the immediate needs of the child; document the reasons why the child was absent from care and the experiences of the child while absent from care; or assess the appropriate placement of the child upon their return. All of these actions are required under CDSS and DHHS best practices. The proposed amendments add these requirements to the bill.
2. More realistic timelines for the social worker to notify parties, support systems, and the juvenile court that the child is missing and the court will review efforts to locate and return the child. The bill in print requires the social worker to notify the court that a child is absent from foster care as soon as possible; and for the court to set the hearing “in no case later than one week” after receiving such notice. The social worker must then notify all of the parties about the hearing, but must also provide at least five days’ notice of the hearing, leaving virtually no time for preparation or delivery of the notice.

The proposed amendments require the court hearing to be set within ten days while still requiring that parties and support persons are notified of the hearing at least five days before it occurs.

1. More realistic and specific timelines for the expedited court review of the child’s case. Rather than requiring a special hearing to address the fact that a foster child is missing from placement, the bill in print requires a court to hold a six-month permanency planning hearing (pursuant to Section 366) within one week of being notified that a foster child is missing, regardless of how recently the court held such a hearing and regardless of the fact that the issues examined at such a hearing may not be relevant to the issue at hand: that the child is, in fact, missing.

The proposed amendments require a special hearing—separate from the Section 366 hearing—to be held about the critical issue of the child being missing. The proposed amendments also allow the court to inquire of interested parties about the whereabouts of the child; direct the social worker to take appropriate actions to locate the child; and to continue to review the matter every 30 days until the child returns from being absent from foster care. At the same time, the amendments clarify that the bill does not affect the court’s ability to assume transition jurisdiction over the child receiving child welfare services pursuant to Sections 450 and 451, continue its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 452, or terminate or retain its jurisdiction as otherwise provided by law.

1. Revised definitions. While the bill in print defines a number of terms in order to maximize the protection of children missing from foster care, those definitions may not be sufficient to achieve the author’s goals. The amendments revise the definitions as follows:

• The definition of “absent from foster care” is revised to include cases where the whereabouts of a child are unknown, but also cases where the whereabouts are known but constitute a risk to the child.

“Absent from foster care” means when the whereabouts of a child receiving child welfare services, including dependents or wards in foster care and nonminor dependents, who is placed in foster care are is unknown to the county child welfare agency or probation department or when the county welfare agency has located the child receiving child welfare services in a location not approved by the court that may pose a risk to the child, taking into account the age, intelligence, mental functioning, and physical condition of the child.

• “Ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts” is defined to require a number of specific tasks, as well as the timeline for completing those tasks. For the full text of the amendment, see 7b) under SUMMARY, above.
• “Child receiving child welfare services” is defined in a broad manner to include children in foster care placement or in the home of an emergency caregiver and to include dependents, nonminor dependents, and dual status youth.

1. Distinction between youth served by social workers and probation officers and a new stand-along section, addressing the needs of dual-status youth who are missing from foster care. The bill in print is in a section of the Welfare and Institutions Code that deals with foster youth and social workers, but uses the term “probation officer” even though a probation officer generally has duties regarding wards of the court and dual-status youth, not children receiving welfare services. The amendments remove the term “probation officer” from Section Two of the bill, but adds “social worker or probation officer” to a new section to the bill, dealing with dual-status youth. That section of the bill is otherwise identical to Section Two.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Tribal Families Coalition, sponsor of the bill, writes the following about why the bill will protect missing foster youth:

AB 273 (Ramos) will protect not only Native foster children, but all foster children by creating a more family-centered and child-focused process to locate, return, and stabilize children and youth who go missing while in the care, custody, and control of the child welfare system. Current state law requires county child welfare agencies and probation departments to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate any child missing from foster care. However, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state laws, including the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) minimum standards guidance.

The bill creates a more inclusive notification protocol when a child goes missing from care and creates a stronger oversight role for the courts. It gives the court with jurisdiction over a child a real-time opportunity to assess whether the current placement is in fact safe for the child before the child is returned there, and it reduces the recurrence of abuse and sexual exploitation, which current federal and state laws were enacted to combat.

Additional amendments requested by groups that support the bill (if amended). Two organizations write that they are supportive of the bill in print, but request amendments to the current language of the bill.

California CASA writes that it would support the bill if it were amended to “include the child or youth’s Court-Appointed Special Advocate, if one has been appointed, among the list of person notified when a child or nonminor dependent is missing.” The author’s amendments make this change.

The Pacific Juvenile Defender Center writes that it is supportive of the bill in general, but worries that it could have unintended consequences for dual-status youth:

Youth are probation care who are “suitably placed” are considered foster youth, and the majority of these youth are placed in group homes, or residential facilities (Short term residential treatment programs.) Residents of these types of facilities are more likely to leave than those placed in homes. Our members report that many clients in placements leave for short periods of time, and they leave for a variety of reasons. Some are simply trying to make contact with family, or a friend or partner. They may leave, but return after a brief time. . . . The most typical response is for the court to issue a bench warrant once advised by probation that the youth has left. This often leads to a youth being detained in juvenile hall, and by the time the youth is brought to court and can explain why they left, the residence may have filled their spot. This can lead to delays of weeks—sometimes months—for the youth to be “re-placed.” Because of this, PJDC would offer support in crafting amended language to address our concerns.

The author’s proposed amendments seek to address these concerns in at least a couple of ways. First, the proposed amendments would define “absent from foster care” in a manner that appears to address a scenario where the youth leaves a placement on a temporary basis and the social worker/probation officer knows where they are (i.e. with family, a friend, or a partner) and believes they are not at risk. The youth would not be considered to be “absent from foster care” for purposes of the bill. Second, the bill defines “ongoing and intensive due diligence efforts” to allow a child’s attorney to object to the issuance of a protective custody warrant.

(D) For children under age 18, initiating the Protective Custody Warrant process within 24 hours of the time when the social worker [or probation officer] learns that the youth in need of support is absent from foster care, unless there is an objection from the child’s attorney.

Thus, a child under the supervision of a probation officer presumably would not have to be taken into formal custody and returned to juvenile hall (and risk losing their placement). Rather, the youth could be returned to their residence and retain their placement.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Alliance for Children's Rights
Alliance of Child and Family Services
Barbara Schneider Foundation
Cahuilla Consortium Victim Advocacy Program
Cal Poly Humboldt University Senate
California Alliance of Caregivers
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Rural Indian Health Board
California Tribal Families Coalition (sponsor)
Chap-de Indian Health
Public Counsel
Riverside-san Bernardino County Indian Health, INC.
Safe Passages
Strong Hearted Native Women's Coalition, INC.
Sycamores
Yurok Tribe (co-sponsor)

Support if Amended

California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334